When Hillsong worship team member Marty Sampson had announced that he was losing his faith, [1-4] before later clarifying that he had not yet renounced Christianity but that his faith was on "incredibly shaky ground," [6-8] he had listed some of the doubts he was struggling with in an Instagram post to which Contender's Edge could not get access, but which Relevant Magazine had posted. The following objections were:
How many preachers fall? Many. No one talks about it. How many miracles happen. Not many. No one talks about it. Why is the Bible full of contradictions? No one talks about it. How can God be love yet send four billion people to a place, all ‘coz they don’t believe? No one talks about it…. Science keeps piercing the truth of every religion. Lots of things help people change their lives, not just one version of God… Unfollow if you want, I’ve never been about living my life for others. [1]
He also said that he still wanted answers [6, 7] and made it known that he was seeking them. [5-8] Despite his claims about being at peace about the prospect of losing his faith, [1] Sampson does not seem ready to give up on Christianity just yet. I am sure by now many have attempted to provide the best answers possible to Marty's doubts, and perhaps answers even better than what I might be able to give, but still, I am willing to give the best answers I can give and if they are not good enough, you can visit my external links page which provides links to ministries and organizations who might be able to give more satisfying answers.
But to start out with, Marty Sampson claims that no one is talking about the issues that he raises. That is not entirely true. They are being talked about and there are a lot of blogs, websites, and ministries dedicated to addressing the matters that Sampson says have plagued his professed faith in Christ.
But unfortunately, the issues that he lists are not being discussed enough amongst rank and file congregations and their leaders and many professing Christians are not made aware of those ministries who are dedicated to addressing the issues that Sampson raises.
But now to address the following objections:
"How many preachers fall? Many..."
There is no denying that this does happen. Whenever a religious leader is found guilty of grievous corruption, sexual immorality, of being involved in an adulterous affair, or of doing something despicable such as committing pedophilia or retaining child porn in their computer, or when they announce that they have forsaken the faith that they had once preached, it can have a devastatingly demoralizing affect upon those who held them to such high esteem and looked up to them as an inspiration and an example of godly living and devotion to Christ.
But scripture reveals that this is not anything new. If we take the time to study the lives of those who were called heroes of faith and were regarded as godly men, we find that for all the good that they did and their devotion to God, even they were not without fault or short comings.
1. Noah got drunk and made a fool of himself. (Gen. 9:20-21)
2. Lot was a coward. (Gen. 19:1-9)
3. Abraham lied to both the Pharaoh of Egypt and the king of the Philistines out of fear for his own life, even to the point allowing his wife Sarah to be taken by another man. (Gen. 12:10-20 and chapter 20)
4. His son Isaac followed that same legacy (Gen. 26:1-11) and when Jacob and Esau were yet in the womb of his wife Rebekah, Jacob was the one upon whom the greater blessing of God was destined to be given, but Isaac, favoring Esau was determined to give it to Esau instead, but which was still given to Jacob. (Gen. 27:1-28:4)
5. Jacob was a deceiver who swindled Esau out of his birthright (Gen. 25:27-34) and under the direction of his mother, deceived Isaac into giving him the blessing instead of trusting in the Lord. (Gen. 27:1-40)
6. Joseph was lifted up in pride by the visions he received which caused his brothers to become infuriated with him; more so than they already were. (Gen. 37:1-10)
7. Aaron, the brother of Moses, appeased the people of Israel by making them the golden calf which led to the Lord bringing disciplinary action against them. (Ex. 32)
8. Moses was prevented from entering into the promised land because he disobeyed God out of anger towards the ungrateful and faithless multitudes. (Num. 20:8-12)
9. Gideon, when he erected an Ephod, created an idolatrous temptation for the people of Israel. (Jdgs. 8:27)
10. Jephthah made a foolish vow that costed him someone very dear to him. (Jdgs. 11)
11. Samson was prideful and carnal. (Jdgs. 13-16)
12. King David committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband killed to conceal the matter (2 Sam. 11-12:24) plus was lifted up in pride when he took a census that displeased God. (2 Sam. 24, 1 Chr. 21:1-29) And yet in spite of his shortcomings, David was still called a man after God's own heart and was responsible for writing a great many of the Psalms we read.
David's shortcomings would have sunk the credibility of any ministry or political campaign in this present day and yet has maintained his credibility in spite of his faults.
13. King Solomon, in his latter years, was led into idolatry by his many wives. As David set a bad precedent by taking multiple wives for himself, Solomon also had set a bad precedent when he fell into idolatry. He was the wisest man of all time and yet at the same time, the most foolish. (1 Ki. 11:1-13)
14. Jonah harbored hatred towards the Assyrians to whom God had called him to go and warn of judgment.
Even the Church has been built with fallible men and women from the very start. Some examples of recorded shortcomings of the Church and its members include:
1. Judas betraying Jesus for selfish gain.
2. Peter denying Jesus out of fear when his courage failed.
3. Ananias and Sapphira lying to the Apostle Peter which resulted in them being killed by God. (Acts 5:1-11)
4. A dispute between the Jewish and Gentile believers because the Gentile believers felt their widows were being neglected and that the Jewish believers were being favored above them. (Acts 6:1-7)
5. John Mark deserting Paul and Barnabas for reasons unknown and afterwards,Paul and Barnabas parting ways over John Mark. Barnabas wanted to take Mark with them again. Paul did not, feeling that he could not rely him. (Acts 15:37-39)
6. The Corinthian believers were carnal minded, failed to hold their members accountable for their conduct, elevated their leaders higher than they should have forgetting that they were simply fellow servants of the Lord as they were, sued each other in the civil courts and thus bringing ridicule upon the faith when they should have had disputes between one another settled before their respective congregations, and partook in the communion in an irreverent manner. (1 Cor. chapters 1-6)
7. The Galatian believers were led into legalism; the writer of Hebrews also addressed a congregation facing similar problems.
8. Peter distancing himself from the Gentile believers in order to please the Jewish believers for which Paul rebuked him. (Gal. 2:11-14)
9. The Gospel was being preached by many but not always for the reasons that they should have been preaching it. (Phil. 1:14-18)
11. The church in Ephesus neglected their first love. (Rev. 2:4-5)
12. The churches in Pergamos and Thyatira harbored false teachers and false prophets.
(Rev. 2:14-15, 20-23)
13. The church in Sardis was dead inwardly while appearing to be alive outwardly. (Rev. 3:1-2)
14. The church in Laodicea was prideful and sought to have the best of both Heaven and this present world. (Rev. 3:14-18)
15. Even the Apostle Paul admitted that he too fell short of the Lord's standard of moral perfection and explained why that is. (Rom. 7:15-25) Our struggle in this regard is no different than his was though the sins we struggle with may be different than what he struggled with. And each of us has shortcomings and struggles different than the other.
Though to see a leader who served as vessel of inspiration and even enlightenment disgrace themselves is disappointing and can even feel demoralizing, we need to remember that they are not the standard perfection to which we should look, but that they are fellow servants alongside us and instruments used of the Lord to instruct us in His truth and inspire us to steadfast faith in Him, and rally us to and undying devotion and service to Him.
And even if persons of great influence should fall, that does not mean that we cannot carry on the legacy of their accomplishment and build upon the good things they have done from which we may benefit for though there may be fault in them, the truth and principles that they are used of God to propagate in and of themselves have no fault, for it is God who is the source of truth, not any man. Men are simply used of God to point the way to Him and the laws and precepts that a man may be used of God to teach, did not originate from that person who himself is not able to abide perfectly in all that he has been used of God to teach, but from God who is perfect.
For example, Martin Luther, has been credited for the principle of Sola Scriptura. He and other reformers may have failed to fully live up to that principle, but that does not mean that the principle of Sola Scriptura in and of itself is faulty.
Sola Scriptura in and of itself is a good and beneficial principle which teaches reliance upon the sufficiency of the scriptures alone for our doctrine and to teach from none other than the scriptures to establish doctrine and if you believe in the sufficiency of scripture for your doctrine and nothing else, look to it as the final authority in all things, and live out your life and faith accordingly, you may be applying the principle of Sola Scriptura to a far greater degree than even the reformers themselves did, but nonetheless we can still give them credit for at least setting that precedent for future generations.
For the principle of Sola Scriptura was not invented by the reformers, but rather a revival of a long existing principle which had been forgotten by most and to which many were made blinded by the teachings of a corrupt power-lusting religious establishment who ruled over even kings and emperors.
And it was that pre-existing precept that gave birth to the term, Sola Scriptura, that came from God. It did not come from man, nor did any of those things taught by the scriptures, though it was men whom God used to write them down for our admonishment, instruction, edification, and benefit.
But it is sole Author of the scriptures by which the Gospel and all other teachings are delivered who is without fault, incorruptible, sinless, blameless, and perfect in every way, to whom we must look to as our perfect example for in Him no fault or scandal can be found, even if fault and scandal are found among His servants and as long as we strive to be more and more like that perfect example which is found in the sinless Christ, we need not be demoralized by the fall of any of His servants who are not without error, nor should our faith be shaken, though we may be disappointed when a man of God errs, disgraces, and disqualifies himself from the calling with which he was once entrusted, as we should be.
There are a multitude of failings amongst many professing Christian be they laymen or Pastoral, student or teacher, of prominence or no prominence, educated or uneducated but there is no failing in the truth of the Gospel nor in the Word that delivers it.
Its detractors labor day and night to find fault with the inerrant message of the Gospel and yet can find none even though they magnify the faults of them who proclaim that which is faultless. All sincere followers of Christ desire to please their Lord yet find themselves erring at times, falling short, and succumbing to moments of weakness but just because they may stumble at times, that does not necessarily mean that they have abandoned their professed faith.
But do we excuse their sin? Do we simply turn a blind eye? No, for regardless of what office in the body of Christ in which they have been placed, be it the greatest of all offices or the least, all must be held accountable for everything that they say and do and a great failing within the church is a lack of accountability amongst its ranks.
Instead they try to justify or excuse the actions of their members which run contrary to the profession of faith and therefore sin is harbored within their ranks and that is how scandals arise which become downfall of churches and ministries, for if the Church held all of its members, from the least to the greatest, to account for how they conduct themselves, scandal would be a rare thing within the leadership of the Church and the enemies and skeptics of the Gospel would be more hard pressed to find fault amongst the servant of Christ than they are now.
"How many miracles happen? Not many..."
Yet you admit that at least a few have happened. And if you admit that at least few miracles have happened, then why doubt that miracles can happen? Even a handful of miraculous events should be enough to convince a skeptic that miracles can and do happen, even they do not seem to happen on a regular basis.
And while there is no denying that stories of supernatural events can be fabricated and hoaxes committed, most of the numerous claims of miraculous healings, accounts of supernatural activity, and stories of divine intervention go unchallenged and unrefuted, because they cannot be.
The reason why no one talks of about a lack of miracles is because there is not a lack of miracles, even if they do not happen as frequently as you would prefer and perhaps you have been guilty of dismissing as mere coincidence an act of divine intervention you may have witnessed. Perhaps you have found yourself seeking a naturalistic explanation for a happening you have witnessed that was undeniably a miraculous act because you did not want to accept the possibility of supernatural intervention at work.
"Why is the Bible full of contradictions?"
Answering all of the so-called Bible contradictions would require writing a book, and there have been already been books written to address that very issue. There are some so-called contradictions that are very easy to explain and then there are others that are more challenging but not insurmountable.
But I will answer a few of them here:
The easily explained so-called contradictions:
1. "Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou also be like unto him." Proverbs 26:4
"Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverbs 26:5
The author of the text clearly did not see this as a contradiction. The intent behind the two passages may have been to teach that sometimes the only way to get through to a fool may be to beat him at his own game, and then there are times that when we attempt to play their game, we appear to be no different than them and it is a matter of knowing when playing their game is going to be effective and when it is not.
2. The genealogies of Christ according to Matthew and Luke:
They both are consistent with one another until we reach King David. The genealogy according to Matthew lists Solomon after David whereas the Gospel of Luke lists Nathan after David.
We do know that David did have a son called Nathan. (2 Sam. 5:14, 1 Chr. 3:5, 14:4) and the simple explanation to the so-called contradictions between the two genealogies was that Matthew's genealogy is the line from which Joseph, the husband of Mary descended which would have been the same line as King Solomon.
The genealogy of the Gospel of Luke is according to the line from which Mary, the mother of Jesus, descended, which was of the line of Nathan. To simply put, Matthew provides the genealogy from the side of Joseph. Luke provides the genealogy from the side of Mary.
So called contradictions that appear harder to explain:
1. Genesis chapters 1 and 2:
The Bible has been accused of giving two different creation accounts with the first chapter of Genesis giving one account of how the earth was created and the second chapter giving a creation account that is somewhat different from the first.
But a study of the two chapters side by side reveal details suggesting that they are not as contradictory as they may appear to be at first glance.
A. The first so-called contradiction:
In Genesis 1:11-12, on the third day, it is written that God created all the plants.
The beginning verses of chapter two proclaim the completion of our universe. But after that, verse 4 of chapter 2 says the following:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."
Thus suggesting that there was more to the account than what is revealed in chapter 1.
Genesis 1:11-12 states that all the plants and trees were created on the third day, but Genesis 2:5 appears to state that the plants of the field and the grass had not yet been created; the reason being that God had not yet sent rain upon the earth but instead, the earth was watered by a mist that came up out of the ground and thus we have what skeptics would claim to be the first so-called contradiction.
In Genesis 1:11 God commanded the earth to bring forth grass and the herb yielding seed and what makes it appear to be a contradiction is that grass does not normally grow in a heavily forested area; there are certain herbs that might, but not grass. Grass typically grows in meadows, fields, and wide open spaces.
And this is one instance where the Geneva Bible, one of the two most trustworthy of all the existing translations, may correct the others, including the King James Version.
The Geneva Bible reads in Genesis 1:11-12, "Then God said, Let the earth bud forth the bud of the herb, that seedeth seed...And the earth brought forth the bud of the herb, that seedeth seed..." [9]
Whereas other version such as the King James may read: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed...And the earth brought forth grass, the herb yielding seed."
Now the King James and the Geneva cannot both be right in the manner verses 11 and 12 were translated. One of them erred. The question which one did? In order to best answer that, we need to consult the Hebrew words for "Grass" and "Herb".
The Hebrew word for herb is deshe which the Strong's concordance can also apply to "grass" or "sprout". [10]
There are two Hebrew words for grass, one of which is eseb which can also be an herb or any tender shoot according to Strong's; the other Hebrew word for grass is asab which is applied strictly to "grass". [11]
As to whether asab or eseb is used in Genesis 1:11-12 is not known from the Strong's itself, but according to Blue Letter Bible.org, eseb is the word that is used, [12] not asab and if that is the case, it would bring some resolution to the so-called contradiction between Genesis 1:11-12 and Genesis 2:5.
It would also explain why the translators of the Geneva Bible chose only to use the word "herb" in verses 11 and 12 of chapter 1 instead of grass as other later versions have done. They wanted readers to know that when God commanded grass to be brought forth on the third day of creation, that it was not necessarily the kind of grass we know today that is found in the field, but that it was an herb and the habitation of herbs is not always out in the field.
The plants of the field of which Genesis 2:5 speaks did not appear until after the creation of the universe was complete and until after man was created and where further insight may be given is that in Genesis chapter 3, after Adam and Eve had disobeyed God and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil from which they were told not to eat, (Gen 2:16-17, 3:3) as a consequence, the changes that took place did not affect just man, but also the entire creation. In Genesis chapter 3:17-18, one of the curses pronounced upon Adam is that his labors would be difficult. Things would no longer come easy to him like they once had. Before the curse, food was much easier to come by as it was already provided for by the trees that God created for them.
But after Adam sinned, he was then made to till the ground for his livelihood for as it is written, "in sorrow thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life" further stating, "Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field." (Gen 3:17-18)
Therefore, the herb and plant of the field mentioned in Genesis 2:5 may be in reference to cultivated plants and herbs that were produced and the thorns and thistles that were brought about after sin entered into the world. Before sin, men could simply just gather the food that he needed.
But after sin, he could no longer rely on simply gathering food, but to this day, he has had to cultivate it.
The second so-called contradiction:
Genesis 1:20-31 says that God had created the animals before man, but Genesis 2:19 makes it appear as though the animals were created after man. When it comes to the animals, contextually, the matter is resolved by the fact that there were two basic groups of animals created; the beasts of the earth before man (Gen. 1:25) and then the beasts of the field. (Gen. 2:19)
While Genesis 1:25 may be viewed as a general overview of the creation of the land animals, Genesis 2:19 is focused on the creation of a specific category of animals: The beasts of the field.
The beasts of the field were created for serve a specific purpose that the other animals were not created for and that purpose for which they were created may have been to assist him in bringing the rest of the living creatures on the earth under the subjection of man.
But how would these beasts of the field differ from the rest of the animals? It may be that the beasts of the field may have been livestock (i.e. horses, sheep, goats, bovine) whereas the beasts of the earth would have included animals like lions, wolves, bears, deer, antelope, elephants, dragons (dinosaurs) and so forth.
But where it becomes the most problematic is with the creation of the fowl: According to Genesis 1:20-21 the fowl (any flying creature) were created on day five of creation whereas Genesis 2:19 places their creation on the same day as man. A number of proposals have been suggested as possible resolution to the alleged contradiction:
Some sources have suggested an error in translation in some versions of scripture such as the KJV NKJV; According to Tim Chaffey of Answers In Genesis, the entire problem settles around the translation of the Hebrew word Yatsar which is the word for formed. [13] Chaffey states:
The Hebrew word for formed in both passages is yatsar. The New King James Version (quoted above) translates the verb in its perfect form.
However, this Hebrew word may also be translated in its pluperfect form. In this case, it would read that God “had formed” these creatures, as some other translations have it (e.g. ESV, NIV, etc.) For example, Genesis 2:19 in the NIV states:
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them. (emphasis mine)
This rendering eliminates any problem with the chronology because it refers to what God had already done earlier in Creation Week. This would mean that the plants (Genesis 2:9) and the animals (Genesis 2:19) had already been formed by God earlier in Creation Week. William Tyndale was the first to translate an English Bible directly from the original languages,3 and He also translated the verb in its pluperfect form.
And after that the Lord God had made of the earth all manner beasts of the field, and all manner fowls of the air, he brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them. And as Adam called all manner living beasts: even so are their names. (Tyndale, Genesis 2:19). [14]
Other sources have also offered a similar solution [15, 16] but in order to determine if it is a credible one, we would have to find out what text from which William Tyndale had translated Genesis. This author has tried to locate the pluperfect form of the Hebrew Word Yatsar to determine if a possible error in translation in some versions may have occurred and thus making Genesis 2 appear to conflict with Genesis 1 as a result, yet has been unsuccessful. But if it can be proven that an error did in fact occur, it needs to be corrected. Why settle for second best when we can actually obtain the best?
Another solution suggested by another source which may be more plausible is that while Genesis chapter 1 focuses on a generalized creation account while chapter 2 pertains to the events surrounding Adam, Eve, and the creation of the Garden of Eden. [17] If that is the case, then just because there may have been a bare patch of ground where man was created and where Eden was established, that does not mean that there were not plants elsewhere around the world, and just because certain animals and flying creatures were created in Eden, that does not necessarily mean that there were not other types of animals and flying creatures elsewhere.
It could be possible, that just as God created specific kinds of animals to assist man in managing the earth, He may have also created specific types of fowl for the same purpose. But the most credible solution may be found in the Geneva Bible.
In Genesis 1:21, the "winged fowl" are called "feathered fowl" in the Geneva Bible, [18] but in Genesis 2:19, according to the Geneva Bible, there appears to have been flying creatures created that were not feathered (i.e. bats, flying insects, flying dragons, and other types that are not known to us today. Based upon how wing is rendered in the Hebrew and applied, animals such as flying lizards, flying squirrels, sugar gliders, and Calugos, which are also called flying lemurs, would probably qualify as kinds of fowl as well.) [19]
The Hebrew word for "winged" is called kanaph which can mean "feathered" [20] and it is also the same word used for "feathered" in the passages of Psalm 78:27 and Ezekiel 39:17 [21]
Why other versions such as the King James did not render "winged" as feathered is not clear, but if the Geneva Bible is more accurate in its application of kanaph, then the most plausible solution to the alleged conflict between Genesis 1 and 2 is that the feathered fowl (birds) were created on day five whereas the fowl that are not feathered were created on day six. At this point, it appears that this is the most plausible answer to the alleged contradiction. Whether anyone chooses to accept that as a credible answer is up to them.
2. Why are Kings Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah excluded from the genealogies of Jesus?
At least two factors may have been the basis for Matthew's reasoning for excluding three kings from the genealogy of Jesus and they had to do with how genealogies were reckoned. Genealogies were reckoned by both birthright and by marriage.
If a man had married but died without offspring, his brother or next of kin would inherit his wife but any children he had by her would not be reckoned to him. (Gen. 38:6-10, Deut. 25:5-6) This may have possibly been the case with Ahaziah who may very well inherited a wife from his father Jehoram but any offspring he had by her would have been reckoned to his next of kin which would have been his father since he had no brothers when he ascended to the throne.
But what about Joash and Amaziah? It would seem far-fetched for a wife to be passed down for three generations without bearing any children until Uzziah who is reckoned to Jehoram in Matthew's genealogy. Therefore, another possible reason why these two men were excluded from the genealogy may have had to do with birthright as can be the case according to 1 Chronicles 5:1 which records that Reuben, though he had been the firstborn of Jacob's twelve sons, disqualified himself from the birthright he otherwise would have had and which was instead passed to Joseph's sons.
That being said, it is possible that Joash and Amaziah, though they had acquired the throne, had not been given the birthright. Ahaziah did not give the birthright to Joash who also did not give the birthright to Amaziah, yet was obtained by Uzziah.
"How can God be love yet send four billion people to a place, all 'coz they don't believe?"
Why should God let those into Heaven who do not love Him?
Why should those who do not respond to His grace and mercy with gratitude and thanksgiving be given a place in His Kingdom?
Why should He open His gates to His enemies?
Why should He allow the taint of unrepentant sin defile the purity of His Kingdom? It is already bad enough that the sin of man has corrupted the earth. Why should it be allowed to corrupt Heaven?
If men will not obey God here on earth, why would they in Heaven?
If men love sin, how can they stand to be in a place where there is no sin?
If they demand their own way here on earth, what would keep them from demanding so in Heaven?
If they align themselves with darkness, how can they abide in the light?
The scripture says that God has not left Himself without witness for the scripture declares that creation itself bares witness to God (Ps. 19:1-6, Rom. 1:19-20) but it is a witness that is largely ignored and to which many are blinded, yet if creation itself testifies to a Creator, then the resultant conclusion to those who accept the witness of creation is that a day will come when everyone will have to give an account before their Maker for all that they have done in this present life whether good or bad and if they find themselves falling short of the standards that He has decreed, in order to be forgiven of their sins, they must accept the redemptive means that has been established in order to be reconciled with their Maker.
We so often hear and preach about a God of love and mercy but never enough about the holiness of God and what that means and as a result, we do not have an adequate understanding of what sin is and why sin must eventually be punished and why they who remain in their sins must suffer a penalty, even if that penalty is eternal torment and everlasting separation from God. Neither is made sufficient our understanding of why our own goodness, even at its best, is not enough to grant us entry into Heaven.
Therefore, we cannot fathom how seemingly good people who are kind to their neighbors, charitable, generous, who raise their children well, are good to their spouses, compassionate towards the less fortunate, honest, hardworking, self-sacrificing, and actively involved in their communities could still not be allowed to enter into the Kingdom of God because we consider only the outward deeds done and the words that come out of their mouths but never do we consider the things of the inward person that God also judges as much as He does the outward, for in His eyes, the inward sins are just as disqualifying for Heaven as the outward deeds.
But because we fail to take this into consideration, we count it an injustice that even those good in our eyes could still be sentenced to eternal torment and accuse the God, who is the source of justice and fairness of being unjust and unfair and when we find ourselves accusing God of being unjust or unfair, we have forgotten by whom justice and fairness were defined in the first place and because we have forgotten by whom justice and fairness were defined, our understanding of what justice and fairness should be is warped and darkened thus causing the standards of justice and fairness that we apply to fall short of the standard of justice and fairness ordained by God.
Therefore, the moment we begin to question the fairness and justice of God, we need to remember with whom justice and fairness originated in the first place. The holiness of God requires that He not allow sin into His presence hence the reason why our sins separate us from our Maker. The justice of God requires that sin be punished which is why this present world will face eventual judgment and why anyone who has broken the laws of God, and that would be everyone, is subject to eternal punishment and it has been that way ever since the sin of Adam which was also passed down to all of mankind (Rom. 5:12) and because all of mankind has sinned, the sentence is death (Rom. 6:23) as pronounced in the Garden (Gen. 2:17, 3:3) but in order to escape eternal punishment, a penalty has to be paid on our behalf and the only one who was able to do that is Jesus Christ; the sinless dying for a sinful world in order that anyone placing their trust in Him for the forgiveness of sins would not be sentenced to eternity in Hell but would be granted entry into Heaven by the blood shed for them which takes away their sins and reconciles them to their Maker.
As the justice of God demands the punishment of sin, so the love and mercy of God requires that a penalty be paid on behalf of the sinner in order for the sinner to be redeemed and it is in Christ that the demand for justice and the need for mercy are satisfied.
God has provided the means of redemption through Christ Jesus, His Son and our Creator. It is up to us to receive the gift of redemption and salvation He offers us and where we spend eternity is completely dependent upon what we decide concerning Christ. Do we submit ourselves to Him and ask forgiveness of sins trusting that He will faithfully forgive us or do we insist on obtaining Heaven by our own feeble efforts? Do we embrace the light of the Savior or do we cling to the darkness of sin? Do we align ourselves with Heaven which is eternal or do we align ourselves with this present world which will one day perish. (2 Pet. 3:10-11)
"Science keeps piercing the truth of every religion..."
That depends on what you mean by science. Are you referring to the science that is observable, testable, and repeatable and which has made industrial, medical, and technological advancements possible and the science through which we gain knowledge of the present workings of this creation such as the laws of physics, the present cycle and workings of the natural world, and by which we observe the behavior and habits of animals and by which all living things receive their respective classifications or are you referring to the science that cannot be repeated, tested, or observed which is not really science and yet is widely taught and propagated as science, even proclaimed as fact?
Volumes of books have been written to address the science you claim is piercing the truth of every religion including the Christian faith and wherein the debate lies is not in the science that we can observe, test, and repeat, but the science regarding the origins of the universe.
There is the biblical account that teaches that the universe was created in six literal days and that all plants, trees, and animals reproduce after their own kind and then there is the doctrine that teaches that the earth is billions of years old and that all living things descended from life forms different from themselves; that doctrine being known as evolution.
The Bible does not require the death of one set of life forms to make way for others. Evolution does.
The order in which all things were created according to the Bible differs from the order taught by evolution.
The Bible teaches that we were created. Evolution teaches that we were not created but are products of unthinking, unplanning, unimaginative, uncreative processes.
The Bible gives us the answer to the origin of our universe. Evolution cannot give a satisfying answer to how life began.
Ever since Darwinism had become fully established, there has been a war between the Bible and the humanistic doctrine of evolution and somewhere in the middle, there have been those, even well-meaning people, who ignorantly think that a bridge between the Bible and at least some evolutionary tenets can be formed, but you cannot reconcile together two doctrines that are diametrically opposed to one another and those who try to are found ineffective in assuaging the doubts of those within their congregations whose faith is confronted by this cleverly devised fable of evolution and just as there was systematic and institutionalized falsehoods propagated by Rome in the middle ages, so there is systematic and institutionalized falsehoods propagated by mainstream academia and the greater part of the scientific community and just as the Vatican once branded the dissenting reformers as heretics, so the Darwinized scientific community and many academic establishments count any challenge to their sacred cow of evolution as heretical.
Just as the Papal powers worked to suppress dissenting voices so the preachers of Darwin and their media dogs work to suppress any challenge to any tenets of their religion and if necessary, they are willing to weaponize the courts and governing authorities to do so and like the medieval Popes and in our day, the Imams and Ayatollahs, and every oppressive regime presently in existence, seek to enslave as many as they can to their doctrine of despair and hopelessness.
Darwinism cannot be replicated and yet is taught as science by those who have never witnessed it in action but then again, the act of creation as written in the book of Genesis cannot be repeated either and so the question remains: To where does the evidence that we have presently before us lead?
There are evidences that are presented before us, but they can only lead us to one conclusion and that is this:
We are either created by a God to whom we owe our existence, who has defined what is right and wrong, who has given a set of laws and precepts to govern the course of our lives, who has instilled meaning and purpose in our lives, before whom we must one day give an account for all that we have done and said in this present life, and has given us the hope that all the evils and injustices we witness will be set aright, and that all the present hardships and adversities will be eventually be eliminated, or we are a product of random processes and this life is all that there is and a life without any meaning or purpose and to which the concepts morality, justice, and accountability are foreign, and in which all established governing authorities have no use, for without right and wrong, good and evil, there is no use for civil authority for it is upon the concepts of justice and morality in which government finds its purpose and establishment.
I could not possibly list all of the massive amounts of scientific evidence that vindicates the authority of scripture and which has thoroughly discredited Darwinian evolution. I have no idea as to where you might like to begin as far as any scientific challenges go but I will offer these challenges to start with:
1. No plant or animal animal has ever been witnessed producing another animal different from itself and arcane laboratory experiments that defy the natural laws of biology do not count. There can be variations within each plant or animal kind, but never has something like a horse been observed descending from a dog or a chicken from a lizard. And frogs have not been seen turning into princes.
2. The fossil record is devoid of any definitive transitional forms.
3. The only geologic column you will ever see is a diagram found in either a textbook or on a museum display.
4. Conventional dating methods cannot be trusted due to unprovable assumptions.
5. Numerous scientists have credited observable science for leading them to conclude that there must be a God, some of whom have even come to Christ.
For more information on the above, check out the list of the following sources here.
"Lots of things help people change their lives, not just one version of God."
Such as what? And what do you mean by many versions of God? If God has not defined Himself, then we are left to our own devices and our own understanding of Him, but if He has defined Himself, then there is only one version of God and any other version of God is a false version of God or false god altogether. The so-called many versions of God cannot all be the God as He has defined Himself. Only one version of God can be the correct version of God and if there is only one correct version of God, there is only one truth and one version of the truth, not many truths or many versions of the truth.
There may be many things that people claim have changed their lives but if it is a superficial change that is not founded in truth, then it at some point, a critical conjuncture will be reached in their lives when that to which they looked to change their lives for the better, whatever that may be will fail them.
There is only one life changing experience that does not fail and that is a change that begins from the inside and manifests itself outward. It does not begin outward and finish inward. And that life changing experience is a sincere faith in Christ. It does not promise exemption from hardship, but it does promise to help us through it and to endure what does come our way for whatever duration required of us. It does not promise health and wealth, but it does promise an enlightened spirit, purpose, meaning, and if we will set our sights on it, an everlasting treasure that awaits us in eternity.
It does not promise that our friends and family will not abandon us, but it does promise that God will never forsake us.
What other so called life changers can deliver on the promises that Christ has delivered on and will deliver on?
"I've never been about living my life for others."
And now we come to it. Christ was all about living His life for others; so much so that He gave Himself as the ultimate and perfect sacrifice for our sins so that we could be saved by Him upon repentance. The Christian experience is not a self-centered one. In fact, the more Christ-minded you are, the less self-centered you become. If that has not been your experience, I would advise that you take some time to examine yourself to determine if you at all are really of the faith.
If not, then no wonder why your faith is on "incredibly shaky ground" as you so put it because the kind of faith that is the first to topple is the faith that is founded upon a head knowledge that does not translate to the heart. It is possible to know the truth and even agree with it in our minds. There may be no doubt about it in our minds, but if it is not embraced at heart, then it is not a faith that is founded in spirit or practiced in sincerity.
I pray that if you have not done so already, that you will make sure that your faith is not just in the mind, but that it will become a heart-felt faith. If you do that, then I am confident that you will return with a faith stronger and more steadfast than it ever has been before.
And finally:
"If most of humankind had a choice, would we not rid the world of the scourge of cancer? Or sickness and disease? Why doesn’t God do such a thing? Of course there is an answer to this question, but the majority of a typical Christian’s life is not spent considering these things…Questions such as these remain in the too hard basket."
And it is to these types questions that those who take the book of Genesis at face value---as actual history instead of an allegory or myth---can give the most satisfying answers. They who refuse to accept Genesis as actual history will not be able to provide as satisfying of an answer because they are relying on a doctrine that teaches that things such as cancer and other sicknesses and diseases have existed before sin entered into the world when it is written that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23) and because of sin, the entire creation presently struggles in pain until it is finally redeemed from the curse that resulted from the sin of Adam. (Rom. 8:19-23)
If death ever existed before sin, then death is not the wages of sin and if death is not a consequence of sin, then what is Christ redeeming us from? What corruptions has sin caused that were not already present? And from what did Christ come to free us from, if not from death? And how can death be called an enemy, (1 Cor. 15:26) if it was meant to play a role in the originally designed order? From what is creation itself being redeemed if not from its present hardships if such were present before the curse?
But if the present sufferings, griefs, hardships, pains, struggles, disasters, catastrophes, calamities, evils, and darkness did not exist before sin, and are a consequence of sin, then it should go show that when God created the earth, evil did not exist therein. Death was not present, neither was there any sickness, struggle, pain, grief, or sorrow.
There will not be any of those things when the new heavens and new earth are created, (Rev. 21-22) what purpose would they have served when the world was first created? Therefore, if things such as cancer were never a part of creation before sin and death, then they are a consequence of man's sin, beginning with Adam; they are a product of the curse.
A day will come when cancer, along with all of the evil and suffering we witness, will be no more but it will require the passing of this present world (2 Pet. 3:10-11) which is stained by the sin of man which sustains the curse; therefore, in order to be rid of the curse, sin must be done away with and that means doing away with everything that has been tainted by sin and that will require the eventual destruction of this present earth in which sin is present and the creation of a new earth wherein there is no sin for where there is no sin, there will be nothing present that is a product of sin.
But if God forbears, it is for this reason: That He is not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9) because the destruction of this present world is also going to require the destruction of unrepentant sinners.
And because God takes no pleasure in the punishment of anyone, He, for now, bears with the evil that is present in the world. He bears with death. And He bears with all the sufferings, catastrophes, distresses, griefs, and sorrows experienced by man. And though He does not promise exemption from the evils and griefs present in the world, nor immediate deliverance from the sufferings and heartaches that come upon us, He does promise to sustain us in the midst of them. He does promise not to subject us to any testing beyond what we can bear. (1 Cor. 10:13) He also promises to work out all things, even the evil things, for the good of those who love Him. (Rom. 8:28)
But a day is coming when all the things of sin, death, and the curse will be no more because the removal of death and the curse is a part of the redemption process which began with the redemption of ours souls in Christ, will continue with the redemption of our bodies which will be changed so as to be made exempt from death, (1 Cor. 15:50-57) and which will be completed upon the creation of the new heavens and the new earth to come. (Rev. 21-22)
And if there is a final appeal that I would make to Marty Sampson, it would be this: As you consider arguments from all points of view regarding the hard questions and challenging arguments to the Christian faith, equally consider the case made from sources such as the following:
Answers In Genesis
Institute for Creation Research
Creation Ministries International
True Origin.com
Christians Answers.net
Apologetics Press
There also other like-minded ministries listed on the external links page of this blogsite which I would also encourage you and others to check out as well. May God lead you to a sure and solid faith in Him and to a steadfast trust in the Gospel of Christ by which all men who receive it may be saved.
End Notes:
1. Hillsong Songwriter Marty Sampson Says He's Losing His Christian Faith,"
Relevant Magazine, August 12, 2019
https://relevantmagazine.com/culture/hillsong-songwriter-marty-sampson-says-hes-losing-his-christian-faith/
2. Lindsey Elizabeth, "'I'm Genuinely Losing My Faith,': Hillsong Worship Leader Rejects Christian Beliefs,"
Faithwire, August 12, 2019
https://www.faithwire.com/2019/08/12/im-genuinely-losing-my-faith-hillsong-worship-leader-denounces-christianity/
3. Leah MarieAnn Klett, Christian Post Reporter, "Hillsong writer: 'I'm genuinely losing my faith,'"
Christian Post, August 12, 2019
https://www.christianpost.com/news/hillsong-writer-reveals-hes-no-longer-a-christian-im-genuinely-losing-my-faith.html
4. Staff Writer, "Hillsong worship leader Marty Sampson announces he's 'losing' his faith,"
Christian Today, August 12, 2019
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/hillsong-worship-leader-marty-sampson-losing-faith/133017.htm
5. Staff writer, "Marty Sampson posts list of Christian apologists days after saying he is 'losing' his faith,"
Christian Today, August 13, 2019
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/marty-sampson-posts-list-of-christian-apologists-days-after-losing-his-faith/133023.htm
6. Leah MarieAnn Klett, Christian Post Reporter, "Hillsong worship leader clarifies he hasn't renounced faith, but it's on
incredibly shaky ground,'" Christian Post, August 13, 2019
https://www.christianpost.com/news/hillsong-worship-leader-clarifies-he-hasnt-renounced-faith-but-its-on-incredibly-shaky-ground.html
7. Staff writer, "I haven't 'renounced' my faith but it's on 'incredibly shaky ground,' says Marty Sampson,"
Christian Today, August 13, 2019
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/i-havent-renounced-my-faith-but-its-on-incredibly-shaky-ground-says-marty-sampson/133025.htm
8. Jerry Rose Spaudo, "Hillsong Worship Leader Clarifies That His Faith Is on 'Incredibly Shaky Ground,'" Charisma
News, August 13, 2019
https://www.charismanews.com/us/77586-hillsong-worship-leader-marty-sampson-clarifies-that-his-faith-is-on-incredibly-shaky-ground
9. 1599 Geneva Bible; Genesis 1:11-12
10. Attributed to James Strong, L.L.D., S.T.D, "The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance," (Nashville Tennessee; Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) H 1877
11. Ibid., H 6211, H 6212
(H stands for "Hebrew" in the Strong's)
12. Blue Letter Bible, Genesis 1:11-12; Interlinear Masoretic Text
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6212&t=KJV
13. Attributed to James Strong, L.L.D., S.T.D, “The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance,” (Nashville Tennessee Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) H 3335
14. Tim Chaffey, "Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?"
Answers In Genesis, September 3, 2010; last featured May 16, 2016
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/do-genesis-1-and-2-contradict-each-other/
15. Paul F. Taylor, "Contradictions: Two Creation Accounts," Answers In Genesis, June 15, 2009
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/two-creation-accounts/
16. Don Batten, "Genesis Contradictions?" Creation Ministries International;
Creation 18 (4):44-45, September 1996
https://creation.com/genesis-contradictions
17. "Is There More Than One Genesis Account Of Creation?" Come Reason Ministries
http://www.comereason.org/genesis-account-of-creation.asp
18. 1599 Geneva Bible; Genesis 1:21
19. Ibid., Genesis 2:19
20. Attributed to James Strong, L.L.D., S.T.D, "The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, (Nashville Tennessee; Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) H 3671
21. Ibid, pg. 353
Scripture references:
1. Genesis 9:20-21
2. Genesis 19:1-9
3. Genesis 12:10-20 and chapter 20
4. Genesis 26:1-11
5. Genesis 27:1-28:4
6. Genesis 25:27-34
7. Genesis 27:1-40
8. Exodus chapter 32
9. Numbers 20:8-12
10. Judges 8:27
11. 2 Samuel 11-12:24
12. 2 Samuel 24
13. 1 Chronicles 21:1-29
12. 1 Kings 11:1-13
13. Jonah
14. Acts 5:1-11
15. Acts 6:1-7
16. Acts 15:37-39
17. 1 Corinthians chapters 1-6
18. Galatians 2:11-14
19. Philippians 1:14-18
20. Revelation 2:4-5
21. Revelation 2:14-15, 20-23
22. Revelation 3:1-2
23. Revelation 3:14-18
24. Romans 7:15-25
25. Proverbs 26:4-5
26. 2 Samuel 5:14
27 1 Chronicles 3:5, 14:4
28. Genesis 1:11-12
29. Genesis 2:4
30. Genesis 2:5
31. Genesis 2:16-17
32. Genesis 3:3
33. Genesis 3:17-18
34. Genesis 1:20-30
35. Genesis 1:25
36. Genesis 1:20-21
37. Genesis 2:19
38. Genesis 38:6-10
39. Deuteronomy 25:5-6
40. 1 Chronicles 5:1
41. Psalms 19:1-6
42. Romans 1:19-20
43. Romans 5:12
44. Romans 6:23
45. 2 Peter 3:10-11
46. Romans 8:19-23
47. 1 Corinthians 15:26
48. Revelation 21-22
49. 2 Peter 3:10-11
50. 2 Peter 3:9
51. 1 Corinthians 10:13
52. Romans 8:28
53. 1 Corinthians 15:50-57
No comments:
Post a Comment