The Unheard Message: What about People Who Never Hear of the Salvation Offered by Jesus Christ?

As a Doctor of Christian Apologetics, I often encounter thought-provoking questions that challenge the core tenets of the Christian faith. One such question is: What about people who never hear of the salvation offered by Jesus Christ? This query delves into the heart of theological discussions about God's justice, human responsibility, and the inclusivity of God's plan of redemption.

The Christian Perspective

Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). This belief raises a natural concern: if Jesus is the only path to salvation, what happens to those who never have the opportunity to hear about Him, let alone accept Him as their Savior?

God's Justice and Fairness

Central to understanding this dilemma is the concept of God's justice. Christians believe in a just and fair God, and this God is not arbitrary in dispensing salvation. The Bible teaches that God desires all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that God has a plan for those who never hear the explicit message of salvation through Christ.

General Revelation

Christian theologians propose the idea of "general revelation." This concept suggests that God has revealed Himself to all people through nature and conscience. Romans 1:20 (ESV) affirms this: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

Through the beauty and complexity of creation, and through an innate sense of morality, God's existence and attributes are made known to humanity. While general revelation does not provide the specifics of the Gospel message, it does suggest that all individuals are given an opportunity to seek and recognize God.

Human Responsibility

Christians also acknowledge the role of human responsibility. Those who respond positively to the revelation they have received, whether through nature or conscience, may find themselves drawn closer to God. This response can lead to a searching for truth and, potentially, a discovery of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of that truth.

Divine Mystery

However, it's crucial to recognize that the fate of those who never hear about Jesus remains a divine mystery. Christians trust in a God who is just, loving, and merciful. This God, whose ways are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9), will judge with perfect fairness.

The Great Commission

In the Christian faith, the Great Commission is a call to spread the Gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19-20). Christians are entrusted with the task of making disciples of all people, ensuring that the message of Jesus Christ reaches the farthest corners of the earth. This commission is an acknowledgment of the urgency and importance of sharing the good news.

Hope in God's Justice

In conclusion, the question of what happens to those who never hear about the salvation offered by Jesus Christ is a challenging one. While Christianity teaches that Jesus is the way to salvation, it also emphasizes God's justice, human responsibility, and the mystery of divine judgment. Ultimately, Christians place their hope in a just and loving God who desires the salvation of all and trust that His plan encompasses those who never had the opportunity to hear the explicit message of Christ. The unfolding of this divine plan is, for Christians, an article of faith and a testament to the boundless grace of God.

Apologetic Argument - I'm an Atheist

 I'm an Atheist

I have seen this statement many times in different groups that I am a part of. It is a profound statement that boldly says "I do not believe in God, and I know there is no God." It is different than an "Agnostic" which is someone who professes that they "do not know if there is a God". but back to the Atheist, the person who has proven to himself, using some method that says without a shadow of doubt that there is no God. This is something that I recently have thought about and it makes me wonder what proof they have, or what method they used to convince themselves of such a bold proclamation.  

Here is what I have come to understand. Atheists want to be known. They want their position to be known to others and they need this self affirmation in order to give their lives purpose. Without God the only purpose they have is to randomly stumble through life, hoping that they live a Good life, because they have no definition of Good, so they can live however they want and say it is Good. So here is the basic understanding of what the truth of Atheism is. 

1. No long term goal. Any goal ends at death. so the best they can hope for is that by the time they die they don't find out there is a God. 

2. No Moral Standard, other than what they themselves develop, or what some other person develops for them.

3. No basis for a good life. Because there is no standard of Good, other than what is made up by you or made up by someone else for you. You live only for yourself or to be seen good by someone who made up the definition of good you subscribe to. 

4. Thoughts have no purpose. Any thought that is developed, is a random spark of energy that happens between cells inside of your brain, and those thoughts are random and may never happen again. 

5. The best you can hope for is that Christianity is not True. You have condemned yourself to going to hell, or to nothingness since you don't believe in hell.

6. Naturalism if that is an Atheist's belief, ends at death. the result is nothingness.

7. Legacy on the world is the hope of an Atheist, but it doesn't really matter does it?

In my opinion it is a very sad and depressing life that is presented to the Atheist. I am a Christian who will live forever in the presence of a loving God who has defined what is Good and he is the pure definition of Love. An Atheist will always go through life questioning if there is a God. He will argue against it, he will adamantly state scientific stats, or methods or tout about all the things HE heard about from other Atheists or Scientists or whatever things he uses to convince himself of his "truth". But in the end, when all is said and done he will know that he can come to God, Confess in his Belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and be Saved. God's Grace is so Great that even an Atheist's ramblings is not sinful enough to stop God from loving him. 

The WORST that can happen to me is the BEST that an Atheist can hope for. 

Apologetic Argument - I can't See it

 If I can't see it, then it's not true!

One thing that many people who feel they are grounded in science profess is that something has to be seen in order for it to be true. They base this on a loose understanding of scientific methods of Observation and Measurement. The principles that science is predicated on are as follows:

• Empiricism: Knowledge is gained through observation and sensory experience.
• Falsifiability: Scientific ideas must be testable and potentially disprovable.
• Reproducibility: Findings should be repeatable by other researchers.
• Objectivity: Minimize bias and subjectivity in research.
• Skepticism: Question existing theories and remain open to new evidence.
• Consistency: Scientific principles should apply consistently across contexts.
• Precision and Accuracy: Data should be precise and accurate.
• Cause and Effect: Seek to identify cause-and-effect relationships.
• Naturalism: Focus on natural explanations for phenomena.
• Theory Construction: Build overarching explanations based on facts and evidence.
• Occam's Razor: Prefer simpler explanations when multiple options exist.

These basic scientific principles guide the scientific method, which is the systematic approach scientists use to investigate and understand the natural world. They also help ensure the rigor, reliability, and objectivity of scientific research and inquiry.

The problem with these are that most are underpinned by observation, testability, and reproducibility. The belief that "if I can't see it, it isn't true" represents a philosophical stance known as "empiricism." Empiricism is the idea that knowledge and truth are primarily derived from sensory experience and observable evidence. In this philosophy, only things that can be directly perceived or measured are considered real or true, and anything beyond the scope of sensory experience may be regarded as either unproven or dismissed as nonexistent. Empiricism is a foundational perspective in philosophy, particularly within the branch of epistemology, which deals with questions of knowledge and how we come to know things about the world. It's important to note that while empiricism is a valuable approach in many scientific and practical contexts, it also has limitations, as it may exclude aspects of reality that are not immediately observable but can still be understood and validated through other means, such as inference or reason. 

You can see then that there are things that do in fact exist that are not observable. Here is just a short list. 

• Electricity
• Gravity
• Love
• Knowledge
• Radiation
• Beauty
• Minds
• Thoughts

As you see there are in fact things that exist that do not fall into the category that can be observed and therefore accepted as proof

Apologetics and AI

What would AI do?

As an Apologist I have to say that Artificial Intelligence is based solely upon the knowledge that is only presented from the minds of humankind. It can be considered as evil as man is, and by asking it questions to certain topics you can see that it is biased towards the "truths" that man has stated as truths 

I asked it some Questions.

What is a Moral Standard
AI RESPONSE: 

A moral standard is a set of principles or criteria that are used to judge and evaluate what is considered right or wrong in a given society or ethical framework. These standards serve as guidelines for individuals and communities to make moral judgments and decisions about their actions and behaviors.

Moral standards can vary significantly from one culture, religion, or philosophical perspective to another. They often reflect the values, beliefs, and norms of a particular group or society. These standards provide a basis for individuals to assess the morality of their actions and to determine whether they are in accordance with the accepted principles of their community or belief system.

Examples of moral standards include concepts such as honesty, integrity, fairness, compassion, respect for others, and the prohibition of actions like lying, stealing, and harming others. Different cultures and ethical philosophies may prioritize these standards differently and may have their own unique moral codes.

It's important to note that moral standards are not universally agreed upon, and ethical dilemmas can arise when different individuals or groups have conflicting moral beliefs or standards. These differences in moral standards can lead to debates and discussions about what is morally right or wrong in various situations.

This prompted me to ask a follow-up question. 

Isn't a Moral Standard considered unchanging? and if so why would it be different between communities?

AI RESPONSE: 

Moral standards are not necessarily unchanging, and whether they are considered to be fixed or subject to change can vary depending on one's ethical perspective and cultural context. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Objective vs. Subjective Morality: Some people believe in objective moral standards, which means that certain moral principles are believed to be universal and unchanging, regardless of cultural or individual differences. These objective moral standards are often thought to be based on absolute moral truths or a divine source. In contrast, subjective morality suggests that moral standards are relative and can vary from one culture or individual to another.

2. Cultural Relativism: Cultural relativism is the idea that moral standards are culturally specific and can differ from one society to another. In this view, what is considered morally right or wrong is determined by the cultural norms and values of a particular community. Cultural relativism suggests that moral standards can indeed change over time and vary between different communities.

3. Moral Realism: Moral realists argue that there are objective moral facts that exist independently of human beliefs. While they believe in objective moral standards, they acknowledge that human understanding and interpretations of these standards can evolve and vary across cultures.

4. Moral Progress: Some ethical theories, such as utilitarianism and human rights theories, suggest that moral progress can occur over time. This implies that societies can evolve and improve their moral standards by recognizing and rectifying past injustices and adopting more ethical practices.

In practice, there are often significant variations in moral standards between different communities, cultures, and historical periods. These differences can be attributed to various factors, including cultural traditions, religious beliefs, historical context, and societal norms. While some moral principles may be nearly universal (e.g., prohibitions against murder or theft), the interpretation and application of these principles can still differ significantly.

So, whether moral standards are considered unchanging or subject to change depends on one's philosophical and cultural perspective. Different individuals and communities may hold varying views on the nature of morality and the stability of moral standards.

These two answers show that AI considers that Mankind's answer is correct and that any theological answer boils down to philosophical or cultural perspectives. So I asked the following question. 

Are your answers predicated on only mankind's collective agreement of what is truth?

AI RESPONSE: 

My responses are based on a combination of factors, including:

1. Human Understanding: I draw from the collective knowledge and understanding of humanity as of my last training data in September 2021. This includes widely accepted concepts, principles, and beliefs about various subjects, including morality and ethics.

2. Philosophical Perspectives: I provide information on different philosophical perspectives and debates related to topics like morality. These perspectives include views that consider morality to be objective and unchanging, as well as those that view it as subjective and culturally relative.

3. Cultural and Historical Context: I take into account that moral standards and beliefs can vary across cultures and historical periods. I aim to provide a well-rounded understanding of how different societies and eras have approached moral questions.

4. OpenAI's Guidelines: I adhere to OpenAI's guidelines, which include a commitment to providing balanced and informative responses that reflect a range of perspectives and avoid taking a position on controversial or philosophical matters.

It's important to note that while I can provide information on various perspectives and the consensus of human knowledge up to my last training data, I do not possess personal beliefs or opinions. My responses are generated based on patterns in the text data I was trained on, and I aim to provide information that can help users understand and consider different viewpoints on a given topic. Ultimately, questions related to truth, morality, and ethics often involve complex and multifaceted discussions, and my responses are intended to contribute to those discussions rather than dictate a particular viewpoint.

As you can see the answer is based a lot on the wording of the question and you can also spin the answers to your own bias if you would like, by adding what context you would like the answer to contain. The conversation could go on and on with AI. but as you can see the primary basis is on "text data I was trained on". Which of course means that it probably has no opinion one way or another but is a collective answer of the majority of text data AI is exposed to. 

Do I trust it? I am unsure, but let me ask it. 

Can I trust your Answers?

AI RESPONSE:

While I strive to provide accurate and informative answers, it's essential to remember that I am a computer program developed by OpenAI, and my responses are generated based on patterns in the text data I was trained on. Here are some considerations when using my responses:

1. Informational Purposes: My responses are intended for informational purposes and should not be considered as a sole source of authority. It's always a good practice to cross-reference information from multiple sources, especially for critical or important decisions.

2. Knowledge Cutoff: My knowledge is based on the data available up to my last training in September 2021. I do not have access to real-time information or events that occurred after that date.

3. No Personal Beliefs: I do not have personal beliefs, opinions, or emotions. My responses are generated algorithmically based on the text inputs I receive and the patterns in the data I was trained on.

4. Consider Diverse Perspectives: I aim to provide balanced and informative responses that reflect a range of viewpoints on various topics. However, I do not endorse any particular perspective or agenda.

5. Critical Thinking: It's important to engage in critical thinking and independent research when making decisions or forming opinions. My responses can serve as a starting point for exploration but should not replace thoughtful analysis and inquiry.

Ultimately, the trustworthiness of my answers depends on the context and the reliability of the information available up to my last training data. For important matters, especially those involving legal, medical, or personal decisions, consulting experts or reputable sources is advisable.

There you have it....the vague answer based on the text it has been trained on and if you want real answers it advises to go to other experts. 

Apologetic Questions

The Apologist's Questions

In the realm of theology and apologetics, a diverse array of inquiries may come the way of an Apologist, necessitating thorough consideration and study to attain a comprehensive grasp of potential responses. It's important to bear in mind that not every interaction with non-believers or those exploring the Gospel of Jesus Christ requires the presence of an Apologist.

In my theological perspective, the role of an Apologist becomes particularly relevant when individuals harbor questions or concerns that might otherwise act as obstacles to their faith. The purpose is to address these inquiries to a degree where they become more receptive to the profound truths and blessings that God extends to them. In essence, the Apologist steps in to remove stumbling blocks and facilitate a clearer path toward embracing the message of God's grace.

The truths to remembers are these. 

• The Apologist does not bring the non-believer to faith, only the Holy Spirit can do this. 
• The Apologist is the arguer, the Evangelist is the one who makes the call to faith. 
• Evangelists should have access to an Apologist that help remove barriers to non-believers obstacles to belief. 

The following are some of the questions that are important to consider.

Question: Did Jesus die on the cross and was he resurrected?

Question: Is the Bible trustworthy given all the different copies and translations?

Question: Why does God allow Evil to happen?

Question: What about all the people who never hear of Jesus?

Question: How can Jesus be the only way to God?

Question: Isn't Christianity just an excuse for people who are scared?

Question: There are so many religions, aren't they all just different ways to God?

Question: I couldn't be Christian, because they are so judgmental, why is that?

Question: How do we know that the Interpretations of the Bible are accurate?

Question: Why do Schools and Universities still teach Evolution if it is not true as Christians assert?

These questions are not all inclusive but are some of the ones that I personally have encountered. They are difficult to answer in a singular setting, and they take real contemplation and study to ensure that the answers are accurately articulated in a manner that someone who has not studied them can understand and really find the answer they are looking for. 

One persistent challenge that Christians and Christianity face is the presence of atheists who approach discussions with a closed mindset. These individuals typically have no genuine interest in engaging in a meaningful conversation or a learning experience. Instead, their primary intention seems to be centered on engaging in arguments, already firmly convinced that Christians are irrational and lacking in knowledge regarding their beliefs. 

As I progress in writing and exploring my Apologetic journey I hope to provide my research and answers to the questions I pose above. 

Simple Apologetic Argument - Cosmological Argument (Causation)

 Apologists sometimes over complicate arguments however, sometimes they are very simple. 

The Apologetic Cosmological Argument is a way of explaining why we believe that God exists based on the existence of the universe. It goes like this:

Everything has a cause: We observe that everything in the universe has a cause. For example, a tree grows because it was planted, a cake is baked because someone mixed ingredients, and so on.

The universe exists: We see that the universe itself exists. It's the grandest thing we know, including all galaxies, stars, planets, and everything on Earth.

So, the universe must have a cause: Since everything has a cause, it makes sense to think that the universe, being the biggest thing we know, also had a cause.

The cause of the universe is God: This is where the argument connects to the idea of God. The Apologetic Cosmological Argument says that the cause of the universe must be something incredibly powerful and outside of the universe itself. Many people call this cause "God."

So, in simple terms, this argument says that because everything in the world has a cause, the universe must have a cause too, and that cause is what we call God. It's a way some people use to explain why they believe in God's existence based on the existence of the universe.

The leap presented in this argument that many people especially those that argue against God, is; "just because there is a cause it doe not mean God".

From my personal perspective, when considering this matter, the apologetic standpoint asserts that although one could raise objections, the sole reasonable conclusion points to "something immensely powerful, beyond the constraints of time, and outside the boundaries of the created universe." Without any other defining term to describe this entity, it becomes only logical to refer to it as God, representing the force responsible for the creation of everything.

Apologetic Argument - Presuppostions

 Is the Christian Worldview the basis for all thought and rationality?

Transcendental argument for the existence of God seeks to demonstrate the existence of God by showing that certain necessary conditions for rationality, knowledge, or the intelligibility of the world depend on the existence of God. The logical assumption then is Presuppositions.

Presuppositionalism, from my personal perspective, posits that only the Christian worldview can adequately explain concepts such as logic, morality, science, induction, and even the nature of consciousness itself, branding all other worldviews as inherently irrational. This approach, though it may appear tempting for some, can be perceived as a somewhat simplistic strategy for apologists.

Presuppositionalists often take it a step further by deeming both classical and evidential apologetics as sinful, as they argue that these approaches place human reason in the position of evaluating God's existence, a stance they see as asserting human autonomy.

According to presuppositionalists, those who do not adhere to the Christian worldview (a category that, in their rhetoric, encompasses a broad spectrum of individuals, from atheists to Christians of differing persuasions) must, in their view, effectively adopt the Reformed/Westminster Confession worldview to even engage in the act of denying it. Essentially, this implies an accusation of "stealing the concept" and is often argued through various Transcendental arguments for God. Unlike classical and evidential apologists who directly argue for God's existence, presuppositionalism takes an indirect route by attempting to demonstrate "the impossibility of the contrary." In other words, they aim to highlight the internal inconsistencies and absurdities within opposing worldviews.

Interestingly, 1 Peter 3:15, as I interpret it, advises believers to provide reasoned arguments for their faith when engaging with non-believers, thus endorsing evidential apologetics.

1 Peter 3:15 - "but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

The essence of this thought process is that God Exists, and because he exists all thought is possible, in its logical manner as we experience it. An example of a presupposition based on the existence of God might be found in the realm of morality. Some individuals and belief systems presuppose that moral values and duties are grounded in the existence of a divine being, such as God. In this view:

Presupposition: Moral values and duties exist.

Basis: These moral values and duties are grounded in the nature or commands of God.

Implication: Therefore, moral principles are objective and absolute because they reflect the character or will of God.

This presupposition is often associated with religious and theistic worldviews, particularly those within the Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). It implies that without the existence of God, there would be no objective foundation for morality, and moral values would be subjective and arbitrary.

Critics of this presupposition argue that it can be challenged by secular moral theories that seek to provide a basis for ethics without relying on the existence of a deity. These secular theories might ground morality in human reason, well-being, social contracts, or other non-theistic principles. The debate over whether morality requires the presupposition of God is a longstanding one in philosophy and theology.