If I'm Unconvincing It's Your Fault!

Añadido: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]If I'm unconvincing, it's your fault.

[00:00:03]>> So, you believe that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ is is going to hell?

[00:00:08]>> Can God send people to hell for their beliefs and values if they were born into a family in atheist Europe or a remote a or a remote tribe in Papua New Guinea? How are they expected to find true faith?

[00:00:22]>> The framing of the question is loaded.

[00:00:24]John Lennox isn't wrong, but the way I would frame the question would be much more broad. To address the question of divine hiddenenness, you need to take the focus off of humans and put it entirely on God. Doing this in a conversation with a Christian can be difficult as the Christian will want to keep pivoting to things people do to deflect from the lack of action on the part of their God. You didn't expect the believer to find evidence of their god doing anything, did you? The real question should be, is there a God that cares enough about having a relationship with anyone that he actively seeks out that relationship?

[00:01:06]Let's have a chat.

[00:01:18]>> [music] [music] >> Hello, welcome to Godless Granny and thank you so much for the view, especially to my patrons and channel members. I picked this video for the subject matter, not realizing that I had picked another one from Brandon, Daily Dose of Wisdom, quite recently, but it's my favorite subject, so I stuck with it.

[00:01:54]Let's see if Brandon has any wisdom here.

[00:01:56]>> Logan Paul asked the question, "If you don't believe in Jesus, do you go to hell?" And in the comment section of that video were so many people asking, "Well, what about the people who have never heard about Jesus? What about the unreached people groups? the people who live in places on the planet where they've never even heard about Jesus.

[00:02:14]>> The original question was a good one. If you don't believe in Jesus, do you go to hell? Or an even better one, who goes to hell?

[00:02:23]>> Then you can go to hell.

[00:02:28][screaming] >> The answer to that will vary greatly depending on what kind of Christian you are talking to. Catholics for centuries told us that they are the one true faith. They still consider themselves to be the one true faith. But they also accept that anyone can go to heaven if they have the spirit of God in their hearts. One need not believe in God.

[00:02:51]Just act in accordance with the life that God wants you to according to the Catholic faith. This isn't a bad position. Salvation is independent of theology. Knowing the theology and accepting the sacraments just gets you extra God points in their faith.

[00:03:08]Everyone goes to purgatory to pay for their sins. People with more God points spend less time in purgatory. And you can give God points to a dead person.

[00:03:19]You can light a candle for them. If you do it in church, you pay a fee to the church for the candle. Nice way for the church to profit from your grief. But I found a website that said you can also do this at home, too. So, you don't have to pay the church to get your God points. Interestingly, my go-to website for Catholic theology, Catholic Answers, was silent on this topic. In Protestant theology, one must believe to avoid going to hell. Though, I did find an exception.

[00:03:51]>> So, that those who have never heard of Christ will not be judged on the basis of whether they've placed their faith in Christ. That would be manifestly unfair.

[00:04:00]They've never heard of Jesus. So, how could they place their faith in him?

[00:04:04]>> However, even William Lane Craig walked this back just a few minutes later.

[00:04:10]>> This raises all sorts of questions. Are there any people like this? Uh, I hope so. I hope Aristotle gets in. Um, but if you take Romans 1 seriously, I think you have to say there's not very many people like this.

[00:04:29]>> According to Craig, it is possible to be saved by recognizing all on one's own that one is imperfect, that there is a God that cares about this imperfection, and if you beg for mercy, this God will forgive you for being imperfect. But this is a very rare thing. so rare that Protestants can't give you a single example of this ever happening. How could they? They can't know who is in heaven. But if they can't know who is in heaven, what makes them think that there are any believers there or more specifically that all believers are there with all the ways there are to interpret the Bible to get it to conform to a particular theology. Why think that your interpretation that you are going to heaven is the right one? And with the assemblies of God and other denominations that say that you can lose your salvation, God might not accept you regardless of how many times you told him that you believe. The point is who goes to heaven and how one gets there depends on the theology of the Christian with the Church of Christ being the narrowest. Not only must one believe in Christian theology, one also must be a member in a Church of Christ church. If there is a right way and a wrong way to get into heaven, you sure as hell can't get there by listening to Christian preachers. Or at least your chances of getting the right one are pretty low.

[00:06:01]Oh, you can't get to heaven. Unroller skates. No, you can't get to heaven. on roller skate so you can't get to heaven on roller skates. You'll roll right past those pearly gates. Sorry, our host isn't going to address this interesting question. Let's hear which one he likes better.

[00:06:25]>> And in order to answer that question, we're then going to go to John Linux, who basically picks up the ball from where Cliff dropped it off and takes it all the way to the end zone, if you will. Let's do it. Let's dive in.

[00:06:36]No, let's not talk about the vast majority of people that are going to hell because they don't believe in the correct theology. No, let's focus on those that never hear about Jesus. Cliff wants to make this a mankind problem instead of the God problem that it is.

[00:06:54]He claims that those going to hell are those that heard the gospel and had the opportunity to accept or reject it and they chose freely to reject it. This assumes that everyone that hears about Jesus hears what one needs in order to be saved. That means that those raised in homes in the religion where the form of Christianity is one that you say doesn't cut it, they have heard what they need to hear. The question should not focus on what a person heard, but was it persuasive? When I was in college, there was a guy that would dance around the campus literally and talk about Jesus. What he said varied from what I believed. Our camp's crusade leaders thought this was the perfect opportunity to share the gospel. As people are listening and he drew large crowds and they were clearly interested in hearing about spiritual things. It was our job to go to this gathering, pick a target person and tell them the correct version of the gospel because we were all aware that no one was going to be saved from hearing his gibberish.

[00:08:03]So if the only thing that a person heard about Jesus was from someone like this straight preacher, did they hear?

[00:08:12]Suppose you hear the gospel from someone you loathe. You hear it from someone for whom you have no respect. And because of your view of the messenger, you want nothing to do with the message. You aren't rejecting the message. You're rejecting the messenger.

[00:08:29]No, the question should not be did you hear something that you chose to reject, but did you hear something that should have been persuasive? Since God is supposed to be all knowing, he would know exactly what that would be for each person. If you could in any honesty say that every person has heard the gospel presented plainly, accurately, and persuasively, you would have a legitimate argument. Can you in any honesty say that? Clearly not. If that were the case, there would not be so much confusion as to what one must do or say or believe to be saved.

[00:09:07]>> Doesn't accept Jesus Christ is is going to hell.

[00:09:11]>> Anybody who hears about Christ and has the opportunity to investigate Christ by reading the Gospels and chooses to reject Christ. Jesus clearly said, "For God so loved the world, he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him should not perish. Even that is the subject of debate among Christians. The Calvinists say that whosoever refers only to the elect. When the elect believe they are saved, the unelect are not part of whosoever because it isn't whosoever, meaning anyone, but whosoever believes, meaning only those that believe. Calvinists say the unelect are not saved, and they were not chosen for salvation. They believe in limited atonement. Jesus did not die for everyone. He died only for the elect. I wish I could tell Cliff to pray to his Holy Spirit and have the spirit give believers correct theology. If the Calvinists are right, the Holy Spirit should tell the non-Calvinists the error of their ways. If the non-Calvinists are right, it should tell the Calvinists.

[00:10:16]Until the Holy Spirit can convey the true theology to believers, believers have no business telling unbelievers that they don't have the right theology.

[00:10:25]Hell, Ken Ham did a video this week blasting Eric Pataxis for getting theology wrong. One would think that with the power of God Almighty in the form of the Holy Spirit at their beck and call, ready to give them wisdom whenever they ask, that they would all be in agreement on theology. They would be if their claims about the Holy Spirit were true.

[00:10:49]>> That whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.

[00:11:03]>> So according to Cliff, it's what you believe. God is the thought police.

[00:11:09]Doesn't matter what you do, only what you believe. Got it? because he's not believed in the name of God's one and only son. That's what Jesus said.

[00:11:17]>> But isn't intolerance sort of rooted in Christianity a bit?

[00:11:22]>> Okay, great question. This is a matter of truth. If I say to you, every religion leads to God, is that a truth claim?

[00:11:29]>> No. I would argue yes.

[00:11:32]>> This is why lawyers say don't ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. Clearly, Cliff does know the answer that he wants. But because he didn't get it, he has to go with his own opinion and not with the answer that the guest gave him.

[00:11:46]>> What I'm saying is every religion leads to God. Which means I contradict the Muslims. I contradict the Christians. I contradict the Jews. This is a truth claim. I, as a white western male, am saying every religion leads to God.

[00:11:58]That's a truth claim.

[00:11:59]>> Every religion does lead to God. They just don't lead to your God. They lead to the gods that they believe in.

[00:12:06]>> If I say to you, half the religions lead to God, is that a truth claim? Sure it is. I'm saying half are right, half are wrong. That's a truth claim.

[00:12:15]>> It's a claim, but it clearly isn't true.

[00:12:18]All religions lead one to the god of that religion. There are no religions that lead you to the religion of another god, at least not directly. So, it is a truth claim, but it is clearly not true.

[00:12:31]Where are we going with this?

[00:12:33]When Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." Is that a truth claim?

[00:12:40]>> No, it's two truth claims. The first is that Jesus said that. The second is that it's true. I can't say with any certainty that either one of those is true, especially not the second one.

[00:12:53]>> Yeah, it sure is. You see, Logan, we all make truth claims. But what about the people who in a sense have never even been given the opportunity to accept.

[00:13:02]>> Unfortunately, we don't get to find out what the point was supposed to be.

[00:13:06]Brandon cuts in here. Logan's question wasn't about whether or not Christianity makes truth claims. He asked if intolerance was rooted in Christianity.

[00:13:16]I think the point Cliff was trying to make is that all religions are intolerant because they all make truth claims. But that doesn't follow. I make the claim that trans rights are human rights. That is a truth claim, but it isn't an intolerant claim. No one is excluded. It asks everyone to embrace equal rights for transgender people. It doesn't exclude anyone from being permitted to embrace the transgender community. Nor does it force anyone into acceptance. Truth claims are not by nature intolerant. But what about the people who in a sense have never even been given the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus?

[00:13:58]>> And note the hedging. In a sense, what sense would that be, Brandon? Has the person who grew up in a sect you don't think is saved like the Mormon church?

[00:14:08]Has such a person ever been given such an opportunity? How about a person raised in a Muslim country, a Hindu country, a Buddhist country? Even if these people have heard of Jesus, have they ever heard anything that would persuade them that your claims are true?

[00:14:26]Those are two entirely different things.

[00:14:28]I have heard of Buddhism, but I don't know what Buddhist people believe. I have insufficient information to form an opinion on any truth claims made in that religion. Does that mean that I have rejected Buddhism? No. I simply lack any interest in exploring the religion. I haven't heard anything that would persuade me that I need to consider it.

[00:14:50]Have these people in a sense heard the gospel? Have they rejected it? Or did they not hear anything that anyone would consider persuasive?

[00:14:59]>> This is John Lyn's answer to that question.

[00:15:02]>> Can God send people to hell for their beliefs and values if they were born into a family in atheist Europe or a remote tribe in Papua New Guinea? How are they expected to find true faith?

[00:15:14]Before we get to Lennox's answer, I'd like to point out that I have been playing along with the Christians framing of the question, which I don't agree with. The Christians keep framing the question as if it is humans that are seeking a relationship with God. And thus, humans have the responsibility to find God. There is a great game of cosmic hideand seek going on. And humans are it. God is hiding and it is our responsibility to go and find him. But if God is the God that he claims to be, this is backwards. If there is a God that wants a relationship with humans, the responsibility is on God to create that relationship. And you say that God gave you a hint as to where he is hiding by giving you all a Bible. a Bible that leaves you all so confused about the hiding spot that you can't agree on what it is even after you claim to have found it or that God left a clue in a sunset or in the trees. A clue so vague that humans can't even agree on what it is that God is supposed to have left in the clue. No, none of these rises to the level of creating a relationship. If there is a God that wants a relationship with humans, then it is God's responsibility to give each human he wants a relationship with enough persuasive information that is clear as to who he is and what it is he wants. If the only thing that God has done is leave clues as to who he is and where he can be found, he isn't interested in a relationship. He's only interested in a game of hideand seek. Worse, because he's supposed to be all knowing, he knows in advance who will and who will not find him. Yet still, he provides less than is necessary for belief in the vast majority of humanity, resulting, as he knew in advance, in the eternal condemnation of the vast majority of humanity. Here's an even better question. Why make people you intend to hide from all their lives only to condemn them for not finding you at their deaths?

[00:17:23]This seems a cruel God.

[00:17:25]>> The framing of the question is loaded.

[00:17:28][laughter] [snorts] Can God send people?

[00:17:34]Gives a curious picture of God, doesn't it? Because, and again, I find Lewis so helpful in analyzing this. It is very interesting, isn't it, that in the New Testament, Jesus talked about hell to religious bigots, not children. And Lewis's point is this. Suppose I say no to God. Should God honor my choice or not?

[00:18:00]>> Lennox is assuming that he ever had a choice in the first place. If the only thing that I know about Jesus is that he's the central figure of a religion in a far-off country, someone not worshiped by my religion, my people, or my culture. What choice did I ever make about Jesus? not to try and learn more about who he is supposed to be. Sure, but what reason did I ever have to do that? Again, Lennox assumes that the onus is on humans that humans have a responsibility to go and find God. I repeat the question, is there a God that wants a relationship with humans? If a God wants a relationship, it is on him to initiate that relationship. [gasps] That's how relationships work. Imagine a man that wants to know a woman deciding that it is the woman's responsibility to find him and initiate the relationship.

[00:18:56]When he hides from her, why would she seek him out? She doesn't even know who he is. That a person has heard that some people worship Jesus is not God initiating a relationship any more than my hypothetical man having a friend to tell the woman that he exists.

[00:19:14]So what if he exists? What reason does that give the woman to think that he wants a relationship?

[00:19:21]This man that never speaks to the woman, never goes to her, never initiates contact, does not display any evidence of wanting a relationship. If the onus is on humans to create the relationship, you have already given up on your Bible and the character of your God. The Bible would not be true when it claims that God doesn't want any to perish. when it claims that he wants all to believe and God would not be allloving. God would be clearly showing favoritism to those that he caused to be born where they would hear and be raised in the correct gospel. God would be racist, favoring those in the Western world and disfavoring those in Asia and Africa. Is that what your God is? A racist who favors white people >> or should he reverse it? You see, the whole point about love and relationship is the ability to say yes or no.

[00:20:16]>> Perfect. The whole point about a love relationship is the ability to say yes or no. If the person asking you to love them tells you that if you say no, you will be tortured for an eternity. Do you have the ability to say no? Sure, you still have the ability to say the word.

[00:20:35]And yes, you could choose death. And this is not a choice to love or not to love. It is a choice to submit to the threat or the choice not to. One who submits under duress under a threat of death is not choosing to love you. Sure, most believers say they love their God, and many of them really do. But they don't think that they choose to believe because they submitted to a threat. And yet that is what they ask the unbeliever who is old enough to reason for herself to do. That is what believers tell me in my comments that I will be sorry when I die. Do you think making veiled threats is persuasive? And if I do decide to follow your God because of the threat, is that love? No. It's submission to a vindictive bully. If there is a God that wants me to love him, he needs to tell me so, not send someone to deliver a threat of what he will do if I don't.

[00:21:36]Tell me, Dr. Lennin, have you ever loved someone because they threatened you?

[00:21:41]Take the threat off the table, then there can be a chance to say yes or no.

[00:21:46]And therefore, if someone examines the claims of Christ and as they did in his day, they watched him restore people to sanity and they saw evidence of God at work and they said, "Go away." That's what he did. He went away. Now, that going away, if God goes away in the big scale, if I ultimately say, "God, get out of my universe." What that leaves me with is of course, well, unimaginable.

[00:22:10]>> I disagree. I easily see a universe with no God. Animals have no god and they survive just fine. This universe survived teeming with life for billions of years before humans came along and made up gods to explain it. Secular countries are reported to be the happiest, most educated, most prosperous and least crimeridden countries in the world. A universe without God is exactly what we need. But we need not ask God to leave. There was no God to ask. Rather, we need only persuade the believers that their God isn't real. If no one believed, there would be no God. God exists only in the minds of believers.

[00:22:52]>> I think it's what the Bible means by hell. It's very real. But it's the consequence of people having their own choice. It pains God, but God will honor your choice.

[00:23:03]>> What choice? If God knows before you exist what choice you will make and God has the ability to make you any way that he wants you, does God not have the ability to make only the people that he knows will choose him? Second, does God not know what everyone needs in order to believe? If he has such knowledge and the ability to give it to a person, why doesn't he? Wouldn't the loving thing to do be to tell someone what they need, not just some vague idea of who a god could be based on seeing a sunset?

[00:23:39]Finally, if God knows before he makes a person that the person will choose not to believe, would not the loving thing be to not make that person?

[00:23:50]>> Otherwise, God would be a despot trampling over your choice. And it seems to me this is one of the most impressive things about Christianity actually that God doesn't blast in with huge Star Wars like power and laser guns and all the rest of it. He comes in such a simple fashion that humble people can invite him in for a glass of wine or a cup of tea or whatever it was those days and get to know him and make up their mind.

[00:24:18]>> How so? If God chooses not to make people that won't choose him, how is that trampling over your choice? You still have the same choice whether I exist or not. What is trampling over your choice? Is God making a person knowing advance what choice she will make? Not what choice she could make, but what choice she will make. She has no choice. If there is an omnisient God that made her, she only has the illusion of choice. If Jesus existed, that would have been true for a very limited time.

[00:24:51]This opportunity would have been given to very few people and no one that had such an experience left us with anything to tell us about it. Did this ever happen? If so, how would you know? So, that's one part of the question. The other part was people growing up and so on. Well, here now it's a matter of evidence. And some people have a very curious view of God, which also lies behind the question, will God condemn a person for not responding to evidence they've never had? Of course not.

[00:25:24]>> Cool. So, the unevangelized, the missangelized, and the under evangelized all get a pass. They somehow find the narrow way without ever having been told.

[00:25:38]Doesn't your Bible say just the opposite? that few find the narrow way, that the vast majority all die and go to hell.

[00:25:47]>> How could you possibly believe in a god who was fundamentally immoral?

[00:25:52]>> And yet you do. You believe in a god that allows children to be mauled to death by bears for calling a prophet baldy. He allows women to be raped for the sins of David, their husband. You believe in a god that endorses child slavery. You believe in a God that is fundamentally immoral.

[00:26:11]>> God judges people on the basis of evidence they've had, not on evidence they haven't had. You see that all through the Bible.

[00:26:20]>> Really? Give us an example of a person or people group that was spared because they didn't know about what God wanted.

[00:26:28]I'll give you one. The story of Jonah.

[00:26:31]Does he have anything else?

[00:26:33]>> I expect, you know, one day to meet Abraham. We're going to have a very interesting conversation because I don't understand all that he did in his life and I'm going to ask him a few things.

[00:26:42]But Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. He knew almost nothing of Christ and nothing at all about Jesus.

[00:26:51]>> But he allegedly talked directly to God.

[00:26:54]Of course, he believed in a person that talked to him personally, someone who bargained with him for the life of his nephew. What of all the people in China in the day of Abraham or India or in the Americas? None of them have any reason to believe in your God. They have never heard of your God. Is it counted to them as righteousness if they serve their own gods? Well, don't bother. We all know the answer is no.

[00:27:20]>> That is, he believed at the level the evidence was presented to him. Now there's evidence according to scripture not only in scripture but in creation that people can respond and it's very interesting re reading the history of Christian missions how sometimes people have stumbled on a tribe and they're just in responding to nature monotheistic and believing there is a god there there is evidence around >> evidence that they believe in a god true but there is no evidence none whatsoever cover of anyone believing in your God if they have never heard of your God. It even says so in your Bible. How can they believe if they do not hear and how can they hear if no one preaches to them?

[00:28:08]Neither Judaism nor Christianity has ever sprung up suisponte. Unless you plan to make the case that your God is willing to accept people into heaven for believing in a god, your claim has no merit. I believe with all my heart that God doesn't condemn people for not responding to evidence they haven't had.

[00:28:29]There's a question that always comes on top of that and and I might as well say something about it because I'll be besieged and shot at afterwards if I don't mention it. People say, "Well, then why bother to do mission? Why bother to propagate the gospel?" Well, because Christ commanded it. That's why.

[00:28:46]>> Does that not make Christ a fool? Why command the gospel to be preached to people he knows will reject it knowing also that this will result in horrendous suffering? Does not a loving God keep the gospel from them so that they can all go to heaven? According to what you have just said, Dr. Lennox, all roads lead to God. One can go to your God's heaven regardless of what God they worship. Heaven doesn't require belief in your God. What is required? And what of the under evangelized, the missangelized? Did they get a pass because the preaching was botched?

[00:29:24]>> I don't uh propagate Christianity uh because I've solved a complex problem and how much evidence you have had or have not had. As I look at you, it's very interesting. We're a western audience. This is a country where many people go to church. But some in the audience may know less about Christianity than folks in Papio and New Guinea that you mentioned.

[00:29:46]Ah, he is going to address what I asked.

[00:29:48]Cool.

[00:29:50]>> So, I try to present the evidence to increase the the the delight that people have to respond to.

[00:29:58]>> The key word there is try. Is it effective? Did you tell the people what they needed to hear or only what you wanted to say? If the claims of Christianity were true and you had the Holy Spirit in you guiding you in all truth, you would know exactly what to say. The Holy Spirit who has all knowledge would know what each person in your audience needed to hear and you could tell them. You would not need to guess as to what to say. You would know.

[00:30:29]But this doesn't happen, does it? No.

[00:30:31]Holy Spirit prompts you as to what to say. I actually had an experience just like this myself. I was a believer and was on the phone with my mom, an unbeliever, and the topic of Christianity came up. I silently asked the Holy Spirit to give me the words to say to my mother so that she would know.

[00:30:51]And you know what? I got nothing. I thought I heard a message that was saying that there was nothing that I could possibly say that would convince her.

[00:31:02]What I didn't think about then, but should have, was, how does an Almighty God not know what my mom needed to hear in order to believe? If it wasn't a matter of me telling her something, why was this Almighty God not doing whatever it took? Send her a ghost. Send her someone smarter than me, go to her himself, whatever it took. Did God not care about my mother?

[00:31:28]But unfortunately, the believer is conditioned to never question God. Never ask what it is that God could do if he really was God to solve the problem. And above all, never ever ask, "Does God not love this person enough to want to save them?" If God knows the message being sent isn't going to be effective, what the hell is he doing? Not only is he not saving the person, but he's giving the messenger reason to doubt, to doubt their worthiness to be used by God, to doubt their ability to hear God's message, and above all, to doubt God's love for the intended convert. Lennox should be asking himself, if he's trying to convert people, why is God not giving him an effective message? Instead, he blames the victim. the victim didn't choose to accept the message. The funniest part is when you ask the apologist if the arguments they make should be persuasive to the unbeliever.

[00:32:31]Most of them agree that they are not.

[00:32:33]Their intended target is the faithful.

[00:32:36]Just like Brandon here, his video is aimed at the faithful despite his claim that Lennox can carry the ball all the way into the end zone.

[00:32:46]>> [cheering] >> Green.

[00:32:49]Among Green in a foot race.

[00:32:52]Tony Dixon, the only one who can try and get him. And he won't.

[00:32:57]>> Brandon knows he cannot. Lennox knows he cannot. The best they have is if I'm unconvincing, it's your fault.

[00:33:07]>> The other thing you say, well, that's not that's not the most streamlined method. That's not the most um efficient method. Couldn't God just appear instantaneously to every nation, tongue, and tribe all at once and just say, "I'm God. Yes or no, except to reject me?"

[00:33:20]And you think, "Well, yeah, theoretically, I could imagine a scenario where he could do that."

[00:33:24]>> Cool. So, why doesn't he?

[00:33:26]>> But if I think if we think that that scenario is better than the scenario that we're currently in, then what we're really saying is that we know better than God, that our thoughts are higher than his thoughts, that our ways are higher.

[00:33:38]>> Brandon, is God's plan working?

[00:33:41]Twothirds of the world are not believers. So clearly it is not. Even if appearing to everyone personally isn't the best plan, surely if your God is all knowing, he could come up with a plan that works. No. Or is his plan to let most of humanity be damned. Judging from your Bible, that would appear to be the case. Why do you worship this God that has no compassion for most of the human race?

[00:34:07]>> Bottom line is this. We don't exactly know how everything is going to be just and good and fair and even merciful, but we know that God is all of those things.

[00:34:18]>> That's just presuppositionalism.

[00:34:21]If you have to presuppose that your God is just and fair and merciful in order to show that he is just and fair and merciful, then you have no evidence to support your claim. The big question now becomes, why do you presuppose your God to be just and fair and merciful?

[00:34:39]Because you want it to be this way. I too would like the world to be that way.

[00:34:44]But pretending it is or imagining a being that will one day make it so does not make it so.

[00:34:51]>> Make it so, Mr. Leforge.

[00:34:52]>> Especially one that gives you no reason to think it ever will.

[00:34:56]>> We know that God loves people because the gospel is true. Because he died for people. We know that he's willing to go to great lengths in order to save people.

[00:35:06]>> You know, God loves people. You know, God died for people.

[00:35:11]According to the Calvinist, he only died for some people. If his alleged death only saves a few, did he really die for all people or just a few people? And did he ever die? Was your God at any point dead? If all he did was shed a temporary shell that took on the form of human flesh, did he die or did he mol?

[00:35:33]>> So, I think that that all has to be held in view when we look at the unreached people groups because I think that it's easy to kind of project and say, "Oh, that's not just, that's not kind, that's not good, that's not loving." But we should question the assumption within how everything is going to play out when we know if the gospel is true that God is all of those things. And so I am very confident that there will not be a scenario at the end of time when we're standing before God and we finally see the whole picture revealed and we go, "Man, the way that you went about bringing the gospel to the nations was totally inefficient and totally immoral and totally wrong." No, no one's going to say that. We're all going to look at God's plan when we understand it properly and marvel at his brilliance.

[00:36:17]>> Will you though if your children are burning in hell because they didn't believe? Are you going to be standing there marveling at God's brilliance and bringing that about? Or is your memory of your children that are being tortured for eternity going to be wiped from your mind so that you cannot see the cruelty and injustice of it all? Some apologists tell us that it will be the case that humans in heaven will forget loved ones in hell. Is that really just so God can hide his cruelty and injustice from his followers to keep up the illusion of being kind and fair and just? Is there anything kind or fair or just about eternal torture? Anyone thinks that this is brilliant is not thinking clearly.

[00:37:03]There is your daily dose of wisdom >> in terms of how he both contended against the downsides of human free will while maximized the upside in the participation of humanity in the divine mission of God. We're going to marvel at the at the brilliance and the genius of God at achieving the greatest good for the people that he loves. I mean >> exactly now you have arrived at Calvinism. He achieves good only for the people that he loves. He doesn't love most people. He made them condemned before they were even born through original sin. He chose not to reveal himself in an effective way to those people because they are not the people that he loves. Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. Anyone that thinks this is brilliant is seriously lacking in the compassion and empathy departments. And who else h how else could we possibly assess it when when uh when everything that we would use to judge him by has been given to us by him but is itself see uh seen through a glass dimly.

[00:38:11]>> Cool. My ability to see how evil a god would have to be to be the way you claim him to be was given to me by your god.

[00:38:22]Could it be Brandon that I am the one who sees your god clearly and not you?

[00:38:28]And life is really short.

[00:38:30]>> Absolutely. So don't waste it on a god that doesn't care enough about people to tell people what it is that he wants and who he really is. Perhaps that is his way of saying live your life.

[00:38:55][music]