“There is no truth.”…Is that statement true? Is it true that there is no truth? You can see the problem immediately. The claim that there is no truth is self-refuting. Since it self-destructs, nothing more is needed to dispatch the challenge than to simply point out the problem.

I stumbled on an old, yellowed document in my drawer in the recording studio at the STR office recently. It listed 83 challenges that come up frequently for believers that many Christians don’t know how to respond to when confronted with them.

As I looked over the list, though, it occurred to me that many of those challenges required only a simple response that could easily be learned by Christians who want to be ready for them. Consequently, I’ve decided to devote a few issues of Solid Ground to answering some of those concerns, giving my responses as if I were fielding them in a “rapid-fire” challenge session with skeptics.

Some of my answers may surprise you. Here they are, in no particular order.

“It’s wrong to judge others.”

Well, that depends.

Yes, Jesus does say in Matthew 7:1, “Do not judge.” It’s one of the few passages skeptics seem convinced is genuinely inspired since they cite it so often against Christians. The problem for the challenger is that Jesus doesn’t stop with those three words. He qualifies his command.

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” and behold, the log is your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matt. 7:3–5)

In this passage, Jesus does not condemn all judgments. Indeed, his own directive is a moral judgment—as is the skeptic’s scolding that we shouldn’t judge. Rather, Jesus is taking issue with a certain kind of arrogant condescension characteristic of religious leaders of that time. They were quick with criticism for minor offenses, yet their own lives were steeped in vice. To Jesus, this was nothing more than rank hypocrisy.

A judgment is an assessment. Sometimes it’s entirely proper to render an assessment on behavior, especially wicked conduct. Jesus himself regularly upbraided the people for their evil (e.g., John 7:7, Matt. 23:13–33). Sometimes it’s right for us to do so, as well. In those cases, Jesus would approve.

In short, Jesus is not condemning all judgments. Rather, he’s instructing on how to judge properly. In his own words, “Judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

“Does faith save?”

No, it doesn’t. Faith itself accomplishes nothing.

The notion that faith saves is a common misconception among Protestants, but it’s easily rectified with an illustration. Imagine venturing out on a frozen lake with full faith and confidence that the surface will bear your weight. Will that profound belief alone keep you safe? No. If you’ve stepped out on thin ice, you’re heading for a cold soaking no matter how unshakable your conviction is.

The world is filled with people overflowing with unwavering religious belief. Yet their confidence will be useless if that which they’ve trusted in has no ability to save them. They’ve strayed onto thin ice.

Faith by itself, no matter how strong, cannot rectify false hope. It benefits nothing. As I have written elsewhere, “If we are reaching out with the hand of faith to grasp a fantasy, then there will be no one there to rescue us, no matter how strong or sincere our faith is.”[1]

Though sola fide—“faith alone”—is part of the bedrock of our Christian confession, its point is to distinguish trust in Christ from personal merit. Works don’t rescue us; Jesus does. “Sola fide” reminds us that faith is the lone means of connecting to the redeemer who gathers us to himself and saves us. When we rely on Jesus rather than our own efforts, we find safety. He does for us what we could never do for ourselves. Jesus is thick ice.

To be most precise, then, we should say that Jesus saves us, not our faith, but he saves us through our faith. Our salvation is not grounded on our faith. It is grounded on the capable rescuer in whom we place our trust.

“You can’t legislate morality.”

If morality is not the basis for the proper use of legislative power, then what is? Personal whim? The interests of the elite? The private preferences of those in power? The fact is that morality is the only thing we can justifiably legislate.

Aristotle observed that all law rests upon the necessary foundation of morality. Legitimate legislation enlists the power of government to advance the common good. Law not based on morality is tyranny.

Note the preamble of the US Constitution—the legal document establishing the mechanism for proper legislative action for our national community. It’s thick with moral intention:

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Of course, not every moral good can be legislated. It would not be possible for governments to compel every virtue and prohibit and punish every vice. Nevertheless, every law that is enacted must be intended as a vehicle for moral purpose, or else it is illicit.

“An acorn is not an oak. Therefore, a fetus is not a human being.”

Prolifers frequently encounter this canard. It’s an attempt to parry their case that abortion is morally inexcusable because it takes the life of an innocent human being. I call it a canard because it’s erroneous and misleading.

The error becomes obvious when you ask a simple question: If an acorn is not an oak, then what is it? It’s a seed, of course. Yes, but what kind of seed? An oak seed, obviously. In other words, an acorn is an oak in the seed stage, its sprout is an oak in the sapling stage, and the full-grown tree is an oak in the mature stage. An oak goes through different stages of development over time, to be sure, but it remains what it is—an oak—from beginning to end.

The same insight applies to a fetus. What kind of fetus is it? It’s a human fetus. That individual human will progress from fetal stage to newborn stage to adolescent stage to adult stage, yet it remains the same individual human being from beginning to end—from conception to adulthood. Every living thing looks different at different stages of its development, yet it still remains itself throughout the process.

All this claim amounts to is that earlier stages of the development of a living thing are not the same as later stages of the development of that living thing. Simply put, an infant is not an adult. This is true, of course, but it’s a trivial observation that’s irrelevant to the question of the humanity of a fetus.

Terms like zygote, embryo, fetus, etc., are purely human inventions marking general stages of biological development. Embryology—and common sense—tells us that the very same individual is present at each stage, regardless of the arbitrary terms we use to distinguish the stages.

“All views have equal value, and none should be considered better than another.”

This is a claim about opposing views and how we should treat them. The claim is that we should treat all views as equally meritorious.

Here’s my question: Is this claim a view? Of course it is. The claim, then, applies to itself just as much as it does to views that compete with it.

Surprisingly, the challenger is offering a view that he thinks is superior to the opposite notion that some views have more merit than others. Fair enough. The moment he does, though, he falls on his own sword since the view he’s advancing is equally deadly to itself.

For a challenger to be consistent in advancing the view that all views have equal value and none should be considered better than another, he would have to immediately affirm its opposite—that all views do not have equal value and some are better than others—since both, according to him, have equal merit.

This, of course, is nonsense. The claim is hopelessly contradictory. It can’t be taken seriously since it negates itself.

“Can a non-Christian go to Heaven if he is sincere in his beliefs?”

Most people hold their beliefs—whatever they happen to be—with complete sincerity. Their sincerity, though, cannot make those beliefs true. Some people have accurate beliefs, and some do not. The difference matters.

When it comes to the spiritual truth of salvation, sincerity cannot rescue. Note the apostle Paul’s lament about his brethren, the Jews:

Read More