"I know what is best for me.  Now at last I am beginning to be a disciple.  May nothing visible or invisible envy me, so that I may reach Jesus Christ.  Fire and cross and battles with wild beast, mutilation, mangling, wrenching of bones, the hacking of limbs, the crushing of my whole body, cruel tortures of the devil—let these come upon me, only let me reach Jesus Christ!

Neither the ends of the earth nore the kingdoms of this age are of any use to me.  It is better for me to die for Jesus Christ than to rule over the end of the earth.  Him I seek, who died on our behalf; him I long for, who rose again for our sake." (translation by Holmes, Michael.  The Apostolic Fathers in English 3rd Ed.)

Lamentations 3:64-66 "Pay them back what they deserve, O Lord, according to what they have done. Give them a distraught heart; may your curse be on them! Pursue them in anger and eradicate them from under the Lord's heaven."

How do we reconcile these words with the words of Jesus in Matthew 5?

Matthew 5:43-44 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor' and 'hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you"

What we understand from the nature of scripture is that it is inspired by God, so do we have a problem here?  Is there a contradiction?

What we see in Lamentations is Jeremiah emotionally pleading with the Lord to have mercy on the people.  He has moments when he realizes that Jerusalem has brought this on herself and also acknowledges that the Lord is just in his judgments (Lamentations 3:21-40).  He also has moments when he sins and curses his enemies as he blames them for the judgment caused by the sin of Israel.

At the writing of this book it appears that the Lord had gone silent (2:9) as his judgment of Jerusalem continued.  So we have the words of Jeremiah as he struggles with the wrath of God, and also trying to pray the wrath of God on those nations persecuting them.

The book of Lamentations being inspired does not exclude it from documenting truthfully the wrong thinking of Jeremiah.  The book of Lamentations is inspired scripture, Jeremiah was moved by the Spirit to write what God wanted written.  It is free from error and truthfully tells of Jeremiah's state experiencing God's judgment. 

But Jeremiah was still a sinner as were all the writers of scripture.  Remember Job and how he also accused the Lord of wrong doing?  We see a similar thing in Lamentations.  What is written is for our learning (2 Tim 3:16); Jeremiah had moments of failure when he suffered discipline from the Lord. 

May God give us the grace to respond to his discipline correctly and still love those who are used by God to discipline us.

Pastor Tom Chantry (http://crbcviews.blogspot.com/) has raised valid concerns over the pulpit tactics of many evangelical churches where speakers share personal stories and exude a celebrity persona rather than faithfully exegete the text of Scripture.  We all have a responsibility not to promote this behaviour in Christian circles.
Dr. James White (http://aomin.org/) has raised valid concerns that Muslims witness this and see through the lies and attribute such tactics to Christianity in general.  He also stresses that truth and consistency is vital and I fully agree.
Pastor Wade Burleson (http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/) writes that this has tarnished Liberty University and he can no longer recommend students to attend there.

What has also struck me (and has been alluded to by others) is how renowned Christian apologists Norman Geisler (http://www.normangeisler.net/) and to a lesser extent John Ankerberg (http://ankerberg.com/) have defended the lies of Ergun Caner in opposition to a mountain of evidence.  Legal documents, video, and audio recordings all demonstrate Caner being caught in a web of lies concerning his past.

These two men have written many books and articles defending the Christian faith and demonstrating that the evidence supports Christian belief and does not contradict it.  But what we have in this case is both of these men wanting us to believe them contrary to clear, current and irrefutable evidence.  We can see that their bias and friendship is keeping them from seeing the evidence for what it so clearly shows.  What does this do to their reputation?  To their previous works defending the Christian truth claims?

What it does is call their past work into question.  If they can stare the facts in the face (assuming they have seen the evidence against Ergun Caner) and pass off the evidence as simple "misstatements" then how could they be trusted in dealing with evidence concerning other matters?  They can't.  Which leads to a number of problems.

To those people who are not Christian, this proves to them that Christians are dishonest with the facts.  Why believe the claim that evidence supports the resurrection of Christ, when they've been so blind to the evidence in this case?  To those who are Christian, how do we know that Dr. Geisler was dealing truthfully with Scripture when he wrote books like "Chosen But Free", was he blinded by his bias and unable to deal with Scripture accurately and consistently?

Even if we grant that they haven't looked closely at the evidence against Ergun Caner, how can we suppose they've looked closely at the evidence concerning their apologetic works?  Maybe they missed evidence crucial to their topic?

While we do not want to invalidate their past works by this one incident, it does force us to be more critical then normal when dealing with their past works.  Perhaps not even consulting them at all but instead consulting others who have a better track record of being a more reliable source.

We all have a bias, no doubt about it; but the task of someone dealing with evidence is to try and understand their own bias so we can interpret the evidence as truthfully as possible.  The ability to do this is necessary for an apologist.  I'm afraid that in this case Normal Geisler and John Ankerberg have shown that their bias can get the better of them and blind them of the truth.

Truth in all areas of life is the Christian way, and repentance must follow when we sin.  Many Christians and non-Christians are watching this ordeal and I'm afraid as the sin of one man festers, Christendom as a whole suffers.

Not too long ago I was asked this by a Muslim friend of mine: "Is it possible that the Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace be upon him) was an Messenger  from Allah and why or why not?"

My response was as follows:

• True prophets are protected from error when delivering God's message. (Deut 18:22) If there is one error, that is enough to disqualify someone as a prophet.  This includes predictions of the future and also historical events.  One example: In terms of history one aya (4:157) in the Quran stands on its own testifying against many historical facts about Jesus' crucifixion on a cross.
• True prophets do not contradict existing revelation.  The New Testament contains approximately 225 direct quotations of the Old Testament (Tanakh) or 280 if you count paraphrases.  The New Testament writers were extremely familiar with the Old Testament and the revelation of Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies (which is why there are so many references).  This shows the continuity of God's revelation and how the Hebrew and Christian scriptures are supplementary and not contradictory.  The Quran has contradictions (most notably about who Jesus Christ is and what he did) and a discontinuity compared to God's former revelations.
• The Bible is sufficient, there is no need for further revelation.  The Bible says in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 "you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."  There is nothing else we need besides the Scriptures given to us in the time of Jesus.  They are able to give us wisdom leading to salvation and make us complete for every good work.

With words like 'any' and 'all', we have to look at the context because with words like 'any' and 'all' there is usually a qualifier. I did a search for all the places in the NT referring to "all men" and in each case the context dictates what is meant by all men. For some examples of this we'll quickly go through some other verses with 'all men' in them.

John 1:7 "The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." Everyone (except for a universalist) knows that 'all men' is qualified to all types of men. Jew, Greek, rich, poor, all men believe through Christ.  One God for all men.

John 3:26 "And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him."  Did every single person go to John? No, but all types of men, all kinds.

Romans 5:18 "even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." We aren't universalists, so all men is qualified. Jew, Greek, master, slave, rich, poor... all men.

2 Corinthians 3:2 "Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men."   Does he mean every single person?

1 Timothy 4:10 "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."  Again, we aren't universalists, so we qualify the 'all men', specifically those who believe.

'All men' must be considered carefully from a grammatical viewpoint and also from a historical viewpoint.  Realizing that there was much enmity between Jew and Greek, master and slave, etc.

Both camps, Calvinists or non-Calvinists qualify 'all men', 'any', 'world', etc... What I want to show is that the context in 1 Timothy 2 dictates that all men means all kinds/types of men.

Lets read verse 1 to 6 to get the immediate context. Now in verse one Paul exhorts the church to pray for all men. Is this 'all men' every single person? Every living person? (since we don't pray for the dead). Verse 2 gives us the context, Paul lists some types of men, kings and those in authority. Paul wants them to pray for all kinds of men and not to ignore certain types of people who we think are not deserving of prayer. In this case those in authority were persecuting, jailing and killing Christians, but Paul exhorts them to pray. Knowing that if they are saved, it will lead a quite and peaceable life.

He continues in verse 3, "for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God". God wants us to pray for those in authority, and wants all men to be saved. (verse 4) Again the context here is praying for those in authority that they might be saved. God does not discriminate between position, race or status.

Verse 5 continues the same thought explaining that there is one God and one mediator. No matter who you are, king or not, there is one God for all. Who gave himself a ransom for all (verse 6). The 'alls' in this context is referring to all kinds of men, we aren't to be discriminate in our prayers, there is the same God and mediator for us as there is for the king. "For there is no respect of persons with God." (Romans 2:11)

The claimed problem for Calvinists—if God desires everyone to be saved, then how would that ever work with unconditional election?

Some would say (ie. John MacArthur) that this is God's will of desire, he desires that everyone would be saved, but that it is not his decreed will. I don't agree with this position here (as I don't believe it can be found in the context) and as God does NOT desire that everyone would be saved (Romans 9:22). God reveals Himself for His own glory, He reveals that He is loving, merciful and gracious through salvation, but He also is a just God and a God of wrath. If everyone was saved, then those attributes of God would not be known, God would not be revealing His full glory.

Having said that, let's go to the text. I won't put the entire text here, but please open up 2 Peter 3 as I go through it (reading 2 Peter 3:1-10 gives enough of the context). First, this letter is written to believers (2 Peter 1:1), and chapter 3 opens with Peter's address to the 'beloved' (2 Peter 3:3). So, if we follow the pronouns, the 'you' and 'ye' are referring to the 'beloved', the believers. In verse 3 Peter introduces the 'scoffers' or mockers—those who doubt the promise of God and His coming. These mockers are the 'they' in verse 5. These mockers are saying 'Where is the Lord? Things are the same now as they've always been.'  They are mocking the promise of Christ and that He would return.

In verse 8, Peter addresses the 'beloved' again and reminds them that time is not an issue for God, and in verse 9 tells us that he is not being slack, but longsuffering to us. He is being patient. Why is He being patient? Because He is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Now in verse 10, Peter continues to talk about the Lord's coming. In fact the entire context is about the Lord's coming, not salvation. In light of this, when Peter says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, first he is addressing the 'beloved' and second, he is talking about the Lord's coming.

God is patient towards those who haven't yet believed on Him, He is waiting for His elect to come, not willing that any should perish. That is why he tarries and is patient regarding His coming. As soon as the last of the elect come to Him, then the Lord will return.

If the Lord returned 5 years ago, those saved in the last 5 years would have perished. Instead God is patient towards us, not willing that any should perish.

It's completely consistent with Revelation 6:9-11 when those martyred for the word of God ask 'Why don't you judge and avenge us?' and the Lord told them "rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." They asked the same question... why do you tarry Lord? Because he is waiting, not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance.

If we take the Arminian/Synergist view point and we read 'any' and 'all' as every single person, then God is waiting because he doesn't want a single person to perish, but wants every single person to repent. If this is the case, Christ would never return.

You can go directly to the audio page by clicking here.  As with the previous posts, my notes are posted there.

The conclusion drawn from the question: "Why won't God heal amputees?", led this website to conclude that God is imaginary.  Their argument is based on a number of assumptions that I discussed in the first article in this series.  We saw that their first assumption was not completely valid; lets look at the second assumption now.

Assumption #2: The Bible clearly commands us to pray for healing and promises that if we have faith and pray for healing, then God will heal.

Is this assumption valid?  Many Christians would say that this is true, the Bible does teach that if you have faith and ask God for healing, he will heal.  The website http://whywontgodhealamputees.com listed a number of Bible verses to support this assumption.  We'll look at the most significant of the Biblical passages relating to prayer and healing—James 5:14-15

James 5:14-15 says "Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him."

Looking at this passage closely the following can be noticed:

1. The person who is sick is not told to pray, but instead to call for the elders, the leaders of the church and they (the leaders) would pray over him.  The book of James was written around 45 AD, during this time period there are reports of a gift of healing that some apostles and church leaders had.  Could this verse be indicating that these leaders had the apostolic gift of healing?
2. "It says 'Is anyone among you sick?', not 'Is anyone among you an amputee?'!"  I actually read this on another Christian website in response to this very same question, but this is far from a valid rebuttal.  We know from the New Testament records that people who were sick, blind, lame, disfigured, and dead were healed.
3. Does this verse apply to every single Christian?  James is addressing his letter to "the twelve tribes spread abroad."  We have to be careful when assuming everything written can be applied to everyone in every context.  The time of the apostles was a special time when some men had the ability to heal through the power of God.  Today, Christian leaders do not have this ability, we go to the hospital when we are sick, not our Pastor.

So what can we gather from these two verses?  We can see that people were taught to seek the leaders for healing, and in this special time in history when Jesus has just been resurrected, when the New Testament was being revealed, many miraculous acts were being done (including healing) to demonstrate to the people that the message of the New Testament was true and that it was from God.  Part of the miraculous signs included healing of those who were blinded, disfigured and even those who were dead.  None of these healings can be explained by coincidence or science, which is precisely the evidence called for by http://whywontgodhealamputees.com and we have reliable eye-witness accounts of these miracles.

The next and obvious question would be: "So why don't we see this kind of healing today?  Why don't todays church leaders have the ability to heal?"  The number one reason for no miraculous healing today is that revelation is not being given today.  The Bible is a completed book, it is attested by the miracles and wonders done by those who penned it's pages.  Those who claim to have a new message from God in recent history have no miracles which demonstrate that their message is from God.  The signs of the apostles ceased in the 1st century after their message was confirmed.

Is Assumption #2 Invalid?

In James 5 we see that the assumption "The Bible clearly commands us to pray for healing and promises that if we have faith and pray for healing, then God will heal" is not supported.  In future posts, we'll look at the other scripture verses cited in their argument and see if they offer additional insight into prayer for the sick, lame, blind and the amputee.

Their argument contains the following assumptions:

1. If amputees aren't healed, then God is imaginary and doesn't exist.
2. The Bible clearly commands us to pray for healing and promises that if we have faith and pray for healing, then God will heal.
3. God must use supernatural means to answer prayer.  ie) The laws of nature/physics/chemistry must be broken or else coincidence can be a possible explanation.
4. An amputee has never been healed or no limb has ever been regenerated.

Assumption #1: If amputees aren't healed, then God is imaginary and doesn't exist.

Everyone should see that amputees not being healed does not force the conclusion that God doesn't exist.  There are a number of possibilities explaining why amputees are not healed:

1. God doesn't exist.  (Their conclusion)
2. God exists, but he can't hear or can't heal amputees.
3. God exists, hears and has the power to heal, but chooses not to.
4. God exists, hears and has the power to heal, but people lack faith.

Lets disqualify the second conclusion that God is unable to hear or unable to heal amputees, since such a being is not God.  Lets also disqualify the forth conclusion that people lack faith because surely someone would have had the faith necessary to heal an amputee.  This may not be the case (that someone has had the necessary faith) but I'm removing it from the list of possibilities since the amount of faith a person has is subjective and who chooses who has enough faith?  God would.  So we're left with the same conclusion of the third, namely, that God chooses not to.

Assumption #1 Corrected: If amputees aren't healed, then God is imaginary and doesn't exist OR God chooses not to heal them.

Over the next series of posts, I'll look at the other assumptions to see if their argument holds.

PS. For those who would also disqualify my added possibility that God chooses not to heal amputees on the grounds that this would mean God is not a good God, and therefore not God.  Our definition of goodness cannot be applied to God and the question of evil will have to wait for another day.

Series continues here: Does James teach us that prayer heals?

You can go directly to the audio page by clicking here.  As with the previous posts, my notes are posted there.

What is the context of this passage?  Going to verse 1-3 we see that Paul is reminding them of truths he has already taught them.  Telling the Philippians to beware of the false teachings and putting confidence in yourself.  He then in verses 3-6 tells them of the confidence he could (and did) have in himself.  But what is our self-righteousness worth?

What does Paul call his own righteousness? A loss and rubbish (garbage, worthless, nonsense).  What do you do with garbage?  You throw it away!

Why does Paul count them as rubbish?  So that he may gain Christ.  Do we have to see those things we've done as rubbish to gain Christ?  Yes!  In verse 3 he warns us not to put confidence in the flesh, ie. self confidence.  When Christ said that he came not for the righteous but to bring sinners to repentance he was speaking along the same lines.  Those who have confidence in their flesh, in their righteousness, cannot be saved.  Those who count all thing to be loss in light of the righteousness of Christ, then through faith in Christ we are promised a righteousness which comes from God.

Are there other passages that come to mind when we think about the value of our righteousness?  Isaiah 64:6 "all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment"

So we learned about the value of our righteousness which is garbage, worthless, and deserving to be tossed away.

What is the value of knowing Christ?  Paul calls it "surpassing value" in verse 8.  This is a big deal!  Paul had good credentials, but compared to the value of knowing Christ, they are absolutely worthless.

What is the result of knowing Christ?  Finally it is resurrection from the dead and that is acheived by the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, not a righteousness derived from the law.

How do we get the righteousness of Christ?  By repentance and faith.  Notice he counts his righteousness as loss, turning from his own deeds and turning to Christ in faith.  People do not come to Christ hanging on to their self-righteousness and their sin and want to hang on to it.

Not the labor of my hands
Can fulfill the law’s demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and Thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to thee for dress;
Helpless, look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Savior, or I die.

* Excerpt from Rock of Ages, written by Augustus M. Toplady and composed by Thomas Hastings.  Toplady wrote this hymn in response to the Arminian theology of the Wesleys.  He was involved in debates, articles and sermons over the issue of Arminianism and Calvinism between the Wesleys until his death.

You can go directly to the audio page by clicking here.  As with the previous posts, my notes are posted there.

You can go directly to the audio page by clicking here.  As with the previous posts, my notes are posted there.

You can go directly to the audio page by clicking here.  As with the previous posts, my notes are posted there.

I want to look to the Scriptures to see if this is actually something based on fact and not just argumentative fiction.  Take for example Romans 9:17-18 "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.' So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."  The capitalized portion is a quote from Exodus 9:16.  During a discussion with a Roman Catholic about election I simply quoted this verse to demonstrate the sovereignty of God — even in salvation.  The reply given by the Roman Catholic was "that is your private interpretation."  He went on to explain that without an infallible interpreter, the meaning of these texts are abused and misunderstood.

I would agree that texts can be abused and misunderstood, but an infallible interpreter?  Paul in this case is giving an interpretation of Exodus 9:16.  He quotes the verse and says "so then..." and offers the interpretation.  Now Paul is writing Scripture, Scripture is infallible, so we have here an infallible interpretation of Exodus 9:16!  Exactly what this Roman Catholic was saying that we needed!

Note how their argument collapses:  I'm using an infallible interpretation of Exodus 9:16, but I'm accused of misrepresenting the text because I am fallible.  They claim to not be able to err since they have an infallible interpreter in the Roman Church.  What they fail to see is that even if the Roman Catholic Church can give an infallible interpretation (just like Paul in Romans), the one 'interpreting' the interpretation is still fallible, and can still fall into error.  So in my case, using Paul and Romans as an infallible interpreter is invalid, but he can use the Roman Church as an infallible interpreter, even though we both are fallible.

His premise that an infallible interpreter is required is completely illogical.

In addition, which we may get into on another day, the Roman Catholic Church is by no means infallible or even close to it.  This is another case of the Roman Church being elevated above the authority of Scripture.

You can go directly to the audio page by clicking here.  As with the previous posts, my notes are posted there as well.

Not even considering the Biblical account which clearly shows that Jesus was arrested and condemned to death for blasphemy (making himself equal with God).  According to Jewish sources, Jesus was crucified for blasphemy (agreeing with the Biblical record) and in Roman sources Jesus was crucified for being a disturber of the peace.

Even if we were to entertain the idea that Jesus wasn't crucified, it still doesn't explain away why he was condemned to death.  He was condemned for death for claiming to be the son of God!  A blasphemous statement if Jesus truly wasn't the son of God.  Even if a Muslim will not accept the death of Jesus, how can they explain the charge leveled against Jesus?

Mark 16:41-42 "Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, 'Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' And Jesus said, 'I am'"

Here we see in Mark (I'm quoting from the gospel of Mark since Muslims generally hold that Mark is much more accurate than the other gospels) that the high priest asked Jesus directly, are you the Christ, are you the Son of God.  And Jesus said "I am".  That was the end of the "trial" and Jesus was condemned to death.  So we see that even before the crucifixion actually took place, Jesus was condemned to death for claiming to be the Son of God.

Truth, history, consistency and salvation belong to the followers of Jesus Christ.  May God open the eyes of people to see the great miracle of the resurrection so that your soul may be saved.

You can go to our church website here and listen to the presentation; my notes are also posted there.

You can read more about this in my post "Did Jesus Die?"

There is another problem raised with this assertion that Jesus did not die, and that he was a great prophet.  Jesus predicted his death many times, even detailing the manner.

Mark 8:31 "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

Mark 9:31 "For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later.""

Mark 10:33-34 ""Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. "They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.""

These verses are just from Mark, similar ones are found in the other 3 gospels.

So if Jesus predicted his own death, and according to Muslim belief, he never died, then Jesus was not a great prophet, but instead a false prophet and a liar.

At this point Muslim belief must deny the Bible without any supporting evidence to do so, just to maintain their belief.  Again using a document written 600 years after the events to overturn eye witness evidence recorded in the same time period of Jesus' death.

The way I see it is that in the Christian account (which also agrees with the historical evidence), God sent the Son to die on the cross as a complete and perfect sacrifice for sin; an atoning sacrifice that enables us to have peace with God.  Romans 5:8 says "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."  The crucifixion was a demonstration of God's love!  The eternal Son of God died for His own.  Without the death and resurrection of Christ there is no good news, there is no forgiveness of sin.

1 Corinthians 15:17 says "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."

Now looking again at the Islamic belief we have God purposely deceiving millions and millions of people, damning them to eternal punishment.  And for what reason?  Because a prophet of God like Jesus could not suffer and die in such a disgraceful manner.

In one case, we have the Creator demonstrating the supreme act of love and saving millions from their sin, that if not forgiven, would condemn them to hell.  And in the other case we have the Creator deceiving millions, and condemning the millions he deceived to an eternity in hell.

Here are 2 short trailers/previews that have been released so far.

Do you know what our purpose is? To glorify God. People can do this in two ways, by loving God and enjoying Him forever, or by being objects of God's wrath, making His power known.

Do you know why Jesus Christ died on the cross? To save a people from being objects of wrath, instead making them objects of mercy; so that those who belong to Jesus Christ could love God and enjoy Him forever and not suffer the wrath of God.

God has standards, they are not the same as the world's standards. Everyone has broken God's standards: I have broken them, you have broken them. Since everyone breaks God's laws (even just one), we are lawbreakers. Since God is so perfect, He despises lawbreakers, and under God's perfect justice, lawbreakers will not be tolerated but are condemned to death.

Jesus was the only person to have lived a life meeting God's perfect standards. Not only that but He was obedient unto death, dying on the cross willingly as a sacrifice for sin.

Since we are lawbreakers, we are enemies of God, but God demonstrated His love through Christ. If we turn from our sin, believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead and acknowledge that He is our master, this belief, this faith will grant us peace with God. Therefore, as people who were once enemies, having been justified (made right) by faith, we have peace with God. All this is a gift from God and is for His glory.

If you fail to acknowledge God and Jesus Christ in this way then you remain a lawbreaker, condemned to an eternal death.

Everybody dies; do you know where you'll go when you die? Why do you believe that?

After going over this, have they ever asked "Well, isn't believing something I do that merits the gift of eternal life?" You may try to explain that believing is not a work, but is a condition. However, they will not be satisfied with this answer since you still have to do something to receive eternal life, and if you do something to receive a gift, then you've earned or merited that gift by your doing/believing. They fail to see the difference between this and what they naturally believe to be right.

Going back to Ephesians 2:8-10, the biblical answer is to say that we are saved by grace through faith, and this is not of ourselves. Bug what is not of ourselves? All of it! Salvation by grace through faith is not by our doing but is the gift of God so that no one can boast! Faith is included in that gift; salvation is truly a gift since we do not merit it ourselves in any way, including belief. Of course belief is necessary but it is not something that comes from us, it is a gift from God.

This leads to the question "But what if God won't give me the gift of faith?" or "If he is going to give people the gift of faith, then I'm just gonna keep doing what I'm doing since God decides if I get the gift."

Let's look at each of these concerns.

"What if God doesn't give me the gift of faith?"

I'll start with an illustration. Say you want to ask someone out to dinner, but you think to yourself "what if they say no?" Now you would be a fool never to ask because of your "what if" question, you need to ask!

Similarily, we do not know the mind of God or all the details for His plan for the ages, including who will and who will not be saved. What we do know is that if we seek God, and seek the truth, we will find it. So what should we do? Seek Him! And if we do that, we know that God was working since the natural man does not seek after God. Also, Jesus said "Come to me, and I will give you eternal life." So what should we do? Come to Him! If we do that we know God was working since no one can come to Jesus unless God draws them. (John 6:44)

So, don't ask "what if" but instead seek the truth, seek Jesus the Christ and come to Him.

"If he is going to give people the gift of faith, then why do anything now?"

The response to this is similar to above. Those who seek will find, those who come will be given eternal life. If we do nothing, then we will not recieve the gift since it is only for those who seek and come to Jesus Christ. It still boils down to the fact that we do not fully know the mind of God concerning us, but what we do know is that He tells us to seek Him and come to Christ.

Our responsibility is to turn to God just as we are, realizing that we offer nothing. We can count on the promise of Christ who said that whoever comes to Him, He will not turn away (John 6:37), and no one will be able to take you out of His hand! (John 10:28)

Ezekiel was told to preach to a bunch of dead bones (see Ezekiel 37.) What could be a more hopeless audience? But he preached and God raised those dead bones to life. It is God who justifies, it is God who saves. No one is too hard for God!

The Lord says in Ezekiel 36:26 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."

The majority of Muslims believe that a substitute actually was crucified in Jesus' place. Some like Shabir Ally say that Jesus was put on the cross but did not die. (Note: This is commonly referred to as the 'swoon theory' which was shown to be false in the early 1800s, see David Strauss 'Life of Jesus')

Now the 4 gospels are very clear that Jesus was crucified and died on a cross, so I will not go into more detail on the biblical account here. Are there sources besides the bible that support the crucifixion and death of Jesus?

The Jewish Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 43a: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged [or crucified]. ... Since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

Cornelius Tacitus (a Roman historian) in his Annals, xv. 44: Christus ... was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontious Pilate.

Lucian of Samosata (a Roman historian): (Christ was) the man who was crucified in Palestine

These are Jewish and Roman sources from the 1st and 2nd century who were not Christian!

Besides the gospels, 1 Corinthians 15 contains a creed which is older than the gospels, some estimate that the creed dates to just 3 years after the crucifixion.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 says "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"

In light of the historical facts, Jesus died on the cross!

In Matthew 5:21-44 Jesus in addressing the crowds by repeating "you have heard it said" and follows that with "but I say".  For example:

Matthew 5:43-44 "You have heard that it was said, 'you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'  But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

Notice how Jesus repeated says "I say", not "the Lord says"; He speaks as one in authority.  Speaking the laws of God but attributing them to himself!  Does a mere prophet speak like this?

In Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.  Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'"

Again, the authority of Jesus is clear.  He says that He will sit in judgment and declare to them "depart from me, I never knew you."  What kind of prophet speaks like this?  Judgment belongs to God does it not?  But here we see Jesus judging who will enter the kingdom of heaven!

Matthew 7:28-29 "When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes." 

Jesus was no mere prophet. 

My wife has caught me a number of times repeating a phrase or words that I never use in regular speech and when she brings it up, I have to respond with "I wasn't really thinking, it's just a habit I guess."  Of course I feel remorse for addressing God in this manner; even when I may not notice it, God knows.

Now, we cannot judge others, we cannot tell if their prayers are genuinely from the heart, if they are putting on a show for man, or if they are genuinely pleading with God...  BUT we can and must examine ourselves. 

Do you have your favorite lines, that just roll off the tongue without thought?  Are you lazy in prayer?  Do you realize that your audience is God, not those around you?  Do you realize that you are approaching the Creator of the universe, the perfect and all-knowing God?

What a humbling thought.  May we all pray with reverence to our great God who sees the very intentions of our heart.

PS.  On a practical note, taking a silent moment before prayer to collect your thoughts and consider who you are addressing is a valuable habit. 

And they are right, Jesus is never recorded in the gospels as saying those words.  Does this mean that Jesus was not God, that the Christian belief of the triune nature of God is false?

There are others who call Jesus God in the gospels (John 1:1,18; John 20:28) and many cases in the letters of the apostles (Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1,  Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 2:9), but today I'll list some of the very words of Jesus and see if he claimed to be just a prophet.

John 5:21 - "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes."

In many places in the Quran including Sura 3:156 it says that Allah gives life and death.  But here we have Jesus saying that just as the Father gives life, so do I give life to whoever I wish!  What prophet would say this?

John 17:5 - "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

Jesus says "glorify me", what prophet would say that?  Glory belongs to God and God alone!  We were created to give God glory, not tell God to glorify us.  It's interesting to note that Jesus talks about the glory that he had before the world was.  Jesus was glorified before the world was created?  What kind of prophet is this?

Lest I be accused of staying in the gospel of John, more will follow at another time from the other gospels.

We all know the saying "nobody's perfect."  Everyone has done something wrong, no matter how large or small.  What do we do to handle this?  Many, many people assume that God will just adjust His standards.  Like a class at school where everyone is failing, the professor will adjust the grades using a bell curve and if you are grading above the class average, you'll receive a passing grade.

But does God adjust His standard?  In fact, He cannot.  If God is holy, perfect and just, He cannot compromise His standards for us. 

What do we do then if God won't adjust His standard?  God will not adjust His standard, but He did provide a way for us to have our imperfections removed, and that is through Jesus Christ.  Romans 4 tells us that those who have faith alone in Christ alone will not have their sins imputed to them, in other words, they will not have anything wrong on their record, a clean slate.  Not only are sins completely removed, but the perfect righteousness of Christ (His sinless perfection) is credited to our account!

What does this faith in Christ look like?  It's acknowledging that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for sin and was raised on the third day.  He is the one mediator between God and man and he is the only way to a right relationship with God.  He is the Lord (master, ruler) and we must humble ourselves and treat him as Lord.  He is NOT looking at what we've done, but entirely at our heart.  We bring NOTHING that can please God, we have an attitude of coming to Jesus completely empty handed and desperate for him, realizing that we are lost, deserving of hell and completely unsaveable apart from God saving us.  If our heart is in that state, Romans 10 tells us that if we call upon Jesus, we will be saved.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.