This week I continue my treatise on Why Christianity is REAL, in response to an article at Atheists Alliance International by Bill Flavell, entitled “Eight Reasons Christianity is False”
Atheist Bill’s fifth reason against Christianity:
“5. There is clear evidence that humans on this planet have unequal access to Christianity so, if Christianity were true, billions would be condemned to hell for no fault of their own. This contradicts the Christian notion that God is omnibenevolent.”
The default assumptions here:
- Humans have unequal access to Christianity.
- Billions are condemned to hell for no fault of their own.
- God is omnibenevolent.
Access to Christianity?
At the beginning of Christianity, Jesus gave us the Great Commission and advised that we needed to go into all the world and make disciples. Indeed, the task is on Christians to do to make God known and accessible. As Paul stated in Romans:
Romans 10:14-15 (NIV) 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
God will help us get there. Does the preaching of the gospel mean that some will not hear? Yes, for a while. This is the closest we may come to Bill’s idea of “unequal access”. It does take time to reach the world. But, according to Matthew 24:14 – 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Preaching the gospel does not mean that every single person will hear and come to know Christ in one shot, but there will come a day when all the people groups will be reached. According to the Joshua project, there are more than 17,000 people groups around the world, and 41% of these groups are unreached. We have a ways to go. The Joshua Project has several PDF handouts that provide an idea of the challenge that remains , and statistical details about the unreached.
Billions are condemned?
I have to trust that those who are meant to hear the gospel will be led to a person, place, or circumstance where they will be able to hear. That part depends on God’s planning and timing. Before the atheist condemns this perspective, they should consider the fact that they themselves have not become Christian. They made a choice. God does not strong-arm non-believers into changing what they believe. The condition of coming to belief in God is a yes/no decision. It can take time to come to the point of making a ‘yes’ decision. We also have to acknowledge that the decision to choose Christ is not for everyone, and not all will come to that moment. Are billions condemned? Potentially, yes, but practically speaking, it is their choice. In other words, It is their fault.
God is omnibenevolent
Timothy McCabe’s article “Is God omnibenevolent?” helps to explain how Christians understand the meaning of this word. In his first paragraph he says:
“If “omnibenevolence” means that God is always and perfectly desiring “the good”, then yes, God is omnibenevolent (Mark 10:18; Romans 12:2). If, on the other hand, it means that God is always and only desiring the eternal and ultimate happiness of all humans, then no, God is not omnibenevolent (1 Samuel 15:2-3; Genesis 6:7).”
His next paragraph exactly makes the point about how to view God’s omnibenevolence:
“Many would argue that if God is omnibenevolent, as Christians assert, then He would never send anyone to hell. However, this is to misunderstand the Christian claim — it is to merge Christian ontology with humanist values, thereby creating a straw man. Humanist values, elevating humans above all things (including God Himself) are absurd on the face of them, and have absolutely no part in Christian thought.” (Gee, there is that straw man argument again!)
The Christian notion on omnibenevolence is not contraindicated, as Bill maintains. It is only a matter of understanding the word from a Christian perspective, and not from his humanist definition.
