Objection 5: It's Offensive to Claim Jesus is the Only Way to God

Strobel shares the mike here with Ravi Zacharias, in a chapter that could only emerge as needed in a society where being "offensive" is looked upon as a problem. Offensive? That's your problem. If Christianity is true, if it really IS the "only way," then posturing and being offended does not answer any argument. I personally have little sympathy for people who complain of this.

Jacobsen himself does not show any evidence of being the sort who'd go on and on about being "offended", to his credit, but he does rely on feelings and perceptions at inopportune times. He acknowledges:

[Zacahrias] never said anything that jumped out at me as being "wrong". But yet, still left an "unsatisfied" feeling, as though he had said a lot of words, but answered little.

Jacobsen then proceeds to change the subject to the question, "how do you become saved?" and refers readers to an item on the Secular Web which we have conveniently already replied to here. May I suggest to Jacobsen in all earnestness that the problem here is not God's failure to communicate, but mankind's inability to keep their affairs in order -- something the track record of history suggests is a more likely option.

In any event, though "how to be saved" is not the subject of Zacharias' discussion, Jacobsen nevertheless pulls out a "seems" card to try and divine Zacharias' would-be answer from a single one of his comments. Jacobsen would perhaps have gotten an easier answer by checking Zacharias' RZIM website for answers to Zacharias' view; as it is, I don't see much need to reply to Jacobsen's theoretical understanding of what Zacharias believes. For our part we recommend our material here and here for a general understanding of the role of Jesus and the nature of saving faith, and its relation to works.

Zacharias offers an answer to "what about those who never hear" that is similar to our own: "God knows where we will be born and raised, and he puts us in a position where we might seek him. We are clearly told that wherever we live in whatever culture, in whatever nation--he is with reach of every one of us." I have noted elsewhere similarly two principles: 1) The evidence for God is clear, so that men are without excuse (Ps. 19, Rom. 1-2). The heavens already declare God's existence and majesty. 2) He who seeks, finds (Matt. 7:7//Luke 11:9). My answer to the question, "What about those who never hear the Gospel?" is, "Those who want to know it, will be given the knowledge needed for salvation. Those who seek God will have God sufficiently revealed to them." Jacobsen asks the intelligent question, "...if God is in reach of everybody regardless of culture, then how does Jesus fit in here? Not every culture teaches about Jesus, so what is his purpose?" In reply I would draw from an analogy once used by Peter Kreeft. He spoke of the path to God being available through three means: natural theology, the philosophers, and the Gospel. The Gospel he compared to a clear and navigable stream. Natural theology and pagan religion he compared to a swamp. The way of the philosophers he compared to a rushing stream. Theoretically one could reach God all three ways, but only one is clear and easy to grasp. But beyond this, Kreeft would also answer that even those who know not of a historical Jesus of Nazareth would nevertheless be able to grasp what it is Jesus represents -- the need for a bridge between man and God; the need for divine forgiveness of sin. The ancient Mayan farmer who recognizes his need and calls out to the heavens for resolution may be given no more than the message, "You should ask for forgiveness from me" -- and he as much as has the Gospel message, without knowing of a historical Jesus of Nazareth; his sins are forgiven by Jesus, even as he does not know of his life. Let it be remembered that Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but by me" -- he decides who is let in, which is not the same as saying that you must know who he is to be let in.

Jacobsen also wants to know, "how exactly is God in reach of people in different cultures?" Zacharias and Kreeft would point to natural theology and the philosophers; Jacobsen asks about Greek mythology and presumes it to have been some kind of blockade to knowledge of God, but I would doubt that this is so, and barring time-traveling and mind-reading, it's hardly viable to claim that farmer Leonidas' mind was so cluttered with Zeus that he never had a fair chance to consider any alternative. Jacobsen notes Zacharias' appeal to natural theology in Romans 1-2, but asks, "where is Christ in this?" Zacharias' answer lays beyond this and mirrors my own: A sincere seeker will have the needed information for salvation somehow provided to him. There is anecdotal evidence from the missionary field that may support this point; nevertheless, I will add that it is not lack of hearing the Gospel that causes condemnation; it is sin that causes condemnation, and it is not hard to arrive at a deduction that sin is offensive to whatever powers one may suppose to be at hand (indeed, the religious history of sacrifice and penance suggests a broad awareness of this!) and that there needs to be some connection or bridge in order to achieve a reconciliation. This makes it quite clear that God and salvation was in reach of all people -- indeed that they were aware of the need that the Gospel message provides a clear answer to.

In response to Zacharias' point that he would trust God to judge rightly, Jacobsen returns again to personal dissatisfaction as an answer, and says:

But of course I suspect that Zacharias would be hesitant to answer if I asked him just exactly what the "right" thing would be. I suspect he'd say that was up to God to decide, not us. But I don't think I'm willing to accept a non-answer here. What is right? Wouldn't, in the scenario I described, sending such people to hell be clearly wrong?

Jacobsen's example, however, was far from what Zahcarias hypothesized: that such people would SOMEHOW be given the information needed to make a decision. Does Jacobsen doubt this? Then we await his rundown of what was in the minds of every ancient person, showing that they did not have a fair chance to accept salvation. Inevitably this is why the answer, "I'm not satisfied" goes nowhere, and why worries about the ancient Mayan with no Gospel knowledge are little more than a distraction from one's OWN personal decision about Christ. It is easy to "second guess" a non-falsifiable claim.

For a while thereafter Jacobsen discusses the idea that those who believe in evolution are supposed not to be saved. I don't think many Christians would claim that believing in evolution BY ITSELF is a guaranteed ticket to hell (I would say it is a ticket to cognitive dissonance!); in any event, Jacobsen is answered by what I have said and what Zacharias has said, that any person seeking answers will be given what they need to be saved.

Jacobsen then asks, "What value is going to church? What value is being taught Christianity? Zacharias has to say either that being taught Christianity helps one to choose the right path, or it doesn't. Pick one. If it does help, then clearly those that aren't taught Christianity are NOT given the same opportunity to follow God as those that aren't taught Christianity. Or if it doesn't help at all, then what value is it to be taught Christianity?" The answer is found in the analogy above with respect to the swamp, the rapids, and the navigable stream. The value in being taught Christianity is to be made into a serving disciple of Christ, to serve a purpose in God's Kingdom and His work here on earth. The ancient Mayan will be saved; but he will not serve as efficiently as one who knows the full gospel.

Jacobsen closes with an anecdote of a Lutheran minister who spoke of a God who "throws away souls". This is not at all Zacharias' view -- his view is of a God who does all He can to keep souls, and who provides light to all those who want it. Jacobsen's understanding of Zacharias' position, however, is clearly out of line, as it is not a matter of "all you have to do is recognize God as superior" -- he has vastly oversimplified Zacharias' material.