Different worldviews in comparison

The three common views on the afterlife are that there is nothing after this life, that people are born on earth over and over again, and the teaching of the New Testament, especially Jesus, about heaven and hell.The first two of these views are poorly founded. For example, if reincarnation were true, everyone should remember past lives. However, we do not.

And what about Jesus’ teaching on heaven and hell? We cannot prove that either, but Jesus’ words are backed by his spiritual authority. If he was perfectly good, he could not lie either.

Another important point is that Jesus, who spoke about heaven and hell, also came to resolve the issue that no one needs to go to hell. The entire New Testament teaches that through him we can be saved, avoid hell, and get to heaven.

1. Faith and worldviews

There are billions of people in the world. Each of them has some kind of worldview, that is, a set of preconceptions that can be true, partially true, or completely wrong. These preconceptions affect how they view and interpret the world. It usually also affects their behavior and their whole life. They act according to their worldview and the beliefs they have adopted.

    We find a good picture of the diversity of worldviews in the Acts of the Apostles. There are two groups in it, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, whose understanding of the ultimate things was completely opposite. The Sadducees resembled modern day naturalists and atheists. They denied the resurrection, the existence of angels and spirits. The Pharisees thought the opposite. Paul was in the midst of these opposing groups of people:

- (Acts 23:6-11) But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.

8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.

11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as you have testified of me in Jerusalem, so must you bear witness also at Rome.

The purpose of this article is to go through some of the most common worldviews and take a stand on them. The subject of the investigation are e.g. the beginning of the universe and life, God, man and the afterlife. Before that, however, the faith-based nature of worldviews and whether they can all be true at the same time will be explored.

FAITH AND WORLDVIEWS. First of all, it is important to note that faith is included in all outlooks on life. In a sense, everyone believes, but the object of faith varies. What a person believes in makes him a Christian, an atheist, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim or, for example, a communist. There is no such person whose world view does not include faith. For example, in the Christian faith, it manifests itself in the way that a person believes in Jesus Christ and that God created everything. These are matters of faith:

- (Acts 16:30,31) And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.

- (Hebr 11:3) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Those with a naturalistic and atheistic worldview may often counter that their view is faith-based. They say that their worldview is purely scientific and not based on faith. Here, however, they are mistaken, because there are numerous things in their worldview that they cannot prove scientifically. Among other things, the following things are based on faith:

• Belief that matter is all that exists and that there is no God. This is impossible to prove. Even though naturalists and atheists do not have personal experience with God, it does not prove that God does not exist. God may belong to that sector, about which the atheist has no perception and knowledge.

• Belief in the birth of the universe by itself is something that cannot be studied scientifically. The reason for that is that past conditions cannot be restored. It is a matter of faith, just as faith in God's creation work is based on faith.

• The idea that life has arisen by itself is also based on faith. This matter cannot be proved afterwards.

2. All worldviews cannot simultaneously be true

Another thing to note is that worldviews contradict each other and cannot all be true at the same time. The previous example talked about the Pharisees and Sadducees and their opposing views. The first group believed in resurrection, angels and spirit, but the latter group did not. It goes without saying that these two opposite views cannot be true at the same time.

    The same applies to other common worldviews. Some people think that it doesn't matter what one believes or that beliefs are equal. They claim that, for example, the differences between Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam are trivial and superficial and that they believe in the same God. They think that the most important thing is to be sincere in your beliefs.

    However, the problem with such an assumption is inconsistency. For when worldviews are opposite to each other, it is logically impossible for them all to be true at the same time. Contradictions occur e.g. in the following matters. We have to reject either logic or the basic teachings related to worldviews and religions if we claim that all beliefs are simultaneously true:

• If atheism and naturalism are true, then all religions are wrong. It is not possible that God at the same time exists and does not exist.

• God cannot be personal and impersonal at the same time.

• If God has created the universe and is outside it (theism), he cannot be the same as the universe as required by pantheism.

• In Buddhism and Confucianism there is no God (later on, Buddhism considered Buddha to be divine), but for example Islam, Judaism and Christianity teach the existence of one God. These views cannot be valid at the same time. On the other hand, if there is no God – as, for example, the Buddhists believe – how can it be taught that all roads lead to the same God?

• The understanding of life after death varies. In Buddhism and other religions it is believed in heaven and hell, while the Hindus do not believe in them. These are opposites, and it is impossible that they both exist and do not exist at the same time.

• Reincarnation (Hinduism, Buddhism) and non-reincarnation (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc.) cannot both be true at the same time.

3. Absolute truths and claims

The third thing to pay attention to is absolute truths and assertions. Some may argue that isn't it presumptuous to hold only one path and belief to be right? Isn't claiming one way and one belief as the only right such narrow-mindedness that only causes disputes and disunity and is an obstacle to world peace? Because of this, some have come to two different conclusions, which are:

• They may claim that there is no absolute truth. For example, skeptics and atheists support this option.

• Another option is that some people believe that all roads and religions lead to the same goal, regardless of what people believe.

How reasonable are these two conclusions? It is certainly true that different religions and beliefs cause conflicts. If someone doesn't believe this, they can go to Internet forums, where people argue about the most diverse topics. If everyone agreed, there would be no debates and arguments, but we don't live in such a world. Discussions take place because there are different worldviews related to politics, religion, economy and the most diverse topics. Everyone believes that they are right in arguments.

    As for the previous two statements (1. There is no absolute truth, 2. All roads and religions ultimately lead to the same goal, regardless of what people believe), the following statements can be made:

• When it is presented that there is no absolute truth, this in itself is a religious and absolute statement. Atheists and skeptics might favor it. However, if it is claimed that there is no absolute truth, then at the same time the absolute truth is defended, i.e. that there is no absolute truth. There is an obvious contradiction in such a claim. It contradicts itself.

    Furthermore, if it is claimed that there is no absolute truth, it requires one important thing from the person making the claim: He must have one hundred percent knowledge. He must know perfectly that there is no absolute truth regarding, for example, God and eternity.

    However, is the person making the claim capable of doing this? Does he have complete knowledge, for example, that there is no God and eternity and that his own view is correct? Isn't the fact that he lacks this knowledge? When he assumes that others are wrong, he cannot prove himself to be right. It is impossible because his knowledge is as lacking as the others.

• What about the view that all roads and religions ultimately lead to the same goal? Many people may find this view open-minded and tolerant. They consider the view of one path to be narrow-minded.

    In reality, however, these people are followers of one world religion, Hinduism. It really is this, because this is exactly how Hindus believe. One of their holy books (Bhagavadagita, IV:11) says:

Oh Paartha, no matter how the people approach me, I will receive them; whatever way they use, it is also my way.

So are Hindus tolerant of those who think differently? Not always, because if someone converts to Islam or Christianity, the Hindus are usually critical or even persecute those who reject Hinduism. Skirmishes between Hindus and Muslims are also well known. This shows that Hindus and supporters of many ways can be just as narrow-minded as other people.

• In the previous paragraph, we started with how there are absolute statements in worldviews. They are not only in religions, but also in other worldviews (communism, etc.). They can be the cause of conflicts and divisions in the world.

    How should this topic be approached? Some people think that we should agree on everything and conflicts will disappear, but that is a utopian goal. You will never get there because people always think in different ways and because they have different worldviews. It must be recognized as a fact.

    And what is the teaching of the New Testament on this subject? According to it, we should acknowledge people's different opinions, but respect them. Jesus actually went so far as to exhort us to love our enemies. If we really act according to this principle, it will not eliminate people's differences of opinion, but it will give great value to our neighbor and reduce conflicts in society. Many in the western world preach tolerance nowadays, and here is the best solution to that. The problem is that most of us are reluctant to follow this advice:

- (1 Peter 2:17) Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

- (Matt 5:43-46) You have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.

44 But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if you love them which love you, what reward have you? do not even the publicans the same?

4. Worldviews in comparison: naturalism, pantheism, polytheism, theism

At the beginning it was mentioned how there are numerous worldviews and each of them contains assumptions that can be true, partly true or completely false. They cannot all be true at the same time, although each person usually considers his own worldview to be the best and most reasonable.

    Next, let's explore the validity and reasonableness of a few of the most common worldviews. We start the study from the beginning of the universe and life, because this topic is fundamentally related to worldviews.

Naturalism is a worldview in which the universe is closed to supernatural influence. Therefore there is no God. Matter is all that exists.

    So how do naturalists explain the beginning of the universe? Currently, the most common theory is that everything came into being by itself out of nothing. It is believed to have happened in the Big Bang.

    Here, however, the naturalistic theory is on weak ground. There is not a single proof that things can appear by themselves out of thin air. It goes against all the laws of physics and practical observations. If the universe appeared by itself out of nothing, why don't we observe the same in other things like cars, bicycles or rocks? Why would the universe be an exception?

    The reasonableness of the naturalistic theory, regarding the beginning of the universe, can be compared to someone picking up a matchbox (it is many times bigger than the starting point of the Big Bang) and then claiming how all kinds of big and complex things emerge from it, such as: an elephant and the grass that the elephant eats, a running cheetah, roaring lions, birds that can fly and chirp, mosquitoes that the birds can eat, fish and the sea around them, beautiful and fragrant flowers and tens of meters tall trees, billions of galaxies, stars and planets, the sun that warms and gives light, people that can talk and feel emotions: cry, laugh, get angry, fear, mourn and fall in love, as well as good tasting strawberries, bananas, blueberries, peas, grapes and nuts. If people doubt this naturalistic theory of the beginning of the universe, they surely cannot make a great mistake.

    What about the beginning of life? This has the same problem as the previous theory. The more the subject has been studied, the more difficult the problem has become. In naturalistic theory, dead matter is given supernatural properties that it does not possess. If the origin of life by itself had been possible, this problem would have already been solved. In naturalism it is believed in miracles without a miracle worker and it is not reasonable.

Pantheism is a worldview that can be summed up in the form: God (or Brahman in Hinduism) is the same as the universe, or creation. In this worldview, it is believed in the doctrine of the divinity of everything, so that plants, animals, nature and humanity are part of one and the same divine essence.

    This view is very similar to the aforementioned naturalistic worldview in the sense that universe or creation, is all that exists. The only major difference is that in pantheism creation is considered divine, but in a naturalistic worldview this is not believed.

    So what is the weakness of the pantheistic worldview? It is the same as in the naturalistic worldview: it cannot explain the beginning of the universe and life.

    Relatedly, Hinduism admits that in the beginning there was no life and no creation. Instead, it is explained that Brahman, or creation, created itself from nothing. Here is a very similar concept to what is assumed in the naturalistic Big Bang theory:

At that stage there was neither life nor lifelessness, no extensive spaces of air nor extensive abodes of heaven behind them. Were there waters, the bottomless depths of the oceans? Who knows, who can now declare from what stage creation followed: He, the cause of existence, whose eye supervises everything, he alone knows it, or perhaps not even he knows! (Rigveda).

Before the world was born, Brahman existed as a non-manifested non-being. From this invisible he let visible things flow forth. From himself he created himself. (Taittira-upanishad).

A good question to ask is, how can the fact that Brahman created himself from nothing be explained? The text above explains that in the beginning there was nothing, only emptiness; so what caused Brahman and the creation appear from this emptiness and how did he create himself?

   In order for someone to cause his or her own existence, there must first be something. There must be something that brings about existence; so there must be a cause and a consequence. But something existing before its existence is simply impossible! It goes against the laws of logic because the existence and non-existence of something can never be simultaneously valid. It is impossible, just as if a book simultaneously existed and not existed. Likewise, it is as impossible as it is possible for a person to be simultaneously asleep and awake, or to fly and be on the ground at the same time.

  Rabi Maharaj, who also used to believe in Pantheism, refers to the beginning -dilemma in his book “The Death of a Guru”. He says that the pantheistic view is contradictory, because Brahman’s emergence from nothing is difficult to account for, and because it also contradicts Hindus’ own writings:

I had always clearly understood that God had always existed and that He had created all. However, the books of Veda taught that there had been a time when there was nothing and that Brahman had come from nothing. Gosine could not fit this together with a sentence of Krishna that is in the Gita: "That which is not can never become." This remained a mystery.

Polytheism, or there are many gods, could in principle be one answer to the existence of the universe and life. However, there is one condition: these gods, or at least one of them, should be so great and powerful that he would have been able to create the universe. No "little god" would have been able to do that, nor can a human being create heavenly bodies, even if he has some wisdom.

    As for polytheism, e.g. in the Greek mythology there have been many gods at one time. However, these gods were only a little higher than humans, so you can't count on them much. Today, the same conceptions of God as the Greeks had are quite rare.

    A form of polytheism is also idols, which have existed throughout the ages. These are usually man-made objects, and we can see from the following passages how senseless it has been to rely on them. Man-made objects cannot explain the origin of the universe or life. The same applies to the naturalistic worldview and pantheism:

- (Ps 115:3-8) But our God is in the heavens: he has done whatever he has pleased.

4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.

5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:

6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:

7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.

8 They that make them are like to them; so is every one that trusts in them.

- (Jer 10:3-5) For the customs of the people are vain: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax.

4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

Theism. Clearly the most logical alternative for the existence of the universe and life is that an almighty God has created everything. When it is known that the universe has a beginning as well as life, the only reasonable explanation is God's work of creation. He is outside the cosmos and has made it, just as a painter has made a painting and is outside it. The complexity and beauty in nature can also be explained through God's creation work. No impersonal being or energy can bring them about. The Bible talks about creation in many places:

- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

- (Isaiah 66:1,2) Thus said the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that you build to me? and where is the place of my rest?

2 For all those things has my hand made, and all those things have been, said the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at my word.

- (Rev 4:11) You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.

- (Rev 10:5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,

6 And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer

- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

- (Mark 13:19) For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created to this time, neither shall be.

Observing nature and people. One starting point for understanding which worldview makes sense and matches observations is to look at nature and man. Based on that, it can be concluded to some extent whether matter is all that exists, or whether there is an impersonal force or a personal God behind everything. Everyone can make such conclusions by looking around.

    So what do we observe when we look at man and nature? One observation is the existence of intelligence. For example, the Seti project is based on the search for intelligence in space, just as it is on earth. The assumption is that intelligent life exists also elsewhere than on Earth. Or an archaeologist can look for signs of intelligence while digging in the ground. He is not interested in ordinary stones, but those with inscriptions. Likewise, he may look for objects that show signs of design. This indicates the presence of intelligence on Earth.

    What about the nature we observe? There, too, we can see signs of design and intelligent structures. Intricate and exquisite structures seem designed for a specific purpose. Those who deny this intelligent structure and obvious design in nature often have to struggle to maintain their point of view. It is evident in the statements of well-known naturalists and evolutionists:

Darwin: Another premise to believe in God that relates to reason and not to feelings, seems more cogent. You see, it is extremely difficult or rather impossible to imagine that this enormous and wondrous universe, including humans, who can look far back into the past and far into the future, had come into existence by pure accident or without any intermediation. While wondering this, I feel as if I must look for a First Reason, which had an intelligent mind, somehow comparable to human mind, and thus I can be called a theist. (1)

Francis Crick: Biologists must constantly keep in mind that, what they are seeing is not designed, but the result of evolution. (2)

Richard Dawkins: A leaf-eating giraffe, a flying albatross, a plunging tar swallow, a curving hawk, a leafy sea dragon invisible among seaweed, a cheetah accelerating to full speed after a turn, a gazelle leaping - the illusion of design is intuitively so strong that one must truly strive to think critically and to overcome the temptations of naive intuition. (3)

What can be concluded about intelligence and planning? Certainly the best starting point is theism and the creation work of a personal God. For non-intelligent matter cannot produce intelligent beings (materialistic worldview) and planning, and neither can an impersonal god (pantheistic worldview). Only someone, who has a personality can create such things. This condition is fulfilled in the theistic worldview.

    The characteristics in man also testify to the existence of a personal God. If man is created in the image of a personal God (Gen 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.) that is a good starting point for the existence of these qualities. It is difficult to explain them in any other way. Such features include e.g. feelings, thoughts, artistry and moral sense:

Feelings. If only matter is real, as assumed in the naturalistic worldview, then it is difficult to explain the existence of emotions (joy, sadness, hope, fear, love, infatuation, anger, humor and laughter, sexual desire...). An impersonal god is an equally bad starting point for the existence of emotions, because an impersonal God or force cannot have emotions. Therefore, the best alternative for the existence of emotions is theism, i.e. a personal God. It is difficult to explain them from another starting point.

Thoughts. If we assume that the naturalistic worldview is true, then there should be nothing besides matter. However, there are intangible things such as feelings and also thoughts. Where did they come from if there was only matter in the beginning?

    The best starting point for understanding this matter is again that a personal God has given man the ability to think as well as the ability to feel emotions. Mere matter cannot do these things, and neither can an impersonal god.

Artistry and a sense of beauty are qualities especially related to humans and also a reference to the existence of a personal God. Why is there poetry, literature, listening to music, producing music, art and mathematical talent? Or why do people have such a sense of beauty that they put attractive paintings on the walls or photograph nature with cameras and look at the pictures taken of it? If these things are not a reflection of the limitless creative work of a personal God, then where do they come from? It is hard to imagine how stone and other inanimate matter suddenly begins to feel a sense of beauty, likes music and begins to write stories. Such things are difficult to explain from a naturalistic theory or an impersonal God. A more reasonable explanation is that these things are qualities obtained through creation that man can experience and practice.

The existence of morality also points to a personal God. If man's origin were from mere matter, he would certainly not distinguish between different actions. Mere inanimate matter cannot produce morality and a sense of right and wrong. How could a stone, an earth substance or a gas affect the fact that someone starts to feel guilty about what he has done (A father who has neglected his children because of drinking and wants to make up for it), that someone starts to feel bitterness about what others have done (“He stole from me, lied about me, was offensive to me") or that someone makes a distinction between different actions? There must be a better explanation for these things than just matter. Theism, or the existence of a personal God, is the best explanation for this.

5. God belief throughout times and in children

- (Gen 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

- (Gen 4:26) And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call on the name of the LORD.

- (Ec 3:11) He has made every thing beautiful in his time: also he has set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God makes from the beginning to the end.

If the naturalistic worldview were true and everything had started with the Big Bang, it would be unlikely that there would be emotions, intelligence, spoken language, and sense of moral, artistry or beauty. It would be incredible if such things arose by themselves from a state like the Big Bang. This was stated in the previous paragraphs.

    One difficult problem in terms of the naturalistic worldview is also human religiosity. Where does this matter come from, since animals have no religious consciousness, dreams of eternal life, sense of responsibility to God and they do not pray? What is the reason for this, if all existing species are inherited from a single primordial cell? Surely the best explanation for this is that man was originally created in close relationship with God and in his image, as the Bible shows. The following quote tells more about the subject. It refers to how animals have no religion. At the end, it is told how Livingstone came across the fact that even remote African tribes had an understanding of God's existence and future life.

...Below man is the animal kingdom. No matter how much the proponent of the theory of development talks about the "animal origin of man", the truth remains that there is an insurmountable gap between the lowest human being and the most developed ape. Scientists have taught chimpanzees and other monkeys. They have been taught certain ways. They sit at the table, use a knife and fork correctly, eat almost like humans, and even smoke pipes and cigarettes. But can this ape ever be taught to kneel and worship a being above himself? Has even the smartest chimpanzee ever shown the slightest desire to serve objects? Has this chimpanzee ever thought of making one of his ancestors his god and then practicing ancestor worship? Has any scientist, while studying ape life, ever come across a chimpanzee or a gorilla raising its hands towards the sun in worship? Not really. And why not? Since animals have no religious consciousness or ability, they know nothing about religion. It remains a great truth that religious and moral phenomena in humanity isolate people from animals.

    ...On the other hand, Dr. Livingstone stated: ”It is often unnecessary to tell the most secluded tribes in South Africa about the existence of God or the afterlife, because they seem to already acknowledge these facts.” (4)

The matter can also be examined from the point of view of early human history and children's belief in God. Both reveal the concept of one great God who has made everything.  That is why we will investigate them in more detail.

The early history of mankind and theism, or the concept of an almighty God. When it comes to the early history of man, the naturalistic and evolutionist view is based on the notion that man evolved from ape-like creatures.  It is estimated that this process took around a few million years. However, this notion is easy to disprove, e.g. due to the following factors:

• Evolutionary theory requires that monkey-like human ancestors lived before humans appeared on Earth. However, this is refuted by the fact that fossils of modern man have been found in older or at least as old deposits as the fossils of their supposed ancestors. This fact comes to the fore even when the age determinations given to fossils by the evolutionists themselves are used. Among others, Marvin L. Lubenow's book Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention) deals with the subject and how the evolutionists' own age determinations refute the assumed development. The book contains a summary of hundreds of discoveries.

• When the age of fossils has been determined, it is often done (most commonly with the potassium/argon method) from rocks that are close to the fossils. However, these methods are unreliable. This is shown by the following example, where aggregate and wood were in connection with each other. The age of the tree was measured to be only thousands of years by the radiocarbon method, but the age of the stone was millions of years.

We have published detailed reports in which a tree found in a "250 million years old" sandstone or a volcanic rock "tens of millions of years old" received only thousands of years in radiocarbon age determination. When... Geologists take samples of volcanic rock, which is known to have erupted from a volcano in historical times, and send them to prestigious radiometric age determination laboratories, the "age determination" almost invariably gives a result of millions of years. This strongly suggests that the assumptions underlying the age determination are incorrect. (5)

• As far as human history is concerned, things like building, farming, pottery, the use of metals and the ability to write appeared in the world only a few millennia ago as the following quotes show. The first of the quotes is related to the developer of the radiocarbon method, Professor W.F. To Libby, who said at the time in the Science magazine on March 3, 1961 (p. 624) that verified history only goes back about 5,000 years. Why did these things appear so late and not, for example, 100,000 years ago? Or is it a fact that human history on earth only goes back a few millennia.

W.F. Libby: "Arnold (my co-worker) and I were first shocked when we discovered that history only dates 5,000 years back in time. (...) We had often read about this or that culture or archaeological site being 20,000 years old. We quite quickly learned that these figures and early dates are not accurately known and that the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt is in reality the oldest historical point of time confirmed with some certainty." (6)

"The earliest notes we have of human history go back only about 5000 years." (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, 6th volume, p. 12)

In the recent excavations, the most surprising thing has been how suddenly civilization appeared in the world. This observation is quite at odds with what had been expected. It had been thought that the older the period in question, the more primitive the diggers would find it, until all the traces of civilization would disappear and the primitive man would appear. This has not been the case neither in Babylon nor in Egypt that are the oldest known human settlements. (7)

• The general evolutionist opinion has been that man originated in Africa and moved from there to other places. The fact is, however, that the fossils have no age labels and that fossils of modern humans have been found in older strata than fossils of their supposed ancestors. Second, there is ample evidence that humans started spreading elsewhere from the Middle East, not Africa, and it has not been many thousands of years. The tradition of the peoples has referred to it. Modern scientists have turned to fables and rejected the knowledge of history when they offer other explanations for the origin of man, and e.g., for clear signs of the Flood:

William Dawson asserts in his book Modern Science that he and other eminent scientists are convinced that the Euphrates region, geologically speaking, must have been the only place where man could have lived in the beginning.

    Dr. Armstrong says much the same in his book Nature and Revelation: “Where is the cradle of mankind? On this, as well as on the question of racial unity, scholars are more or less in agreement. The high altitude regions where the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris are located are considered to have been the cradle of mankind. This is proven by many facts, e.g. the fact that the genealogies of almost all tribes mention this corner of the world as their original home. In addition, all the grain species used for human consumption in the world come from there. And geological studies also lead to the same result." (8)

• It is a well-known fact that the square root that appeared in mathematics was already invented about 4000-5000 years ago, i.e. at the same time as the rest of Civilization appeared in the world. This is so funny, if man resembled an ape-like creature a few tens of thousands of years ago, and suddenly started inventing such complex things.

    Another point of interest is the cave paintings. Some sources may explain that some beautiful painting is, for example, 40,000 years old, but it is impossible to prove it afterwards. If man really existed 40,000 years ago and was much more primitive than modern man, it is difficult to understand the existence of these fine drawings. Many people today cannot draw as well and as beautifully as the people who made the cave paintings. It is much more likely that their actual age is only a few millennia.

• If we study the human history, there are no mentions of an ice-age or that our ancestors would have been ape-like creatures in any folklore. Instead, they often mention the creation, the Fall, the Flood and also the mixing of languages, i.e. things that the Bible also tells about. The following quotes are related to the Flood. The first one tells about the prevalence of the Flood stories and the second one is an Assyrian description of the Flood. The abundance and universality of such accounts suggests that this is a historical matter:

Around 500 cultures – including indigenous peoples of Greece, China, Peru and North America – are known in the world where the legends and myths describe a compelling story of a large flood that changed the history of the tribe. In many stories, only a few people survived the flood, just like in the case of Noah. Many of the peoples considered the flood to have been caused by gods who, for one reason or another, got bored with the human kind. Perhaps the people were corrupt, like in Noah’s times and in a legend by the Native American Hopi tribe of North America, or perhaps there were too many and too noisy people, like in the Gilgamesh epic. (Kalle Taipale: Levoton maapallo, p. 78)

Make a ship according to this - -

- - I will destroy the sinner and the life.

- - Let the seed of life go in, all of it,

to the middle of the ship, to the ship you make.

Its length is six hundred cubits

and sixty cubits its breadth and height.

- - Let it go deep. –

I accepted the order and said to Hea, my Lord:

When I finish

the shipbuilding that you told me to do,

so young and old sneer at me. (9)  

Concept of God. The early history of mankind was discussed above. It is a good starting point to move on to dealing with the subject of God. Because nowadays there are many concepts of God (monotheism, pantheism, polytheism...) or no belief in any god, it is interesting that the concept of one almighty God has been common already in early human history and among nations. Even in those areas where there is now pantheism, polytheism or no belief in any god, there is tradition of one almighty God who has made and planned everything.

       Thus, many natural peoples have preserved original knowledge about the Sky God and about the highest, genuine and real God. Often, the more primitive the culture in question, the better the information has been preserved. This is not a rarity, but almost all peoples have had an idea of one God, from whose worship they have nevertheless given up and moved on to worship other gods. The direction has been from one God to many gods as the following quotes show.

But there is another fact, stronger, and in our opinion also more decisive, that proves the current fetishism and polytheism to be degenerates of a purer form of religion. Behind all fetishism and polytheism is monotheism. That is why monotheism, belief in one God, was not achieved in the history of the human race, even after countless centuries of development, but monotheism was once the religion of all peoples. This is not a guess, but a scientific truth proven by facts. In the history of the world, there is abundant evidence that religion has been corrupted by decay. The great religions of the world show that their original purity has been corrupted.

 (...) The works of learned people and serious researchers include even more pieces of evidence proving that the great ancient religions of Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea, Babylonia, India, Persia, and China, as well as the Eastern religions of the present day, all began as monotheistic faiths, and in the course of time degenerated into polytheism and also fetishism. Of this we have an innumerable number of reliable testimonies of eminent scientists, of persons who have interpreted the old documents of antiquity, the cuneiform writings of the Sumerians, Akkadians and others, and the hieroglyphics of Egypt. (10)

Eventually, the German anthropologist and linguist Wilhelm Schmidt (1868-1954) set about collecting evidence found by scientists about the monotheistic conceptions of God of the "primitive" tribes. To his astonishment, the material accumulated a 4500-page series of works, and at least a thousand new examples have been revealed since then. (11)

The concept of one almighty God is therefore an old concept and originates from the first ancestors. It is by no means a western thing, but this thing already occurs in the early history of mankind. Our first ancestors believed in one God.

    A good example of monotheism is Chinese folk religion. In China, the worship of Sang Ti, or the Lord of Heaven, was already common almost 2000 years before the birth of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics mentions that the first reference to religion in Chinese history states that Sang Ti alone was the object of faith.

    What about India, where polytheism now exists. It is significant that even in this country at one time there was a belief in one God, which, however, has gradually been abandoned. Monotheism has gradually changed into the worship of many gods:

But the old Vedic books, the Vedic hymns give a conclusive testimony. It is true that even in the earliest Vedic period, many gods are mentioned, such as Indra, the rain god, Vayu, the wind god, Marut, the storm god, Surya, the sun god, Ushas, the dawn goddess, and Agni, the fire god. But these were regarded as different manifestations of one single, supreme Being.

    Professor Max Muller describes the phenomena of this early Vedic religion in the following words: "The polytheism of the Veda is preceded by monotheism; and even in praying to these innumerable gods, the memory of one great, infinite God looms out of the mist of idolatrous statements, like the blue sky behind the clouds." In this early period of the Vedic religion, Hinduism was religiously and morally pristine. Neither the caste system nor reincarnation was known then; there was no idolatry, legal infanticide, widow burning, devil worship, mindless philosophical contemplation then. In contrast, there are several sublime passages in the early Vedic hymns; many of them echo the generally known legacy of creation, the Fall of man and the Flood, which belong to the first concepts of humanity.

    … Such was the original monotheistic faith of the Indo-Aryans. Polytheism and fetish worship were not known then. If we were to study the way down from this original concept of God, as it can be studied through many centuries in India, for example, the study would result in a book of several hundred pages. In India there is now a lot of worship of spirits and objects, even among the Aryan Hindus. It is the result of the same evolution by which Egypt, the Semitic tribes, and other nations have evolved, not upward, but downward. (12)

Children's belief in God. When in the early history of mankind there has been a belief in one almighty God, it is interesting that children also have a natural tendency to believe in some kind of supreme god who has made everything. Research has been carried out in this area for several decades. According to it, it is very easy for children to believe in a personal God who is super-powerful, all-knowing, and who created and designed the world. This kind of belief has been found to occur in children, even if they have received a completely secular upbringing. Some evolutionists have tried to explain this issue, e.g. through natural selection and that it would have been an advantage in terms of survival, but that does not explain why animals have not been found to have a similar belief in God. Children are not naturally atheists or agnostics, but it is easy for them to believe in the existence of a supernatural God:

Recent research results suggest that belief in God is not primarily the result of religious upbringing, but rather the structure and operation of the child's own information processing systems...

    Based on her research, Margaret Evans (2000,2001) has found evidence that children up until late childhood naturally consider supernatural creation to be a better explanation for the origin of animals than an explanation based on unguided evolution.

    These research results suggest that children naturally believe in a Creator God. Children's readiness to believe in God is not limited to God's creative power. Children naturally believe that God's cognitive abilities greatly exceed the corresponding abilities of humans: God is omniscient, all-perceiving and infallible. To express this, researchers use the phrase that children think God is super-knowing and super-observant (Barret 2007:7.) (13)

6. Different forms of theism in review

If theism is the most reasonable alternative to the existence of the universe and life and to the existence of intelligence, emotions, language and moral sense, then what form of theism is most likely? Three notable alternatives are known in this area: Judaism, Islam, and revelation that came through Jesus Christ.

    First, Judaism, which is actually the revelation of the Old Testament (Tenach). It tells about creation and about one God, which is certainly true. These are also historical issues, because there is plenty of evidence for them in archeology and history books.

    However, Judaism is in one sense an incomplete revelation. It does not include everything, but it promises e.g. the new covenant (Jer 31) and the coming of the Messiah, which had not yet been fulfilled during the writings of the Old Testament - the Jews call it the Tenach. Therefore, Judaism is not the final revelation, because the things expected in it - the new covenant and the coming of the Messiah - were not yet fulfilled when the writings of the Tenach were born.

     What about the revelation that came through Jesus Christ? Many Jews do not know that Jesus was a true Jew, of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David. However, according to the New Testament, He is much more. For if the writings of the New Testament are true, Jesus brought the new covenant prophesied through Jeremiah (Hebr 9:15: And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.) and was the prophesied Messiah who was expected but rejected by most Jews. Jesus was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets as he Himself said. This comes out in the following verses:

- (Matt 5:17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

- (Luke 24:25-27) Then he said to them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

- (John 4:25,26) The woman said to him, I know that Messias comes, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26 Jesus said to her, I that speak to you am he.

- (John 10:23-25) And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said to him, How long do you make us to doubt? If you be the Christ, tell us plainly.

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and you believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.

- (Hebr 9:15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

If the revelation that came through Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament (Tenach), then what is the difference between Muhammad and Jesus? Muslims, of course, regard Muhammad as their most important prophet and also value Jesus, but what is the truth on the subject? In this matter, you should pay attention to the following points:

• The first distinguishing feature is that Muhammad was an ordinary man, but Jesus claimed to have come from heaven, unlike the others. Here's the first big difference:

- (John 6:38) For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

- (John 8:23,24) And he said to them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins.

• Another thing to consider is that Muhammad committed sin. The Qur’an tells about this and how he had to confess his sins (110:3, 48:1,2, 47:19). Whereas, Jesus was able to say (John 8:46): ”Which of you convinces me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe me?” Other people also testified for his sinless nature (2 Cor 5:21, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5)

• The third considerable thing is that Jesus claimed He came to be the only way to God. Muhammad did not claim anything of the sort:

- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

- (John 10:9,10) I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

10 The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

• It is a known fact that Muhammad gained followers to Islam with his sword. Whereas, Jesus came here to serve and gave His own life for us:

- (Matt 20:28) Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

• Muhammad cannot forgive sins, but in Jesus there is the forgiveness of sins:

- (Acts 13:38,39) Be it known to you therefore, men and brothers, that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins:

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

- (Acts 10:43) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins.

• One important thing that Muhammad cannot do, but that Jesus can do, is to change a person's inner life. One example is Paul. He was hateful and cruel before his conversion, but when Jesus met him, he became a new person who loved others. This is evident from the following verses:

- (2 Cor 12:14,15) Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not your’s but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.

15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.

- (2 Tim 3:10,11) But you have fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience,

11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

- (Phil 3:17) Brothers, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as you have us for an ensample.

- (Tit 3:3-5) For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Despite everything, many may have a negative perception of the Christian faith. One reason for this is the injustices committed in God's name throughout history. In this matter, however, it is worth paying attention to the following points:

• As for the wrongs done in the name of God, it is true that they have happened over the centuries. However, it is important to note that this issue has been predicted in advance. Many do not heed the words of Paul, where he warned of the grievous wolves that would come after his departure. The development of history is well summed up in these words of Paul. They describe the centuries and the wrongs done in God's name that have happened. It is impossible to deny that Paul was right. Furthermore, Paul showed that works can testify against a person. He could also himself say to others: “Brothers, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as you have us for an ensample”, Phil 3:17.

- (Acts 20:29-31) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

- (Tit 1:16) They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate.

The following verses deal with the same subject. They explain that wrongdoers don’t inherit the kingdom of God and that Jesus has never known evil men, who have done wrongful acts in His name. He will reject these people in the final judgment:

- (1 Cor 6:9) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived…

- (Matt 7:21-23) Not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

On the other hand, in this topic it is worth paying attention to the fact that people are flawed and can fall. Many times the media make fun of some preachers' sexual falls or greed for money, but do not take into account that each one of us is only responsible for his own life, not for others(Luke 13:3: … but, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish. / Rom 14:12: So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.). Nor do they consider what the original teaching is on these subjects. For example, Paul wrote that the shepherd of congregation shouldn’t be covetous:

- (1 Tim 3:1-5) This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

- (1 Thess 2:3-10) For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile:

4 But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which tries our hearts.

5 For neither at any time used we flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak of covetousness; God is witness:

6 Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ.

7 But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherishes her children:

8 So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted to you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because you were dear to us.

9 For you remember, brothers, our labor and travail: for laboring night and day, because we would not be chargeable to any of you, we preached to you the gospel of God.

10 You are witnesses, and God also, how piously and justly and blamelessly we behaved ourselves among you that believe:

7. What comes after death? Three general views

One worldview question concerns what is after death. For every man still dies. It applies to each of us. I die, you die and everyone close to us dies. And if we go forward 150 years, the people of the current generation are all dead. None of the people we now meet and see every day or who appear in the media are alive on Earth. The fact that people born in the 19th century are apparently all dead is also an indication of the brevity of life. Many of them may have lived at the same time as us, but now they are dead.

    So the next question is: what is after death? There are three general views in this area. They differ quite a lot and not everything can be true at the same time. It is a logical impossibility. Only one of them can be correct:

The naturalistic and atheistic view is based on the fact that man does not have an eternal soul separate from the body. There is no afterlife. When a person dies and the body rots, it marks the end of all existence.

    However, atheists and naturalists cannot prove their view correct. It is based on the belief that when you die, everything ends, but how can you prove this to be true? This view is also at odds with many operating room experiences where a person can see procedures being performed on themselves outside the body. If these experiences are genuine, it points to the separate existence of a soul or spirit outside the body.

    One reason to be serious about the continuation of life and specifically the possibility of hell are negative near-death experiences. For example, Maurice Rawlings, who has been reviving the clinically dead for decades, states in his two books that almost every second person interviewed after resuscitation has had painful experiences (Similarly states Dr. Charles Garfiel in Robert Kastenbaum's book "Is there life after death?"). He noted that often these painful experiences are quickly buried in the subconscious, but if patients were interviewed immediately after resuscitation, bad experiences would likely be found as much as good ones. He writes about one such case in his book "Kuoleman tuolla puolen" (pp. 12,13):

Before I collected material for this book, I personally regarded most of the after-death experiences as the product of imagination or guesswork. I believed most of the cases that I had heard or read to have been euphoric delusions, caused by a lack of oxygen. Then, one evening in 1977 I revived a terrified patient who said he was in Hell. He begged me to pull him out of Hell and prevent him from dying. When I realized how real fear he was experiencing, I was frightened as well. The patients I have run into later, who have had these kinds of experiences, have aroused in me a compelling urge to write this book. Now I am sure that there is life after death and that all conditions after death are not good.

Herein lies a weakness of the atheistic view. No atheist can be one hundred percent sure that life does not continue after death. It is like a leap of faith into the unknown, like diving into deep waters where one does not know about possible dangers. He takes a risk when he goes into the water or an area where he has no personal experience.

The idea of reincarnation. What about the idea of reincarnation? It is based on the fact that when a person dies, they immediately or after some time pass into a new body. In the Eastern concept, a person can also be reborn in the form of an animal, but in Western countries, it is generally believed that a person remains human all the time.

    However, there are many problems with the doctrine of reincarnation. The biggest problem is that we don't remember anything about past lives. If reincarnation were really true, we should remember something from past lives, because even from the present life we can remember thousands of events. Isn't our inability to remember clear evidence that no past lives ever existed? This alone should be enough to disprove this idea.

    Even H.B. Blavatsky, the founder of the Theosophical Society, and the person who perhaps most made known the doctrine of reincarnation in the West in the 19^th century, has admitted that we have no memories of past lives.

Maybe we can say that in the life of a mortal person, there is no such suffering of the soul and body that would not be the fruit and consequence of some sin that has been committed in a previous form of existence. But on the other hand, his current life does not include even one memory of those. (14)

Heaven and hell. The third option is based on the fact that there is heaven and hell after this life. If the previous options are wrong, i.e. life does not end at death and we are not reborn on earth again, this is the most likely option. It cannot be proven true either, but this view is based especially on the authority of Jesus Christ. He talked about heaven and hell more than anyone else and he certainly has knowledge of the conditions beyond the border.

    However, other world religions also believe in human responsibility and in heaven and hell. This is, for example, in Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. The following quote describes the Buddhist concept:

My students generally have the opinion that only the good people can get to paradise and the bad ones have to go to hell. Japanese Buddhism teaches of the existence of both of these "places," and they are not at all afraid of using the word "hell" in the local religious language. (15)

If heaven and hell exist, then how can we escape hell and how can we get to heaven? How can we receive forgiveness of our sins and eternal life? This is what we will explore in the following paragraphs.

Everyone knows they have done wrongful things. The first thing to note is that everyone knows deep down that they haven't always done what they know is right. They may have hated others, lusted after their neighbor's spouse, evaded taxes, or turned their back on the plight of their neighbor. We know that we are far from perfect and e.g. the following verses show our inadequacy. Our inadequacy also affects the fact that we cannot be sure of God's approval.

- (John 7:19) … and yet none of you keeps the law…

- (Rom 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

- (1 John 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Only God can atone for sins. If a person is flawed and cannot get certainty by himself, is there a solution to this problem?

    The answer is that there is a solution. The entire New Testament tells exactly how the almighty God has approached us through Jesus Christ and done what was and is impossible for us. In the letter to the Corinthians, it is directly stated how ”God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself,” (2 Cor 5:19). In other words, God removed all barriers between us and Him. Now everyone can have their sins forgiven, God's approval and eternal life. Behind everything and as a motive was God's love for us humans. The following New Testament verses tell about it:

- (Luke 2:13,14) And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

- (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

- (1 John 4:9,10) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

The following quote will continue on the subject. When the gap between God and people was too great, Jesus the Son of God came down to our world and bridged that gap for us. We can believe and trust in Him and rely on this truth (Acts 16:31: And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.).

"Wait, I’ll give you one example: the average man can jump, for example, two meters. A person who has practiced sports and is fit may jump perhaps five meters. And if he is an Olympic winner, he can jump almost nine meters, but jumping any longer will be quite impossible in our generation. Let’s suppose then that we are all standing at the edge of a canyon with 200 meters to the other side. None of us has the ability to jump over that abyss, right? Now let's look at this same thing in the form of a parable. That abyss is the abyss of sin and God is on the other side. He looked upon us just as we are – poor little grasshoppers -- and began to pity us. He knew that it was quite impossible for us to get to Him by our own powers; for this reason, He sent for us His own Son, Jesus, who is a bridge between God and man. Jesus is the mediator between God and man. We can go with Him safely, because according to His own words He is 'the way and the truth and the life’! I know that there are many who will reject this divine solution as too easy. They’ll rather try to do something by their own power to save themselves, but no effort of man can take him to God, our destiny is to fall into that gaping abyss!” (16)

On the other hand, when Jesus has filled the law, i.e. the gap between God and man, and grace has come through Him, it is clear that man must receive this grace in order to be saved. He must receive Jesus into his life. Because if a person turns his back on Jesus and mercy, he rejects his only chance to be saved. So don't turn your back on Jesus and God's call. Arthur W. Pink, the late Puritan preacher, has aptly explained this matter, that is, how God offers grace through His Son. This offer should not be considered cheap.

If God offers you a Savior, who can save you from the punishment you deserve, and you do not accept Him, then surely it is justified that you are left without a savior. Or is God obliged to arrange another savior for you, since you don’t like this particular Savior? He has given an invaluable and honorable person, His only Son to be the atoning sacrifice for sins and so, completed salvation; and this Savior is being offered to you right now. If you refuse him, is God then unjust if He doesn’t save you. Is He obliged to save you in the way that you have chosen, only because you don’t like His way of saving? Or do you blame Christ for unfairness, when He doesn’t come to save you, while at the same time you don’t want Him, although He offers Himself to you and appeals to you that you would accept Him as your Savior.

Your part

- (Luke 15:17-20) And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you,

19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants.

20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If God has loved man and fulfilled the requirements of the law for everyone through Jesus Christ, how can man become part of this love and eternal life?

    There is an easy answer to the former: a person must turn to God and repent of his sins like the prodigal son in the previous parable. For God will never forgive an unrepentant person who does not want to give up his sins. It is impossible, because otherwise he would be giving his consent to wrongdoing. It wars against the goodness of God.

    Instead, God forgives every repentant person who surrenders their life to him and puts their trust in Jesus Christ, His Son. In the language of the Bible, it is about repentance, as e.g. John the Baptist, Jesus himself and the disciples declared (Matt 3:1,2 / Matt 4:17 / Acts 17:30) and faith in Jesus Christ. In the first case, we are actually confessing that we have been separated from God, and that we now want to turn to him. It can involve confession of sins as the previous verses showed. Furthermore, faith in Jesus Christ restores our relationship with God, because Jesus has already done everything for us.

    So when you have given yourself to God, confessed your separation from Him, the sins weighing on your mind and faith in Jesus, God will forgive you all your sins. It is not based on your actions and your own goodness, but on Jesus, who has already done everything for us (see the verses before!). So put your trust in Him. Believe in what He has done for you and turn to Him. In Jesus is eternal life:

- (Acts 16:30,31) And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.

- (John 6:67-69) Then said Jesus to the twelve, Will you also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that you are that Christ, the Son of the living God.

- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

So if you have received Jesus into your life, then you have God's sonship, eternal life and you are born again as the following verses show. You have this life no matter how you feel right now. Don't just base your certainty of salvation on your own fluctuating feelings, but on the word of the Bible and Jesus Christ, just as the ship's anchor is never thrown inside the ship, but always outside it.

- (John 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

- (1 John 5:11-13) And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life.

13 These things have I written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God.

The prayer of salvation: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.

References:

1. Charles Darwin: Elämäni, p. 55,56

2. Francis Crick: What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery (1988), p. 138

3. Richard Dawkins: Maailman hienoin esitys, evolution todisteet (The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution), p. 342

4. Arno C. Gaebelein: Kristillisyys vaiko uskonto?, p. 5,7

5. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 34

6. Science, 3.3.1961, s. 624 - Cit. from: Onko ihmimen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos, Jeh. witn.

7. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, s. 28. Cit. from Onko ihminen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos, Jeh. witn.

8. Sidney Collett: Totuuden kirja (The Scripture of Truth), p. 175

9. Arno C. Gaebelein: Kristillisyys vaiko uskonto?, p. 48

10. Arno C. Gaebelein: Kristillisyys vaiko uskonto?, p. 19,22

11. Ajankohtainen 3, toimittanut Daniel Nylund

12. Arno C. Gaebelein: Kristillisyys vaiko uskonto?, p. 26,27 / sekä lainaus Max Mullerin teoksesta: "History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 559

13. Tapio Puolimatka: Viisauden ja tiedon aarteet Kristuksessa, p. 59,61

14. Sit. kirjasta "Jälleensyntyminen vai ruumiin ylösnousemus", Mark Albrecht, p. 123

15. Mailis Janatuinen: Tapahtui Tamashimassa, p. 53

16. Jakov Damkani: Siionin poika, p. 107,108

More on this topic:

Questions for those who doubt or oppose the Christian faith

Buddhist teachings in review. Are they true or not?

What is God like? Read why it is not worth believing in the Hindu and pantheistic (divinity of everything) conception of God

The world of science under microscope. Although the evidence refutes the theory of evolution and refers to intelligent design, scientists do not admit this because of their naturalistic worldview

I used to be a science believer. Scholars think their positions represent science, reason, and critical thinking. However, they resort to faith in explaining the origin of everything

Scientific view of the world. Atheist often claim to have a scientific worldview. However, this worldview is based on faith and contradicts the evidence

More on this topic:

Questions for those who doubt or oppose the Christian faith

Buddhist teachings in review. Are they true or not?

What is God like? Read why it is not worth believing in the Hindu and pantheistic (divinity of everything) conception of God

The world of science under microscope. Although the evidence refutes the theory of evolution and refers to intelligent design, scientists do not admit this because of their naturalistic worldview

I used to be a science believer. Scholars think their positions represent science, reason, and critical thinking. However, they resort to faith in explaining the origin of everything

Scientific view of the world. Atheist often claim to have a scientific worldview. However, this worldview is based on faith and contradicts the evidence