Apologetics

---

In a recent conversation with a friend, we got to the topic of religion. She was fine with the notion of a benevolent deity, but had a real problem with the various religions all making claims to have the “one truth.”
“Aren’t all religions worshipping the same God?” she asked sincerely.
If you’re a Christian, you’ve probably heard that at least once in your life and it’s a very tempting question to argue. When we hear it, our minds race and we think of all the reasons why every other religion is false and why Christianity is true. We come up with a million and one arguments in favor of Christianity at the expense of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., and by the time we’re done, the person whom we are engaging has more religious history than they even cared to know. I know. I do it too. But I’ve discovered that the root to good evangelism, particularly to those who are seeking real answers like my friend here, is to show the uniqueness of Christ with humility, gentleness and love, not just with facts. One method I’ve come to use is a variation of Pascal’s gamble.
I’m not really a fan of Pascal’s gamble. I heard a lot of atheists hate it too. For once, I agree with atheists on something about religion. Pascal’s gamble, the idea that you lose more by not choosing to follow Christ than by following Him, whether He’s real or not, aims to make false converts based on chance. Choosing to follow Jesus should not be something we do to make sure we hedge all of our bets. Think about it: if Pascal’s gamble is valid, why not expand it to other religions? A little Islam here, a little Hinduism there with just a dab of orthodox Judaism for effect? Cover all the bases? No, because that is foolishness. Living for the possibility of something cannot begin the transformative work of the Holy Spirit through Jesus’ work on the cross. Still, if used correctly, Pascal’s gamble can used to good effect.
My friend’s question is a valid one. If you don’t know anything about religion and they all talk about a general “God”, then why should they fight over differences, right? Knowing a little about other religions helps here, but it’s not the main argument. What you basically have to know is that most religions are merit or works-based, meaning that if one is good enough, they can know God. In that area, Christianity stands alone. It says that we cannot know God through our own works because all of our works are tainted with sin. Only God can come to meet us through Jesus on His terms. My argument is simply this: If the Bible is false, then it doesn’t matter what religion you choose. Good works will be enough to get you to heaven, as long as you acknowledge that there is a God and love and respect other people (or don’t believe but respect and love people). But if the Bible is true, then nothing any other religion says matters. We’re sinners destined for hell and God is giving us the means to know Him and to not be separate from Him for all eternity. These are our options: A world where the Bible is false or a world where the Bible is true. The reason that this is a bit better than Pascal’s gamble is that you’re not faced with a false choice of living a good life in the hope that, if Christ exists (even if I don’t truly believe), I can be saved. The choices in this argument are not wagers at all, not really. It uses the word “if”, but it encourages one to look deeper into other religions and to test the waters. And it’s true. There is an abundance of ways to go to heaven if the Bible is false, but only one way if the Bible is true.
The important thing is that this argument is just an opening gambit. It’s not a full-fledged “do you want to know Jesus” argument. More Bible discussion and prayer is needed to really convey the fullness of the Gospel, but it is one way to unseat false thinking about how God engineered the plan to redeem humanity.

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE