TikToker: The Biblical Gospel Makes NO Sense!

Fight For Truth

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:00

Hey guys, Colin here, and welcome back to the channel where the Bible and critical thinking meet to give you real

00:05

Christian commentary about the things that matter. Thanks so much for watching, let's get into the video. So the subject of today's video is a

00:12

TikTok video done by anti -evangelical activist Pastor Paul. Feel free to look him up and watch him at your own risk, because his videos are very sloppy, poorly researched, and clearly contaminated by a vehement anti -Christian ideology.

00:26

There's no other way to describe it. And you will see that in this video. Watch this. Start a fight in one sentence or less.

00:34

If the Bible says it was never God's plan for a blood sacrifice to take away sins, how does it make any sense at all then that he planned to beat the hell out of his son so we wouldn't have to go there?

00:46

So obviously this video is going to be a quick response, folks, because frankly there's very little substance to respond to here, but I'll try my best.

00:53

Pseudo -Pastor Paul's argument here is rooted in the passage that he has behind his head in the video.

00:59

The argument is as follows. If it was never God's intention for a blood sacrifice to take away sins, then why would

01:05

God beat his own son to a bloody pulp in order to hypothetically forgive our sins? There are two arguments being made here.

01:12

The first argument is that the traditional Christian understanding of atonement does not make sense and, frankly, does not correspond with the position of God in the

01:20

Scriptures. This is the argument from what we will call inconsistency. The second argument seems to be an emotional plea of some sort more than anything.

01:29

His language of God beating the, well, let's say, heck out of his own son is obviously meant to convey something.

01:35

The flippant and even accusatory nature of this remark seems to imply some sort of malfeasance or malpractice on the part of God.

01:42

In other words, the way he talks about God killing his own son seems to imply that if the story was true,

01:48

God did something horribly wrong. This is what we can call the moral side of his argument. Let's refute both of these things using

01:54

Scripture, shall we? First, in Pastor Paul's view, the idea of the Christian gospel is actually inconsistent with Scripture.

02:02

Specifically, the Scripture he has on the screen in the video is Hebrews 10 .4, which says this, quote, For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, end quote.

02:12

In Paul's view, he says that if blood sacrifices don't take away sins, then why on earth would God demand the blood sacrifice of his own son?

02:19

The answer to this is really simple. The passage is not talking about the blood sacrifice of Christ.

02:24

Christ was not a bull or a goat. He was a human being. First Timothy 2 .5 says, quote, For there is one

02:30

God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, end quote.

02:36

So when the Bible says that bulls and goats cannot ultimately take away sins, that is correct. But it does not apply to Jesus.

02:42

It applies to bulls and to goats. In fact, the context of the passage makes it abundantly clear that it's referring to the inadequacy of the

02:49

Old Testament sacrifices and the need for the New Testament Messiah. Indeed, earlier in the same chapter,

02:55

Hebrews 10 .1 says, quote, For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year make perfect those who draw near, end quote.

03:09

This is expressly referring to the Old Testament sacrifices. But this is a very important point to drive home for those of us who are

03:17

Christians. The inadequacy of the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament to ultimately take away sins does not remove our need for Christ's sacrifice.

03:25

Rather, it actually makes our need for Jesus's sacrifice even more clear. You see, there must be a sacrifice of some kind to quench the wrath of God.

03:34

Your local seeker -sensitive church pastor probably won't tell you that, but it's still true. 1 Corinthians 5 .7

03:40

says, quote, For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed, end quote. So it is clear that Pastor Paul's argument is not rooted in any kind of inconsistency in the

03:50

Christian worldview, but rather in his lack of understanding about the Christian worldview. Now, let me also mention that there is a cross -referenced text here on the screen that could come into play.

04:00

In fact, it probably should. The passage is Psalm 40, verse 6, which says this, quote, In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an open ear.

04:09

Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required, end quote. This is a different passage entirely, because it does not specifically make mention of bulls or goats or any other such animal, yet it clearly seems to imply that the

04:22

Lord did not delight in sacrifice or offering. At least, it seems to say that in general. So what are we to make of this as Christians?

04:29

Well, it's really the same as the previous passage. We have to take this in context. What sacrifice or offerings could

04:35

David be referring to in this psalm? Well, he was referring to the only sacrifices and offerings that he knew about in detail, which would, again, be the animal sacrifices of the

04:45

Old Testament. And again, this passage is merely demonstrating our need for a higher, more complete, more ultimate sacrifice, one that would come from Jesus Christ.

04:54

The point is not to take our attention off of Christ's sacrifice, but to put our attention on it. So the hypothetical logical inconsistency being pointed out here by Pastor Paul is really non -existent.

05:05

And the second argument he offers, though, is more implied than stated. He flippantly says that God beat the heck out of his son, and he's intentionally making it sound immoral, unjust, and unnecessary.

05:15

He's trying to make this traditional view of Christ's atonement look ridiculous. This is what I called his implied moral argument.

05:22

And this is a very common argument that Christians must know how to respond to. It's going to come up. How could

05:27

God allow his son to be brutalized in such a horrible way? What a terrible thing to do. Some well -meaning

05:33

Christians would respond to this objection by saying that Christ's death wasn't brutal. It was not bloody.

05:38

It was not wrathful. And they would say that it was actually a beautiful and loving and kind action on God's part.

05:45

And that's true, but it's only half true. Yes, it was a beautiful and loving and kind action towards us, but it was also a bloody, wrathful, and brutal execution.

05:54

But does that make it immoral on God's part? No. Not at all. Let me explain. In a physical and emotional sense, there's no getting around the fact that Christ's sacrifice was a bloody, brutal beating that would probably have given you nightmares if you had seen it.

06:09

Isaiah 53, verse 5 says as much when it says, But he was pierced for our transgressions.

06:14

He was crushed for our iniquities. But the fact that Jesus was substituted for us provides the love, the grace, and the compassionate aspect of this execution.

06:24

That is strong, brutal language in the verse, and Christians must accept it as true and understand, if we can, the weight of it.

06:31

When an unbeliever says that Christ's sacrifice was brutal and bloody, you can wholeheartedly agree with them.

06:36

You can say, you don't know the half of it. But when they turn around and say that God is immoral for placing this unimaginable burden on his

06:43

Son, that is where you must push back. First, you cannot call God immoral. He is the foundation of morality itself.

06:50

There is no objective standard by which you can call God's sacrifice of his own Son immoral, as was implied by Pastor Paul in the video.

06:58

That is simply your own puny, fleshly opinion being offered against the undying, inspired

07:03

Word of God, and I think I know which one to believe. Isaiah 40, verse 28 says, The Lord is the everlasting

07:09

God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary. His understanding is unsearchable.

07:17

So who are you to question God on ethical grounds? His ways are so much higher than yours. You wouldn't even know what is and is not ethical in the first place if it was not for God's nature and His revealed

07:27

Word. This is the absolute absurdity of anti -evangelicals as they tie themselves in moral knots in order to attempt to deny what is plainly presented in the

07:37

Scriptures. The blood of Christ was shed for us. And this is not a reality we should shy away from.

07:42

Rather, it is our greatest hope. We must thank Him for the cross. We must thank Him for His greatest demonstration of love and of justice.

07:50

So pray for them. Pray for the people who present unbiblical ideas like the ones you saw in the video. Pray that they would repent of this foolishness and turn to the truth of God's Word.

08:34

And until next time, fight for truth, never surrender, and keep your eyes open. Thank you, and God bless.