Mr Scott's Shed

Use this page to check you're ready to move on.

Review questions

Write your own answer first, then compare it with the model answer.

A colleague says: 'I respect your faith, but all religions are paths up the same mountain, like blind men touching different parts of an elephant. Anyway, it would be monstrous for God to condemn my grandmother in a remote village who never heard of Jesus.' Answer both points in 8-10 sentences, as you would in conversation.Show answer

After thanking her for a question that comes from love for her grandmother, I would gently point out that the elephant story is told by someone who sees the whole elephant, so the pluralist claims the very vantage point he denies to everyone else; as Newbigin noted, it is an arrogant claim to see the full truth. The religions also contradict one another, for example on whether Jesus was crucified (Quran 4:157), so they cannot all be true. Exclusivity comes from Jesus himself (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Tim 2:5) and follows from who he is, God the Son made man, and from the cross: if there were another way, Christ died for nothing (Gal 2:21). On those who never heard, Scripture says everyone knows God through creation and conscience (Rom 1:20; 2:15) and is judged justly by the light they had, not for rejecting a Christ they never heard of (Rom 2:12). Since no one lives up to that light, all need Christ, and faith comes from hearing the word of Christ (Rom 10:13-17), which is why Christians go to the unreached. The Judge of all the earth will do right (Gen 18:25), and the gospel is not arrogance but a free gift for anyone, including her and me, so I would invite her to read a Gospel with me.

  • Shows the elephant parable claims the full view it denies others, and that religions contradict
  • Grounds exclusivity in Jesus' identity and the cross (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Gal 2:21)
  • Answers 'never heard' from Romans 1-2: judged justly by the light they had
  • Uses Romans 10:13-17 to show the answer is mission, not inclusivism
  • Gracious tone, gift not arrogance, ending with an invitation
Compare eternal conscious punishment, annihilationism and universalism. Defend eternal punishment from Jesus' words and from Revelation, explain why it is just and not petty, show how you would treat an evangelical annihilationist, and connect the doctrine to the cross.Show answer

Eternal conscious punishment, the historic view of the Reformed confessions (WCF 33.2), holds that the lost suffer conscious, unending punishment; annihilationism (Edward Fudge; tentatively John Stott) holds that the lost are punished and then cease to exist; universalism holds that all will finally be saved. Jesus set 'eternal punishment' in parallel with 'eternal life' (Matt 25:46), spoke of unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43-48) and of a conscious rich man beyond a fixed chasm (Luke 16:19-31). Revelation 14:11 says the smoke of torment rises forever with no rest day or night, and Revelation 20:10 says the devil is tormented forever in the same fire to which the lost are sent (Matt 25:41); the chasm and Matthew 25:46 also exclude universalism. Hell is just because guilt is measured partly by the dignity of the one wronged, and sin dishonours the infinitely holy God, and it is proportioned, with severe and light beatings (Luke 12:47-48). Annihilationists are brothers who affirm Scripture, so I would answer them from the texts, not with scorn. Finally, hell explains the cross: Jesus bore God's wrath as a propitiation so God is just and the justifier (Rom 3:25-26), and there is no condemnation for those in Christ (Rom 8:1). That is why warning people is loving (2 Cor 5:11).

  • Defines all three views accurately with representative holders
  • Uses Matt 25:46 and Rev 14:11 or 20:10 (with Matt 25:41) against annihilationism and universalism
  • Explains justice: seriousness of sin against God and degrees of punishment (Luke 12:47-48)
  • Treats evangelical annihilationists as brothers while holding the confessional view
  • Connects hell to the cross and to loving warning
An ex-evangelical podcaster says: 'Deuteronomy 20:16 says save alive nothing that breathes. Your God commanded genocide, and the hyperbole excuse doesn't work.' Answer in 8-10 sentences, as you would on air.Show answer

After admitting honestly that this is one of the hardest texts in the Bible, I would give the context: God waited over four hundred years because the Amorites' iniquity was not yet complete (Gen 15:16), and the land 'vomited out' its inhabitants for practices including child sacrifice (Lev 18:24-28; Deut 12:31). Israel was not chosen for its righteousness (Deut 9:4-5), and it was warned it would perish in the same way for the same sins (Deut 8:19-20), which happened in the exiles, while Rahab and the Gibeonites were spared, so this was judgement on sin, not race. The command was unique and limited to specific nations, land and time by direct command, and Jesus' kingdom does not advance by the sword (John 18:36). I would explain fairly that Copan and Flannagan argue the language is partly ancient war hyperbole, pointing to survivors in Joshua 10:20 and Canaanites remaining in Judges 1, and that this fits inerrancy (Chicago Statement, Article XIII), but I would admit it is debated and not rest my case on it. The deeper answer is that God, the Giver of life, has the right to judge (Deut 32:39), and I would ask by what standard he calls it evil, since on atheism, as Dawkins wrote, there is 'no evil and no good'. Finally, I would point to the cross, where God's judgement fell on the innocent One so that guilty people, like Rahab and like us, can take refuge in his mercy.

  • Faces the text honestly and explains God's patience and judgement on sin (Gen 15:16; Lev 18; Deut 9:4-5)
  • Shows it was not ethnic (Rahab, Gibeonites, Deut 8:19-20) and not a pattern for today
  • Presents the hyperbole argument fairly as debated without resting everything on it
  • Grounds God's right to judge and exposes the borrowed moral standard
  • Ends with the cross as God's final answer to evil
A colleague in the staffroom says: "The Bible endorses slavery and treats women as second-class. Why would anyone take their morals from it?" Answer both charges in 8-12 sentences, honestly naming at least one hard text, and turn the conversation toward Christ.Show answer

Old Testament servitude was mostly debt servitude with real protections: kidnapping and selling a person was a capital crime (Exod 21:16), a maimed servant went free (Exod 21:26-27), and runaways were sheltered rather than returned (Deut 23:15-16), unlike Hammurabi's code or the Fugitive Slave Act. Hard texts such as Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:20-21 must be admitted; they were civil laws for ancient Israel that expired with that state (WCF 19.4) and, like the divorce law, regulated a fallen practice because of hardness of heart (Matt 19:8) without commanding it. The New Testament condemns enslavers (1 Tim 1:10), calls the slave Onesimus a beloved brother (Philem 16) and declares slave and free one in Christ (Gal 3:28). Christians such as the Quaker founders of the 1787 abolition society, Wilberforce and Newton drove abolition, though many professing Christians defended slavery in disobedience to Scripture, as Douglass's distinction between the Christianity of the land and of Christ shows. On women, Genesis 1:27 grounds equal dignity, Jesus taught women as disciples and chose them as the first resurrection witnesses when their testimony was not accepted in court. Complementarian roles express equal worth with distinct callings, like the Son who is equal to the Father yet does his will. Finally, the colleague's own belief in the equal worth of every person rests on the image of God, so the Bible is not behind our times; and Christ died for slaves and masters, men and women alike.

  • Protections in Mosaic law (Exod 21:16; Deut 23:15-16) contrasted with chattel slavery
  • Hard texts admitted and explained as civil law regulating hardness of heart
  • New Testament and Christian abolitionists, with honest admission of Christian complicity
  • Women's equal dignity (Gen 1:27; Jesus; first witnesses) and complementarian roles as equal worth
  • Critic's standard borrowed from the image of God; turns to Christ
A friend whose father died despite months of prayer says: "Either God isn't there or he doesn't care. If he were real, he'd show himself, and my pastor says I just didn't have enough faith." Respond in 8-10 sentences, addressing hiddenness, unanswered prayer and the prosperity gospel with pastoral care.Show answer

Begin with empathy and lament, not argument, weeping with those who weep and offering Psalm 13 as words God himself gives for complaint. Reject the idea that weak faith caused the death: that is the prosperity gospel, a false promise, since Paul's thorn was not removed (2 Cor 12:7-10) and Trophimus was left ill (2 Tim 4:20). Explain that Scripture's promises about prayer are real but given in context: we ask according to God's will (1 John 5:14), and the Father gives good things as he defines them (Matt 7:11). Jesus himself asked for the cup to be removed in Gethsemane, and the Father said no for the salvation of the world (Mark 14:36). On hiddenness, admit that Scripture voices the question (Isa 45:15), but note that God is clearly known in creation (Rom 1:18-20) and that more spectacle would not create trust (Luke 16:31). Above all, God has not stayed hidden: Jesus makes the Father known (John 1:18; 14:9), cried out in forsakenness on the cross and rose again, so silence is not the last word. Close with mercy (Jude 22) and a concrete step, such as reading a Gospel together, and keep the friendship.

  • Empathy and lament first (Rom 12:15; Ps 13)
  • Prosperity gospel rejected with 2 Cor 12:7-10 or 2 Tim 4:20
  • What prayer promises: God's will, good things; Gethsemane as model
  • Hiddenness answered from Isa 45:15, Rom 1:18-20 and Luke 16:31
  • Jesus as God's self-revelation, crucified and risen; gracious next step

Capstone task

A friend (real but anonymised, or based on Mel or Jordan) has sent you a message with three hard questions: 'How can Jesus be the only way?', 'How can a loving God send people to hell?' and one more of your choice from this module (Old Testament violence; slavery and women; or unanswered prayer and the hiddenness of God). Write an open letter of 900-1200 words answering all three. Begin by acknowledging why each question is hard. For each question, give the key biblical texts, the strongest honest answer from this module, and at least one point an objector would raise in reply. Show how the three answers connect at the cross, and end with a warm, personal invitation to consider Christ with a concrete next step.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for: