Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I just saw this thread so I might be saying something that someone already said. In my many years speaking with atheists they have never once become a Christian in my presence. But my pastor and friend encouraged me to keep going because you never know what the Lord does while we aren't looking. I might have said something that caused them to think about it and perhaps they eventually accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior.My reason for beginning this thread is simply to share my fallible faith with atheists, hoping they will find what I have learned helpful for understanding ultimate truth. I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs.
I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, but I will begin by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality? I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice.
An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament (NT) book of 1 Corinthians 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror).
The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly; so, what do y'all think are three pre-Scriptural axiomatic truths revealed via right logic?
Over...
I think I should mention that atheists seem to respond to personal testimony. They weren't impressed with my argument or my rhetorical skill (or lack thereof) but their ears seemed to perk up when I told them what the Lord did for me -- how he saved me personally.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
No, we are always indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but sometimes we still sin, at which point we cannot say we are filled or cooperating fully.
In fact, the indwelling HS is how we are convicted when we sin and motivated to confess ASAP, unless we choose to continue not surrendering to His leading, following the error of Adam and Eve described previously. Because confession cooperates fully with the will of God, God forgives even unknown sins and His HS refills us. This dynamic is a logical insight rather than something Scripture specifically states.
How would you explain it?
Do believer sin? Does the Holy Spirit sin?
I think we can agree that believers do sin and that the Holy Spirit does not. Now then, how do you reconcile these two points with believers always being filled with the Holy Spirit?
To my mind, the Holy Spirit is always available to the believer, if they allow it in, but when we are too full of ourselves to spare room for the Holy Spirit, God allows us to be so full, and thus also allows us to learn even more the consequences of sin until we decide again to make room for Him in our lives. Hopefully as we mature, we tend to allow God room in our lives to a greater and greater extent, but we also always keep some things "private", where God is not allowed to interfere. That might be those people we just cannot forgive, the private passion that we just cannot give up, the fear that we just cannot let loose of or whatever else is too precious to hand over to God. We all have those points in our lives, and when they conflict with God, God takes a backseat, no matter how loudly we profess our love for God.
How do you graft Rom. 7:14-24 onto your understanding?
Paul is describing the state of sanctification and concludes its not Him doing the sinning anymore, but sin dwelling in him doing it. This is that separation from the sinful nature.
In this scripture, the Greek uses a military term. There are 3 entities, in this situation Paul is describing. The Holy spirit and satan are engaged in trench warfare over our souls. We are merely onlookers with the only choice who we choose to give power to.
Paul concludes in this state, when he does what he does not want to do, it's not him doing it but sin dwelling in doing it.
First and foremost, there's no such thing as a believer. That word is a mistranslation.
I think a good look at what a temple of the Holy spirit is might be in order.
There's no sometimes in and sometimes out. You either are, or are not. If you are, it cones with paradoxical truths. Such as sanctification, to be separated from our sinful natures to Him, and justification, to be seen by the Father as just like Christ.
Those truths never change. If they change and are gone, they are gone for good.
Can we get some scripture on that please? Or at least where your getting your definition?
Your statement is close, but the logic is backwards:
Scripture never teaches that believers are “always indwelt” and then sometimes “refilled.”
It teaches that the Spirit’s indwelling is permanent (Romans 8:9), but the Spirit’s filling is variable (Ephesians 5:18).
Indwelling is God’s act; filling is our cooperation.
Conviction does not prove indwelling—Scripture shows God convicting the unregenerate (e.g., Acts 24:25).
Confession does not “refill” us; confession restores fellowship (1 John 1:9).
The dynamic you describe—sin → loss of filling → conviction → confession → refilling—is not stated in Scripture; it is a theological inference. "This dynamic is a logical insight rather than something Scripture specifically states" as you stated.
The biblical pattern is simpler: the Spirit indwells permanently, believers are commanded to walk in the Spirit, and sin disrupts fellowship but never ejects the Spirit.
Filling is not a tank level; it is the degree to which the Spirit governs the believer’s will.
That is the distinction the apostles actually make.
The problem is not that we “run out of room” for the Spirit or that God “takes a backseat”; the problem is that sin disrupts our submission, not God’s presence.
The Spirit does not shrink when we sin; we resist Him (Galatians 5:17). Confession restores fellowship (1 John 1:9), not because God was absent, but because rebellion was present.
The areas we refuse to surrender—unforgiveness, secret passions, fears—are not “private rooms God cannot enter”; they are places where we refuse His rule.
The Spirit is always available, always indwelling, always holy; the question is never whether He is present, but whether we are yielding. That is the biblical reconciliation of a sinning believer and a sinless Spirit.
I graft what Paul says in Romans 7:14-24 into what Paul says in the rest of his writings no better than he did.
Paul said he was "unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin... it is sin living in me that does it."
How does that jibe with him urging folks to be filled with the Spirit in Eph. 5:18?
Failing to practice what he preached? Surely not!
I have not given the passage a whole lot of thought, but off the top of my head I would say that it reminds me of a cartoon
in which a good angel sat on one shoulder and a bad angel on the other, fighting over the soul of the character in the middle.
I think the good angel eventually won the argument in the cartoon, and Paul believes God will rescue him by the end of life.
I experience something similar almost every day when tempted to eat more than I want--especially a dessert.
My experience with witnessing to atheists has been the same.
I am unaware of having any better luck with tulipists on CC.
I persevere in plugging away, hoping to influence folks the right way,
but my testimony is boring, having been raised by Christian parents,
so atheists could say of course I am a Christian. I wish I could share
with them what I call the Propensity Principle in this thread.
Thus, I empathize with Jesus in Matt. 13:14-15 and Paul in Acts 28:26-27.
So yes, let us keep on doing good and encouraging each other (Heb. 10:24-25).
Backwards logic is close to true? Like the negative of a photograph?
Scripture never teaches that saints sin while Spirit-filled.
Both indwelling and refilling require souls cooperating.
How is fellowship restored without being spiritually refilled?
Yes, this description of spiritual dynamics is a logical insight rather than something Scripture specifically states.
Both "level" and "degree" are rather metaphorical terms attempting to describe a spiritual relationship.
OK, all that and I don't understand your position any better than when we started.
I asked you a couple of days ago, if you can accept that Paul is describing the state of sanctification in Rom.7 :14-21. A state where he is separated from thesinful nature.
You said you haven't given this passage much thought, but if I know you, that's all you've been thinking about. I don't think your capable of letting something like this linger without it fitting into it's proper place.
You do know 99.9% of preachers won't touch this passage with a 10 ft pole. It's because they don't understand that all Gods deeper truths are paradoxes. Without that ability to understand that, it's impossible to rightly divide Gods word.
I wish I knew how to constructively move forward together on this passage, unless you have any ideas, im bowing out on this one.
My idea is for you to view each of my statements as a question and state agreement or else why you disagree.
For example:
1. Do you believe no one attains moral perfection or is always Spirit-filled/completely surrendered during this earthly sojourn?
2. Do you believe there are many temptations, including pride in how good/surrendered we are?
3. So you believe the spiritual choice is binary: God (love and truth) or Satan (hate and lies)?
4. Do you believe God attracts everyone to become chosen, but not irresistibly?
5. Do you desire to save atheists and to inoculate Christians against atheism and heresy?
6. Do you think Deut. 30:19 and Matt. 23:37 apply to all of humanity?
My reason for beginning this thread is simply to share my fallible faith with atheists, hoping they will find what I have learned helpful for understanding ultimate truth. I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs.
I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, but I will begin by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality? I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice
An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament (NT) book of 1 Corinthians 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirro
The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly; so, what do y'all think are three pre-Scriptural axiomatic truths revealed via right logic?
Over...
G, this is my understanding and motivation to finding other called out ones. Im not sure how you found atheists, for me, this is how i found candidates to be sainted.
Knowing from scripture, that the Father calls out a small group, from among a larger group that is not called, it's a process of elimination.
If someone is being called out, they could be called out by a hundred different ways. But the common thread is they will probably make a choice at some point to make a change in their life.
Their are places that attract people in that state of mind, one being the salvation army. At the salvation army, they choose to be locked down, no phone, no contact with the outside world for a month, meager accommodations, and no drugs or alcohol.
So that process of elimination has given me a willing candidate, and the best chance to find a gathering of potential called out ones. They more than likely cover the spectrum of beliefs. But there's one common thread, they want a change.
So i refurbished 7 condemned houses, and made contact with a salvation army and told them i would give housing to anyone who graduated their 6 month program.
Each house had 5 rooms available, and for the most part was always at capacity. It was then the opportunity came to really become integrated into most of their lives. Work, getting to and from, food, getting to and from, meetings, getting to and from, and so on, they had nothing.
This endeavor was in addition to feeding 200 homeless every Friday. So lots of opportunity for the 35 guests to find that essential outlet to help others.
My wife and I didn't minister to them like I hear alot of people choose to do, we thought the example of a surrendered life would be that necessary attraction to a life in Christ.
So for the reasons I stated above, that is how my wife and I tried to find those lucky called out ones.
That is a wonderful ministry! My wife and I also have been supporting our local Salvation Army financially for many years as well as a local mission for the homeless and a relative who was homeless because of being a paranoid schizophrenic but yet is a devout Christian in his saner moments.
The logic is “backwards” only in the sense that your model treats filling as a fluctuating substance‑level, whereas the apostles treat it as a fluctuating submission‑level; so yes, like a photographic negative, your pattern resembles the truth while inverting the causal direction.
Scripture never teaches that a believer sins while Spirit‑filled because “filled” means yielded, governed, directed—a state incompatible with active rebellion (Gal 5:16). But Scripture also never teaches that sin ejects the Spirit or drains Him like fluid; indwelling is permanent (Rom 8:9), and filling is relational, not volumetric.
Both indwelling and filling involve human cooperation, but not in the same way: indwelling is received once by faith, filling is ongoing obedience. Fellowship is restored not by “refilling” but by relational realignment—confession (1 John 1:9) removes the obstruction, and the Spirit resumes His governing influence. The apostles never describe this as a “refill,” only as returning to walking in the Spirit (Gal 5:25). So yes, “level” and “degree” are metaphors, but the biblical reality they point to is the Spirit’s active governance, not His quantitative presence.
I just noticed your post, and I want to express my sympathy regarding your parents, who were the spiritual opposites of my loving Christian mom and dad, so I rejoice that you were able to learn the lesson your parents should have learned and to find eternal life in heaven.
Regarding hell, I believe Scripture indicates that unrepentant haters will reap the just consequences of their sins, perhaps along the lines of suffering "eye for eye" and then be "destroyed", meaning pass out of existence (per John 17:12, Rom. 9:22, Gal. 6:8, Phil. 3:19, 2Thes. 1:9, 2Pet. 3:7 & Rev. 20:13-14).
Have a blessed day/life!
