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.
Yes, but why some folks choose darkness/evil over light/GW remains a mystery.
In my own case, I realize that I was raised in accordance with God's plan A for parenting, so I would have no excuse for choosing to serve Satan. IOW, I was given ten talents or bags of gold in that parable in that regard, but perhaps only seven with regard to learning GW in SS. However, although I had every good influence as my environment, I have always felt free.
The closest I ever came to doubting was when I could not answer atheist arguments very well as I came of college age, but I chose to get a modern English Bible and found the answers I sought, connecting various dots in my margin notes (and thereby receiving additional gold of GW per the parable :^)
I tend to think that those given only one talent to begin with but buried it without committing violent sins will not have to experience nearly as much hell as Hitler's ilk.
The only atheists on this forum are those masquerading as Christians. Either way, why waste time coming on here saying you’re only talking to atheists? Why waste time on them, when our own families and friends are suffering?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...
You may have answered your own question, but I meant to say that I wanted to discuss with fellow Christians how to answer the questions and arguments of atheists when we have the opportunity to witness. (That was one of my first posts on one of my first threads after joining CC :^)
Feel free to share any ideas you want.
Yes, but I am a little surprised someone has not objected to me saying that there are degrees of suffering in hell or that souls will be destroyed after justice is accomplished, because that is not what I was taught. It is what I inferred from the verses below, whose wording differs from that of Jesus in MT 25:46, "Then they will go away to eternal punishment." Applying that verse to a teenager in lower Tibet 250 B.C. does not seem to jibe with justice. Even Hitler's sins were not infinite. Satan's? Maybe (per RV 20:10). Sometimes "forever" may mean "for the foreseeable future" or "indefinitely".
JN 17:12, “None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.”
RM 9:22, “What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?”
GL 6:8a, “Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction.”
PHP 3:19a, “Their destiny is destruction.”
2THS 1:9a, “They will be punished with everlasting destruction.”
2PT 3:7, “By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”
We here ponder many aspects of God’s love, justice, and mercy. I look at it like this- his love contains every aspect of His righteousness. I know a few things for sure, and the rest I am comfortable allowing God to do as He sees fit. I would rather be judged by God than 12 men, or women.
Atheists have a negative or evil conception of God, which may be caused or reinforced by the words and deeds of those who claim to be theists (RM 2:24, 2PT 2:2). Who would want to believe in such a God? Rather than reject a caricature of God, an atheist should imagine the most perfect, loving and just God that he/she can, and choose to disbelieve in that benevolent Being, if good reason to do so can be found. God is NOT demonic!
What a person believes about the moral attributes of God affects how he or she interprets God’s Word in the Bible, which is called “hermeneutics”. A Scripture-based hermeneutic may begin by believing that a person should triangulate from two key NT teachings in order to arrive at a correct understanding of problematic OT statements:
First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1TM 2:3-4, ACTS 17:26-28); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ).
Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). All explanations of reality and interpretations of Scripture should conform to this certitude: “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” (PS 145:17) The Judge is just. It would be better not to attempt an explanation of God’s Word than to state one that impugns God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16).
Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love. Hebrews 12:4-11 offers the clue for harmonizing these two themes. This passage indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline: to teach people to repent of their hatefulness or faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19) before they die, after which divine wrath will be experienced justly without the opportunity for repentance.
If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage, then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what occurred rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of how people should behave. Of course, because God is loving and just, He does not tempt, trick, confuse or otherwise contribute to anyone’s sinfulness. On the contrary, God must be doing all that He can do without abrogating justice or volition (MFW) to influence people not to be deceived and become self-condemned (JM 1:13-17, TIT 3:11, IS 45:19).
This realization should steer us away from the problematic opinion (a la Augustine via John Calvin) that God predestines most people for hell and lead us to affirm free will as a paradoxical fact (DT 30:19). It is paradoxical, because it affirms both that God is sovereign and that God chooses not to control moral thinking, because doing so would nullify human responsibility for sin, making the biblical revelation of salvation based on repentance irrelevant and absurd.
Divine love is signified in the Bible by marriage (IS 62:5, MT 19:6, EPH 5:25-32). People are free to repent and become part of the Bride of Christ (RV 21:9), and Believers may choose to be spiritually unfaithful or commit apostasy (or adultery in HOS 1:2f.) and become spiritually divorced from the Lord. (Marriage signifies spiritual union.)
Three issues frequently are cited as constituting stumbling-blocks to belief in the NT God for some people. The first problematic issue is reconciling God’s power and love with the fact of evil and its consequence. A person—even a theist—might think that God would not permit evil, suffering and hell to exist. People who are mystified by evil and repulsed by its punishment do not realize that the essential aspect of being a human rather than a robot or subhuman creature is moral free will (MFW), which is what enables a person to experience love and meaning. This is what makes humans different from animals, whose behavior is governed mainly by instinct. This is what it means to be created in God’s image (GN 1:26-27; robot or responsible)?
God could not force people to return His love without abrogating their humanity. If God were to zap ungodly souls, it would be tantamount to forcing conversions at gunpoint, which would not be free and genuine. If God were to prevent people from behaving hatefully, then He would need to prevent them from thinking evilly, which would make human souls programmed automatons.
Even if God were to prove Himself to skeptics by means of a miracle, they might believe for awhile and then as their memories began to fade they would probably think that God had died and revert to their former doubt—necessitating an endless string of miracles (recapitulating the story of the Israelites on the way to Canaan after the exodus from Egypt).
However, for reasons we may understand only sufficiently rather than completely, God designed reality so that experiencing His presence is less than compelling, so that even Jesus (God the Son) on the cross cried out “My God [the Father], why have you forsaken [taken God the Spirit from] me?” (MT 27:46, PS 51:11) This phenomenon is sometimes called “distanciation”, because we experience God as distant from us and “unknown” (ACTS 17:23), even though He is close or immanent, “for in Him we live and move and have our being” (ACTS 17:28). Distanciation is not forsaken.
God’s normative means of conversion is persuasion rather than coercion (MT 12:39, 24:24, 1CR 1:22-23). This is seen very clearly in Jesus’ lament over the obstinacy of Jerusalem (MT 23:37). Two unusual theophanies included when God appeared to Moses (in a burning bush per EX 3:2-6), whom God wanted to establish the Jewish lineage for the Messiah (OT), and to Saul/Paul (as the resurrected Jesus in ACTS 9:3-6), whom God chose to establish the NT church of Christ. Miracles are rare (not normative).
God could not force people to return His love without abrogating their humanity. If God were to zap ungodly souls, it would be tantamount to forcing conversions at gunpoint, which would not be free and genuine. If God were to prevent people from behaving hatefully, then He would need to prevent them from thinking evilly, which would make human souls programmed automatons.
Even if God were to prove Himself to skeptics by means of a miracle, they might believe for awhile and then as their memories began to fade they would probably think that God had died and revert to their former doubt—necessitating an endless string of miracles (recapitulating the story of the Israelites on the way to Canaan after the exodus from Egypt).
However, for reasons we may understand only sufficiently rather than completely, God designed reality so that experiencing His presence is less than compelling, so that even Jesus (God the Son) on the cross cried out “My God [the Father], why have you forsaken [taken God the Spirit from] me?” (MT 27:46, PS 51:11) This phenomenon is sometimes called “distanciation”, because we experience God as distant from us and “unknown” (ACTS 17:23), even though He is close or immanent, “for in Him we live and move and have our being” (ACTS 17:28). Distanciation is not forsaken.
God’s normative means of conversion is persuasion rather than coercion (MT 12:39, 24:24, 1CR 1:22-23). This is seen very clearly in Jesus’ lament over the obstinacy of Jerusalem (MT 23:37). Two unusual theophanies included when God appeared to Moses (in a burning bush per EX 3:2-6), whom God wanted to establish the Jewish lineage for the Messiah (OT), and to Saul/Paul (as the resurrected Jesus in ACTS 9:3-6), whom God chose to establish the NT church of Christ. Miracles are rare (not normative).
Moral free will (MFW) only exists when there is the possibility of choosing between two qualitatively opposite moral options that we call good and evil. These options are opposites because of essentially different consequences for choosing them. Choosing good results in blessing, life and heaven; and choosing evil results in cursing, death and hell (DT 30:19). This is why hell as well as heaven exists. It is the just consequence for choosing evil rather than God.
The Spirit of God is good: love, peace and joy (GL 5:22-23). Therefore, whoever rejects the Lord is spiritually separated from Him (IS 59:2) and thereby chooses the evil or satanic spirit of hatred, strife and misery and reaps the just consequence called “hell” in the afterlife (GL 6:7-9, HB 9:27-28). These options were presented by Moses to the Israelites (DT 30:19), and Jesus referred to this fundamental choice in terms of a fish or egg versus a snake or scorpion (LK 11:11-13). Life… or Curse? (GN 3:24, RV 22:1-2)
God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes MFW/volition or free human personality. As such it is necessary and even good (GN 1:31). Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1JN 3:8) and humanity (RM 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. Sin: ignoring God/God’s Word.
God loves a cheerful giver (2CR 9:7), which means He desires people to cooperate with Him happily because of love and gratitude for His grace rather than to cower before Him because of fear of hell. Love must be evoked; it cannot be coerced. And again, when souls sin or do NOT choose to love God freely, it is perfectly just (loving and logical) for them to reap the appropriate consequence (GL 6:7-9) or hell.
Why would anyone choose to believe otherwise? Only God knows why people choose atheism. It is a mystery stated by Isaiah, which is cited by Jesus (in MT 13:14-15): “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused.”
Apparently, this callous attitude demands God to nullify faith/MFW and thereby abrogate the essence of humanness by performing miracles in order to prove He exists (MT 12:39, 24:24, JN 20:29 & 1CR 1:22). In other words, atheists presume to know better than God; they want to usurp divine authority to determine what is best or good, but they may one day (at the eschaton per RV 20:15) wish they had admitted the possibility that God has ordained this mortal life on earth for the purpose of people proving to Him who is worthy of (qualified for) eternal life in heaven (cf. RM 2:5-8 & 2CR 13:5).
The Spirit of God is good: love, peace and joy (GL 5:22-23). Therefore, whoever rejects the Lord is spiritually separated from Him (IS 59:2) and thereby chooses the evil or satanic spirit of hatred, strife and misery and reaps the just consequence called “hell” in the afterlife (GL 6:7-9, HB 9:27-28). These options were presented by Moses to the Israelites (DT 30:19), and Jesus referred to this fundamental choice in terms of a fish or egg versus a snake or scorpion (LK 11:11-13). Life… or Curse? (GN 3:24, RV 22:1-2)
God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes MFW/volition or free human personality. As such it is necessary and even good (GN 1:31). Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1JN 3:8) and humanity (RM 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. Sin: ignoring God/God’s Word.
God loves a cheerful giver (2CR 9:7), which means He desires people to cooperate with Him happily because of love and gratitude for His grace rather than to cower before Him because of fear of hell. Love must be evoked; it cannot be coerced. And again, when souls sin or do NOT choose to love God freely, it is perfectly just (loving and logical) for them to reap the appropriate consequence (GL 6:7-9) or hell.
Why would anyone choose to believe otherwise? Only God knows why people choose atheism. It is a mystery stated by Isaiah, which is cited by Jesus (in MT 13:14-15): “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused.”
Apparently, this callous attitude demands God to nullify faith/MFW and thereby abrogate the essence of humanness by performing miracles in order to prove He exists (MT 12:39, 24:24, JN 20:29 & 1CR 1:22). In other words, atheists presume to know better than God; they want to usurp divine authority to determine what is best or good, but they may one day (at the eschaton per RV 20:15) wish they had admitted the possibility that God has ordained this mortal life on earth for the purpose of people proving to Him who is worthy of (qualified for) eternal life in heaven (cf. RM 2:5-8 & 2CR 13:5).
Evil people punish/torture themselves by experiencing delayed karma, just as those who experience appropriate justice during this earthly existence also punish themselves or reap what they have sown and send themselves to jail. This view makes souls responsible for breaking the rules rather than blaming evil on the judges (or Judge) who enforce the rules.
The purpose of earthly punishment is to promote repentance, but the reason for retribution in hell is to attain justice. It is difficult to imagine, but somehow even someone as evil as Hitler will receive perfect justice, perhaps experiencing the agony of the millions of deaths he caused in accordance with the principal of “eye for eye” (MT 5:38), after which their souls are destroyed forever (per JN 17:12, RM 9:22, GL 6:8, PHP 3:19, 2THS 1:9, 2PT 3:7 & RV 20:13-14).
Apparently, souls who are saints or saved sinners in heaven retain the freedom to sin by rejecting God, which Satan and his minions are indicated to have exercised (in LK 10:18, MT 25:41, JUDE v.6, cf. EZK 28:15-19). However, the decision made freely on earth (because of distanciation) is confirmed rather than negated or nullified by attaining proof and vindication in heaven.
The purpose of earthly punishment is to promote repentance, but the reason for retribution in hell is to attain justice. It is difficult to imagine, but somehow even someone as evil as Hitler will receive perfect justice, perhaps experiencing the agony of the millions of deaths he caused in accordance with the principal of “eye for eye” (MT 5:38), after which their souls are destroyed forever (per JN 17:12, RM 9:22, GL 6:8, PHP 3:19, 2THS 1:9, 2PT 3:7 & RV 20:13-14).
Apparently, souls who are saints or saved sinners in heaven retain the freedom to sin by rejecting God, which Satan and his minions are indicated to have exercised (in LK 10:18, MT 25:41, JUDE v.6, cf. EZK 28:15-19). However, the decision made freely on earth (because of distanciation) is confirmed rather than negated or nullified by attaining proof and vindication in heaven.
A common confusing issue is the doctrine of the Trinity. The OT Shema (DT 6:4) teaches that God is one, and the NT also affirms that there is one God (EPH 4:6, 1TM 2:5). However, the NT teaches that God relates to believers in three ways simultaneously: as the Father, as the Son and as the Holy Spirit (1 x 1 x 1=1).
The Father/Parenthood of God is indicated in Jesus’ model prayer (MT 6:9), throughout the Gospel of John (3:35, 5:17-18, etc.), and in the epistles of Paul (RM 4:11, 8:15, PHP 2:11). God the Father and Christ’s Sonship are discussed in Hebrews 1:1-4. The Son of God also is mentioned by John (JN 1:14, 3:16, etc.) and by Paul (RM 1:4, GL 2:20, 1THS 1:10). The Holy Spirit is mentioned in three successive chapters in John (JN 14:26, 15:26, 16:13), frequently in the book of Acts (ACTS 1:5, 2:4, 9:17, 13:2, 19:2), and in many of Paul’s letters (RM 8:4-26, 1CR 6:19, EPH 4:30) as well as in some of the other epistles (2PT 1:21, JUDE 20).
Apparently, Christians failed to explain to Mohammed (c. 610) how God is able to relate to Himself and to creation as a Triunity, and so the prophet’s teaching stressed that there is one God and implied that the Christian gospel is false. It might have been helpful for him and others who stumble at NT doctrines to discern which aspect of the triune God is the subject of various biblical statements.
These divine aspects or “persons” may be distinguished by role: God the Father as creator or initiator (GN 1:1), God the Son as Messiah or mediator (1TM 2:5), and God the Spirit as indweller (RM 5:5). For example, 1 John 4:7 says love comes from (is initiated by) God (the Father), Galatians 5:22 says that love is a fruit of the (indwelling) Spirit, and Ephesians 3:18 speaks of the (mediating) love of Christ (RM 5:8, EPH 2:18).
We can denote these distinctions by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (EPH 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (MT 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (EPH 1:13). A single passage that comes closest to indicating this distinction is Ephesians 3:14-19, in which Paul prays to the Father that through His Spirit of love Christ would dwell in believers’ hearts (also see 1CR 8:6).
When the Bible uses masculine words for God, it should be understood that only God the Son is human and had a sexual orientation while on earth. GN 1:26-27 states that both male and female were created in God’s image, referring not to androgyny but to personality, and Jesus said (in MT 22:30 & 19:11-12) that there is no marriage and thus no need for sexuality in heaven.
Actually, since the creation also manifests God (RM 1:20, cf. JN 1:1-3 & PS 33:6), in a sense God may be viewed as a “Quadity”. As Paul told the Athenians (ACTS 17:28), “In Him we live and move and have our being.” God as Creation is throughout physical reality (called “panentheism”). However, since this mode of revelation is impersonal, it has been de-emphasized by most Christian denominations.
The Father/Parenthood of God is indicated in Jesus’ model prayer (MT 6:9), throughout the Gospel of John (3:35, 5:17-18, etc.), and in the epistles of Paul (RM 4:11, 8:15, PHP 2:11). God the Father and Christ’s Sonship are discussed in Hebrews 1:1-4. The Son of God also is mentioned by John (JN 1:14, 3:16, etc.) and by Paul (RM 1:4, GL 2:20, 1THS 1:10). The Holy Spirit is mentioned in three successive chapters in John (JN 14:26, 15:26, 16:13), frequently in the book of Acts (ACTS 1:5, 2:4, 9:17, 13:2, 19:2), and in many of Paul’s letters (RM 8:4-26, 1CR 6:19, EPH 4:30) as well as in some of the other epistles (2PT 1:21, JUDE 20).
Apparently, Christians failed to explain to Mohammed (c. 610) how God is able to relate to Himself and to creation as a Triunity, and so the prophet’s teaching stressed that there is one God and implied that the Christian gospel is false. It might have been helpful for him and others who stumble at NT doctrines to discern which aspect of the triune God is the subject of various biblical statements.
These divine aspects or “persons” may be distinguished by role: God the Father as creator or initiator (GN 1:1), God the Son as Messiah or mediator (1TM 2:5), and God the Spirit as indweller (RM 5:5). For example, 1 John 4:7 says love comes from (is initiated by) God (the Father), Galatians 5:22 says that love is a fruit of the (indwelling) Spirit, and Ephesians 3:18 speaks of the (mediating) love of Christ (RM 5:8, EPH 2:18).
We can denote these distinctions by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (EPH 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (MT 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (EPH 1:13). A single passage that comes closest to indicating this distinction is Ephesians 3:14-19, in which Paul prays to the Father that through His Spirit of love Christ would dwell in believers’ hearts (also see 1CR 8:6).
When the Bible uses masculine words for God, it should be understood that only God the Son is human and had a sexual orientation while on earth. GN 1:26-27 states that both male and female were created in God’s image, referring not to androgyny but to personality, and Jesus said (in MT 22:30 & 19:11-12) that there is no marriage and thus no need for sexuality in heaven.
Actually, since the creation also manifests God (RM 1:20, cf. JN 1:1-3 & PS 33:6), in a sense God may be viewed as a “Quadity”. As Paul told the Athenians (ACTS 17:28), “In Him we live and move and have our being.” God as Creation is throughout physical reality (called “panentheism”). However, since this mode of revelation is impersonal, it has been de-emphasized by most Christian denominations.
I conclude the logical reasoning for choosing to have faith in Jesus that I have shared in this thread with a lament for Jerusalem (atheists per JN 8:42-47) cited by both Jesus and Paul when they were frustrated by the dearth of converts to their preaching of the Gospel.
Lament for Jerusalem
“You will be ever hearing, but never understanding,
You will be ever seeing, but never perceiving,
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
They hardly hear with their ears,
And they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And turn, and I would heal them.”
(Matthew 13:14-15 and Acts 28:26-27, quoting Isaiah 6:9-10,
cf. Matthew 23:37 )
Lament for Jerusalem
“You will be ever hearing, but never understanding,
You will be ever seeing, but never perceiving,
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
They hardly hear with their ears,
And they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And turn, and I would heal them.”
(Matthew 13:14-15 and Acts 28:26-27, quoting Isaiah 6:9-10,
cf. Matthew 23:37 )
1 Peter 3:15b instructs Christians to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have…”--IOW, to share our testimony. The following excerpts from “Love God with All Your Mind” by J.P. Moreland expresses my experience regarding obeying this command:
“I used to be afraid of witnessing... I was rather defensive and nervous... But now I understand why I believe, and this has brought me both peace and a non-defensive boldness to witness to others.” (p.20) “Sunday School should be more effective in training believers how to think carefully about their faith. Training in apologetics should be a regular part of discipleship.” (p.26) “Our discipleship materials often leave Christian young people vulnerable to atheistic college professors.” (p.28) “The apostle Paul... reasoned with and tried to persuade people intelligently to accept Christ.” (p.30)
My testimony is that "from infancy I have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2TM 2:13), but Sunday School was not very effective in training me how to think about doctrinal details that would enable me to defend against the arrows of atheist arguments (EPH 6:11&16), so I began to study Scripture in order to become better able to discern sound doctrine by understanding how disparate teachings comprise a harmonious whole truth. When I compiled what I learned on our website, I endeavored to address atheist objections by beginning philosophically and sharing a logical train of thought which started at the station of an "agnostic innocence" or a newly created soul.
The first place I arrived was at the realization a seeker of truth must at least implicitly affirm three axiomatic or unavoidable assertions: the seeker exists, truth is discernable and it can be communicated via language. The next spot on the logical track was that there is a switch where one must decide which way to go: arbitrary amorality or moral nihilism for no good reason because reality consists of only the four dimensions of space plus time (cosmaterialism), and belief that life is not a farce but rather how one believes and behaves matters because there is a fifth spiritual dimension that provides meaning and morality (moralism).
Further down the track I arrived at the place where atheist attempts to ascribe meaning to existence (humanism, karmaism, naturalism, pantheism, polytheism, deism) veered off from the straight direction of faith in God who is most fully revealed in the New Testament. AT that point I considered various factors that atheists might use as an excuse for choosing the ungodly route, including pseudoscience, rewriting history, the possibility of immortality and the cause of moral conscience. I also entertained ways that NT theism would be disproved if they were real, but countered with reasons to view the NT as the most credible way of believing. Next, I shared what might be called the "Propensity Principle", which applies linear logic for a reasonable faith rather than blind shot in the dark. Finally, I shared possible answers to questions seekers might have regarding the God revealed mainly by Jesus and Paul.
“I used to be afraid of witnessing... I was rather defensive and nervous... But now I understand why I believe, and this has brought me both peace and a non-defensive boldness to witness to others.” (p.20) “Sunday School should be more effective in training believers how to think carefully about their faith. Training in apologetics should be a regular part of discipleship.” (p.26) “Our discipleship materials often leave Christian young people vulnerable to atheistic college professors.” (p.28) “The apostle Paul... reasoned with and tried to persuade people intelligently to accept Christ.” (p.30)
My testimony is that "from infancy I have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2TM 2:13), but Sunday School was not very effective in training me how to think about doctrinal details that would enable me to defend against the arrows of atheist arguments (EPH 6:11&16), so I began to study Scripture in order to become better able to discern sound doctrine by understanding how disparate teachings comprise a harmonious whole truth. When I compiled what I learned on our website, I endeavored to address atheist objections by beginning philosophically and sharing a logical train of thought which started at the station of an "agnostic innocence" or a newly created soul.
The first place I arrived was at the realization a seeker of truth must at least implicitly affirm three axiomatic or unavoidable assertions: the seeker exists, truth is discernable and it can be communicated via language. The next spot on the logical track was that there is a switch where one must decide which way to go: arbitrary amorality or moral nihilism for no good reason because reality consists of only the four dimensions of space plus time (cosmaterialism), and belief that life is not a farce but rather how one believes and behaves matters because there is a fifth spiritual dimension that provides meaning and morality (moralism).
Further down the track I arrived at the place where atheist attempts to ascribe meaning to existence (humanism, karmaism, naturalism, pantheism, polytheism, deism) veered off from the straight direction of faith in God who is most fully revealed in the New Testament. AT that point I considered various factors that atheists might use as an excuse for choosing the ungodly route, including pseudoscience, rewriting history, the possibility of immortality and the cause of moral conscience. I also entertained ways that NT theism would be disproved if they were real, but countered with reasons to view the NT as the most credible way of believing. Next, I shared what might be called the "Propensity Principle", which applies linear logic for a reasonable faith rather than blind shot in the dark. Finally, I shared possible answers to questions seekers might have regarding the God revealed mainly by Jesus and Paul.
Here is what I now see and is simple and easy once stand in this truth
Luke 21:14
Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
Luke 21:15
for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
God does the done work of Son through us, in truth as did that at Pentecost, still doing that today over 2,000 years later
That settles it
Matthew 11:28-30
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Yes, the essential Gospel is simple, although doctrinal details can become rather complicated, as some discussions on CC illustrate.
We know that the Holy Spirit helps believers by teaching them truth beyond the Gospel and by loving others through us.
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 want to let anyone interested in apologetics know that I recently decided to offer to add constructive comments
to our website <truthseekersfellowship.com> at appropriate places,
but please try to adhere to the parameters I set for myself, including:
1. Append Scripture references to support interpretations or logical inferences.
2. Attempt to harmonize opposing viewpoints instead of being argumentative.
3. Be pithy (using acronyms in the list), but address questions obviously begged by your comment.
Thanks, GWH
2 Corinthians 4 verse 4 ~ The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, Who is the image of God.
Regarding the topic of apologetics or logical reasons to believe in God and Christ, I would like to share again an insight I call the Propensity Principle, which I just realized is akin to what might be called "seeking grace" (MT 7:7, 1TM 2:3-4).
The “Propensity Principle” (PP) points out that until proof is provided in the future at the eschaton, humanity’s existential need and desire for eternal life and ultimate justice (the duo of desirables or DOD) make it logical for truthseekers to have a propensity to hope and believe a God who provides the DOD exists, to determine the most credible revelation of God’s requirement for attaining heaven, and to cooperate with His revealed will. IOW, it seems logical--given the existential facts of death and imperfect justice--that an unbiased truthseeker would have a propensity to hope the Christian view is correct, because there is no better (credible and desirable) way of attaining the DOD than NT theism. This PP restates Pascal’s wager in terms of comparison shopping (with all belief systems) instead of gambling.
The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:
1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.
2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.
3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek ways to become immortal in a heavenly existence (where there is love and justice for all forever, the DOD).
4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus.
5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible.
6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah.
Atheists deny the validity of this argument, but in the absence of disproof, the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny is illogical or foolish. This is why all truthseekers should accept NT theism rather than assume atheism is an unlucky guess. As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and logic rather than of blind faith and fear. Heaven may not be a mirage!
A biblical illustration of the PP is the OT story about Naaman being told to bathe in the dirty Jordan River to cure his leprosy (2KG 5:10-14). The Naaman Example teaches souls not to let sinful pride prevent them from being cured of spiritual sickness by methods one may not fully understand. Some people might not understand why God ordained Messiah to atone for humanity’s sins, so they think the Gospel seems foolish or silly (cf. 1CR 1:18-25). However, they accept physical reality without necessarily understanding very well how it works (cf. JN 3:8).
Those who reject the PP (and Naaman Example) apparently employ a logical fallacy that might be called non praecedere (comparable to non sequitur), making an unwarranted conclusion which precedes unknown facts, namely the cause for the universe “banging bigly”. Atheists assume a natural cause will be discovered, but their assumption is premature and thus inappropriate.