Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

  • 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.
Unity regarding the Gospel is more important than accuracy regarding doctrinal details,
because disunity is a negative witness for Christ, which is why Jesus prayed for spiritual unity
( John 17:20-23, “May they be one…”), and he taught that peacemakers (those who draw inclusive circles
around people based on the kerygma rather than denominational lines between them due to didachaic differences)
would receive God’s blessing. A major reason many Christians throughout history have not manifested the love and
unity of God’s Spirit (Eph. 4:3) as well as they should is because of failure to realize this truth. If they did,
it would free them to speak honestly and fellowship without becoming unduly upset about relatively minor issues.

The kerygma/GRFS should be every Christian’s creed, and only belief in this crucial truth should be viewed as a test for orthodoxy or heresy. As Paul wrote in Romans 10:9, “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Conversely, judgments concerning a person’s spiritual orientation or ultimate destiny should not be made on the basis of didachaic or secondary doctrines. (If any judgment is made, it should begin with a self-examination per Matt. 7:1&5, 2Cor. 13:5-8).
 
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...
The atheist will beat you in intellect, logic, and reasoning.
 
Debating involves nothing spiritual but a battle of intellectual wits. Both debaters leave even more entrenched in their beliefs than when they started.

The only way is to ask God to reveal Himself to the Atheist (if it means that much to you). I would suggest praying to God in front of him.
 
The atheist will beat you in intellect, logic, and reasoning.

Never, because atheism is foolish, wrong reasoning, illogical and a false faith.
It is true that many atheists are closed-minded, but I have known some who were not.
We should both pray and witness--as Paul did.
 
The folly of atheism was proved to all who had common sense by the Dem policies during the Biden administration.
Now it remains for the MAGA folks to not allow the USA to return to its vomit via enacting policies that will convert
those Dems who are not totally depraved, as we pray and witness.
 
Witnessing/apologetics is akin to peacemaking, which is mentioned by Paul in many places including:

Romans 2:10, "Peace for everyone who does good."
Romans 5:1, "We have peace with God."
Romans 8:6, "The mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace."
Romans 12:18, "As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."
Romans 14:19, "Let us make every effort to do what leads to peace."
1Cor. 7:15, "God has called us to live in peace."
1Cor. 14:33, "God is not a God of disorder but of peace."
2Cor. 13:11, "Be of one mind, live in peace, and the God of peace will be with you."
Gal. 5:22, "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace...".
Eph. 2:14 & 17, "He himself is our peace... He came and preached peace...".
Eph. 6:14-15, "Stand firm then... with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace."
Php. 4:7, "The peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus."
Col. 1:19-20, "God was pleased... by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."
Col. 3:15, "Let the peace of God rule in your hearts, since... you were called to peace."

However, Jesus said (in Matt. 10:34) "I did not come to bring peace."
How can this verse be harmonized with those of Paul?
 
Jesus came to end the war between sinners and God, making peace/forgiveness/salvation possible.
However, God will not impose His will until Judgment Day, so until then souls may ignore and resist His peace offering/grace.
God initiates; sinners may cooperate--or not.
 
The topic of Lesson 1 on our website is Apologetics or reasons for believing in God. It was acknowledged that both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH (suffering & struggle) will end. At that time theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. Matt. 7:24-27) .

The choices involved in making the second watershed decision (the ground of meaning/morality) correspond to the following questions:

For a humanist, “Is there any reason I should not be selfish?” [No/Yes, depending on how you feel or what the rulers decree or how the majority votes.]
For a karmaist, “Does how I live ultimately matter?” [Not unless you can remember previous lives.]
For a naturalist, “Does instinct negate volition? [If not, then why is evil/hatred not equally right or existentially lawful?]
And for a theist, “What does God desire/require?” [That depends upon what message or revelation is from God.]

Answering these questions involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20) and that conscience indicates “the requirements of the law” (Rom. 2:15).

A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in John 14:9-11), Paul (in Gal. 1:11-12 & Tit. 1:1-3). Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory. In my opinion:

Humanism provides no hope for ultimate “oughtness”, because there is no logical way to avoid moral relativism without a superhuman Judge.
Karmaism offers a rationale for reincarnation, but I have explained why I view it as incredible.
Naturalism does not even provide a rationale for morality/the UMI, but rather it implies that what is, is right.
However, I do find reasons to believe NT theism is true.

However, before I continue with my reasoning or train of thought, what reasons would you share with atheists and anti-Christians
for believing Jesus and Paul or the NT Gospel?
 
Debating involves nothing spiritual but a battle of intellectual wits. Both debaters leave even more entrenched in their beliefs than when they started.

The only way is to ask God to reveal Himself to the Atheist (if it means that much to you). I would suggest praying to God in front of him.

Debate can devolve into a pointless ping-pong battle, but it takes two to tangle as well as tango,
so we should end our participation in the discussion if it gets to that point.

God is asking us to reveal Him to atheists by any means possible, including prayer and discussion.

The only atheists I have known personally are a couple of relatives, who consider themselves agnostics,
but we all walk by faith rather than by certain knowledge, so I am not sure why they choose to have faith in no God,
which is I-dolatry.

Most of my interactions with hardcore atheists was on a forum back in about 2005.
 
Debate can devolve into a pointless ping-pong battle, but it takes two to tangle as well as tango,
so we should end our participation in the discussion if it gets to that point.

God is asking us to reveal Him to atheists by any means possible, including prayer and discussion.

The only atheists I have known personally are a couple of relatives, who consider themselves agnostics,
but we all walk by faith rather than by certain knowledge, so I am not sure why they choose to have faith in no God,
which is I-dolatry.

Most of my interactions with hardcore atheists was on a forum back in about 2005.
It’s pearls before swine. Not only will they trample the pearls but then turn on you and tear you apart. Sounds a little severe, but atheists are excellent arguers. They could be standing in a thunderstorm and they couod win the argument against you that it’s not raining (while you’re trying to persuade them to come in out of the rain).
 
Good points, I don't disagree. I just wonder why you went to a Christian sight to reach atheist. I mean no insult and you go where you want, and thanks for coming hete to share. I just found it a little funny when I was reading it and wanted to say something. I meant this in a lighthearted way so please don't be offended. Praise Jesus and have a great day.
My heart skipped a bit at that post but your reply has helped me to be calm.
 
I'm posting a video I've posted before of an evangelist, Matt Powell, leading an agnostic to Christ. Hopefully everyone who takes a few minutes to really learn how simple this is, will be encouraged. In my experiences and in Matt's, I have no recollection of leading atheists to the Lord. I've tried using reasoning, logic, rationalization, personal examples of miracles, and yes even God's Word. I'm convinced that some keep saying no because they are not genuinely seeking the Truth. If they were sincere and open minded to the possibility, then God's Word has the power to convince as it does Pagans and the agnostic here.


Matt was talked into doing many public debates with atheists. Some are on his channel. I have not seen fruit in spite of him bringing the most convincing evidence and arguments that exceed full time court attorneys.
 
It’s pearls before swine. Not only will they trample the pearls but then turn on you and tear you apart. Sounds a little severe, but atheists are excellent arguers. They could be standing in a thunderstorm and they couod win the argument against you that it’s not raining (while you’re trying to persuade them to come in out of the rain).

Yes, and tulipists do the same regarding 7 pearls about God's love: 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4.

Here are seven more Scriptural pearls about salvation they trample:

1. God saves sinners who repent of I-dolatry and seek Him (1Tim. 2:3-4, Matt. 4:17, 7:7).
2. Repentance per the NT means accepting Jesus as Messiah and Lord (Acts 16:30-31, Col. 2:6).
3. God enables all sinners to repent and seek salvation (1Tim. 2:3-5, Tit. 2:11-14, Heb. 11:6).
4. God’s enabling or calling is resistible, so souls may choose instead to serve Satan (Matt. 13:14-15, John 8:42-44).
5. God’s enabling of volition/MFW (Deut. 30:19) is grace, and His condition for salvation is faith in Jesus as Lord (Eph. 2:8, Acts 16:31).
6. Souls who abuse grace by choosing to reject God/Christ/the HS are justly/rightly condemned (Rom. 1:20, 2:5-11).
7. Cooperating with God (saving faith) is not a meritorious work (Rom. 3:21-28, Eph. 2:8-9). Even loving or good works motivated by God’s HS manifest faith rather than merit (Eph. 2:10), because there is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace while walking/living (John 6:29, 2Cor. 5:7, Rom. 1:17), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes. The only trampling of this Gospel or contradiction comes from those who are spiritually blind (Matt. 13:15, 2Cor. 4:4, John 9:41).
 
I'm posting a video I've posted before of an evangelist, Matt Powell, leading an agnostic to Christ. Hopefully everyone who takes a few minutes to really learn how simple this is, will be encouraged. In my experiences and in Matt's, I have no recollection of leading atheists to the Lord. I've tried using reasoning, logic, rationalization, personal examples of miracles, and yes even God's Word. I'm convinced that some keep saying no because they are not genuinely seeking the Truth. If they were sincere and open minded to the possibility, then God's Word has the power to convince as it does Pagans and the agnostic here.


Matt was talked into doing many public debates with atheists. Some are on his channel. I have not seen fruit in spite of him bringing the most convincing evidence and arguments that exceed full time court attorneys.

Matt is in good company with Jesus per Matt. 13:14-15 and Paul per Acts 28:26-27.
 
Matt is in good company with Jesus per Matt. 13:14-15 and Paul per Acts 28:26-27.

I agree.
I try not to assume anything when sharing the gospel because I don't know what the person's response might be. I know atheists that I hope to have another opportunity to lead to Christ. That's when I realize it's the power of the gospel rather than my skills, or rather lack thereof, of persuasion. Romans 1:16
 
I agree.
I try not to assume anything when sharing the gospel because I don't know what the person's response might be. I know atheists that I hope to have another opportunity to lead to Christ. That's when I realize it's the power of the gospel rather than my skills, or rather lack thereof, of persuasion. Romans 1:16

Yes, and we are responsible only for trying our best as we feel led by the HS, not for effective or successful results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HealthAndHappiness
The topic of Lesson 1 on our website is Apologetics or reasons for believing in God. It was acknowledged that both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH (suffering & struggle) will end. At that time theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. Matt. 7:24-27) .

The choices involved in making the second watershed decision (the ground of meaning/morality) correspond to the following questions:

For a humanist, “Is there any reason I should not be selfish?” [No/Yes, depending on how you feel or what the rulers decree or how the majority votes.]
For a karmaist, “Does how I live ultimately matter?” [Not unless you can remember previous lives.]
For a naturalist, “Does instinct negate volition? [If not, then why is evil/hatred not equally right or existentially lawful?]
And for a theist, “What does God desire/require?” [That depends upon what message or revelation is from God.]

Answering these questions involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20) and that conscience indicates “the requirements of the law” (Rom. 2:15).

A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in John 14:9-11), Paul (in Gal. 1:11-12 & Tit. 1:1-3). Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory. In my opinion:

Humanism provides no hope for ultimate “oughtness”, because there is no logical way to avoid moral relativism without a superhuman Judge.
Karmaism offers a rationale for reincarnation, but I have explained why I view it as incredible.
Naturalism does not even provide a rationale for morality/the UMI, but rather it implies that what is, is right.
However, I do find reasons to believe NT theism is true.

However, before I continue with my reasoning or train of thought, what reasons would you share with atheists and anti-Christians
for believing Jesus and Paul or the NT Gospel?

Reasons I would share is an insight I call the “Propensity Principle” (PP). The 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, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why all truthseekers should agree on NT theism now 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. True love for God is evoked by His love for humanity and is a reflection of His loving Holy Spirit (1John 4:7-12); it cannot be coerced, although it can be imitated (2Cor. 11:14 calls Satan an “angel of light”). 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 (2Kings 5:10-14). The Naaman Example teaches us not to let sinful pride prevent us from being cured of spiritual sickness by methods we think are silly or do 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 cruel (cf. 1Cor. 1:18-25). However, they accept physical reality without necessarily understanding very well how it works (cf. John 3:8), and Jesus said that those who seek salvation will find it, which indicates that God graces every sinful soul with the ability or opportunity to understand how to be saved (Matt. 7:7, cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4), which might be called “seeking grace”.

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.
 
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.

I emphasize logic/reason without intending to demean emotion. Both are important aspects of personality, but their relationship is analogous to that of saving faith and works: faith precedes love (per GL 5:6), and right reasoning should guide one’s emotion. Right reasoning or logic functions in a way similar to the OT law: leading sinful souls to learn the need for God’s Gospel (GL 3:19-25). Biblical passages that seem to support the view that human logic is a divine gift include the following:

1. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. (Isa. 1:18a)
2. “They hated me without reason.” (John 15:25)
3. “So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace
day by day with those who happened to be there.” (Acts 17:17)
4. “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom [right reasoning] among the mature…” (1Cor. 2:6)
5. “When I was a child… I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” (1Cor. 13:11)
6. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1Pet. 3:15b)

These passages indicate that we should think and attempt to learn the best beliefs/opinions or solutions regarding issues including the arguments or accusations of atheists:

a. There is no objective truth.
b. There are no miracles or proof that God exists.
c. Christianity is blind faith, whereas atheism is scientific.
d. Evolution disproves creation as described in Genesis.
e. Jesus did not resurrect.
f. The Bible is not divinely inspired.
g. The doctrines of wrath and hell indicate that God is hateful.
h. There is no more reason to believe in the biblical God than in pagan gods.
i. Christians are no better than other people.
j. A loving God would not allow evil to exist.
k. The NT gospel makes no sense.
l. The Trinity makes no sense.