Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[GWH]

Actually, the invitation on another thread to invite folks to critique Lesson 1 on our website
<truthseekersfellowship.com> about the Best Belief in order to see whether any corrections need to be made
would be more appropriate on this corresponding thread, so here y'are.

Lesson 1 on The Best Belief begins thusly in Part I:

My reason for writing this lesson is simply to share my fallible faith with others, 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 NT book of 1Cor. 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: that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective.

These three affirmations seem to be a priori truth or unavoidable (beginning) beliefs:

1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am” (cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). The OT says in Exo. 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).

2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2Cor. 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1Cor. 13:9&12 cited previously).

3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me

Having established three unavoidable or axiomatic beliefs, my intent now is to discuss the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge. Only the first student or one with a tabula rasa (blank slate)—like a newly sentient child—actually starts exploring reality from the beginning. (A pre-sentient infant in the womb is completely agnostic or without knowledge of every ism.) Nevertheless, in Part II the present study “begins” in the midst of this writer’s life and learning by seeking to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice/lack of bias).

Any feedback or constructive criticism so far?

 

[GWH]

Seeing no disagreement or amendments suggested, I will share the beginning of Part II of Lesson 1 of our website
for your consideration and evaluation:

Imagine that you have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis). Certainly, your immediate concern would be meeting your survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, would you not wonder why you were “born”, how you should behave, and what you ought to accomplish with your life?

Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for thinkers or truthseekers, there are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions. One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI).

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason. This answer seems more appealing to me and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).

I call the first type of answer cosmaterialism, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses, implying a perpetual history of KOTH. I call the second way of believing moralism, because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (which means for ending KOTH).

The choice between cosmaterialism and moralism logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. Gen. 3:5). It can be thought of as a watershed decision that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide, although the analogy breaks down at the points the various oceans connect. (Watershed divide: Moralism or Nihilism?) A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Again, until and unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.

Any feedback or constructive criticism regarding this reasoning?

 

[GWH]

Seeing no disagreement or amendments suggested, I will share the beginning of Part II of Lesson 1 of our website
for your consideration and evaluation:

Imagine that you have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis). Certainly, your immediate concern would be meeting your survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, would you not wonder why you were “born”, how you should behave, and what you ought to accomplish with your life?

Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for thinkers or truthseekers, there are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions. One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI).

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason. This answer seems more appealing to me and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).

I call the first type of answer cosmaterialism, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses, implying a perpetual history of KOTH. I call the second way of believing moralism, because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (which means for ending KOTH).

The choice between cosmaterialism and moralism logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. Gen. 3:5). It can be thought of as a watershed decision that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide, although the analogy breaks down at the points the various oceans connect. (Watershed divide: Moralism or Nihilism?) A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Again, until and unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.

Any feedback or constructive criticism regarding this reasoning?

Okay, I hope hearing crickets means that you think this reasoning is sound because implied by Scripture,
so there is no good reason for anyone to judge/condemn it as uninspired by God--although of course speculation and even godly insights by truthseekers should not be viewed as on a par with the Bible
but rather tested or vetted and harmonized with Scripture as Paul taught in 1Thessalonians 5:21.

 

[GWH]

In case the reader has just tuned in, I am presenting logical philosophical reasons for believing in the NT God, which continues:

The second watershed decision flows immediately and implicitly from the moralist viewpoint (like major rivers from one side of the Divide)—choosing what (or who) to believe gives existence meaning and under-girds moral conscience. As one analyzes the variety of moralistic beliefs, there seem to be four main viewpoints: the ground of meaning/morality is human power (humanism, cf. Gen. 11:4), there is a natural moral law or karma in the universe (karmaism, cf. Gal. 6:7), there is natural “meaning” with an instinct or proclivity toward morality (naturalism, cf. Rom. 2:14), or a supernatural Supreme Being exists, who has a moral will for humanity, with which humans may cooperate or not (biblical and especially NT monotheism or simply theism or belief in one God, cf. Gen. 17:1).

Humanism has three denominations including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?)

The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?). The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist). And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right). In short, selfish people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.

Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality (a UMI), but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).

The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. MT 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH.

Pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods envision a vitiated or diminished divinity and thus are tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in Matt. 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 28:5-7, if it occurred) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.

The only viable alternative to atheism is NT theism, which reformed the OT concept by revealing that the one almighty God is also all-loving. (The NT concept of God is described more fully in Parts III and IV, but at this point see 1Tim. 2:3-7.) It views God as creating and communicating by means of His Word (Logos in John 1:1), and it affirms that the world is created intentionally rather than accidentally “banged” from a “singularity” (Rom. 1:20&25).

So, far, so good/true?

 

[GWH]

The atheist opinion is that the existence of a supernatural Deity is not proven, although it is not disproved either, which means that the evidence needs to be evaluated honestly. Atheists assert that one cannot prove a negative, so the burden is on theists to prove God exists. However, this assertion assumes God is not the positive “I AM”, and the Bible indicates that the purpose of this life is rather for humans to prove to God they are worthy of—or qualify for—heaven (cf. Deut. 6:16 & Matt. 4:7).

This discussion shows that everyone lives by faith regarding God or ultimate reality (2Cor. 5:7), and the structure of earthly reality forces souls to choose between various contradictory beliefs and to make (albeit sometimes rather subconsciously) the two watershed choices described: between nihilism and moralism, and between the various atheistic beliefs and the highest type of theism, NT Christianity. (For reasons explained in the next parts, I believe the last is best: Let there be God!)

Atheists claim there is no more evidence for the existence of God, the Creator and Judge of humanity, than for the reality of obviously fictional entities, such as Odin or unicorns. However, four types of evidence or reasoning may be viewed as supporting rational belief in God, although they do not prove He exists: the unique universe, theocentric human history, existential need and moral conscience.

Current scientific theory states that the universe began with a “bang”, when a marble of matter or a singularity of energy suddenly exploded, and that it will end with a “whimper” when the stars eventually fade to darkness. This unique universe theory is compatible or consistent with belief in a God who created the universe “ex nihilo”, who sustains it by His power, and who will judge its moral agents at the end of time.

Current knowledge of world history suggests that humanity descended from one genetic source and evolved into various cultures. Throughout history humanity has perceived deity to be the ground of meaning and morality. Theocentric history reached its apex or spiritual climax with the NT teaching that there is one almighty and all-loving God, who desires all humanity to live in harmony on earth and also in heaven, and who allows humanity to experience earthly existence including pain and disappointment (KOTH) for the purpose of teaching them their need for Him (cf. Heb. 12:10).

Current existential reality indicates that mortals need God in order to obtain immortality, that morality needs God for a universal imperative and ultimate justice, and that the NT offers the best hope that this “duo of desirables” (DOD) or heaven and justice/hell can be attained. Just as physical needs are satisfied by material realities, perhaps our metaphysical needs indicate the reality of supernatural solutions (the God of the DOD).

Moral conscience indicates and logically requires accountability to a moral authority, and the supreme Authority would be God. Paul wrote (in Rom. 1:32 & 2:15) that people “know God’s decree that those who do evil deserve death” and that their consciences “show that the requirements of the [God’s moral] law are written on their hearts.” Our feeble attempts at earthly justice may reflect or serve as evidence of God’s perfect justice. (Cf. Platonic idealism and 1Cor. 13:12, Heb. 8:5, 9:23 & 10:1.) We may perceive perfect justice partially (1Cor. 13:9-12) using spiritual eyes/intuition/a sixth sense along with inference, logic, and even imagination. [Slashes indicate essentially equivalent terms.]

Thus, instead of demanding proof for God's existence, it is incumbent on atheists
to state good reasons for their faith.

 

[GWH]

This evidence is not proof, but because this hope and belief are based on evidence and logic, it is rational rather than “blind”, and it is made even more intellectually reasonable or defensible by acknowledging ways God would be disproved, which include the following:

1. If atheists or anti-Christians created eternal life, because the Bible teaches that eternal life is God’s gift only to believers in Him (John 3:16).

2. If the body of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered in a tomb, because Paul stated that if Christ is not resurrected, then faith is useless (1Cor. 15:14).

3. If it were proven that moral free will (MFW) is an illusion, because the premise of biblical morality is that human souls are accountable (Deut. 30:19-20).

4. If human-like beings on another planet had no salvation history involving God and Christ, because the Bible teaches that God is Lord of all (Phil. 2:9-11). (Caveat: If they are included in the Great Commission, their history would be like the OT.)

5. If God could prove His existence to people without abrogating free will (cf. 2Cor. 5:7), but apparently God performs miracles only as necessary to accomplish His plan of salvation (see Part VI).

6. If it were proved that the universe is not created, because resurrection or re-creation presupposes creation and thus a Creator (Acts 17:24-31).

Thus, 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 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).

 

[GWH]

It appears that there has come a time when proof of the evil of atheism is occurring, so let us hope that revival
of belief in God will result in renewal of love and freedom (rather than the free love of the 1960s), so God's will
for earth to be evangelized (Matt. 24:14, 28:19-20) will be done before the end of HIStory.

 

[GWH]

This evidence is not proof, but because this hope and belief are based on evidence and logic, it is rational rather than “blind”, and it is made even more intellectually reasonable or defensible by acknowledging ways God would be disproved, which include the following:

1. If atheists or anti-Christians created eternal life, because the Bible teaches that eternal life is God’s gift only to believers in Him (John 3:16).

2. If the body of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered in a tomb, because Paul stated that if Christ is not resurrected, then faith is useless (1Cor. 15:14).

3. If it were proven that moral free will (MFW) is an illusion, because the premise of biblical morality is that human souls are accountable (Deut. 30:19-20).

4. If human-like beings on another planet had no salvation history involving God and Christ, because the Bible teaches that God is Lord of all (Phil. 2:9-11). (Caveat: If they are included in the Great Commission, their history would be like the OT.)

5. If God could prove His existence to people without abrogating free will (cf. 2Cor. 5:7), but apparently God performs miracles only as necessary to accomplish His plan of salvation (see Part VI).

6. If it were proved that the universe is not created, because resurrection or re-creation presupposes creation and thus a Creator (Acts 17:24-31).

Thus, 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 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?” [That depends upon what message or revelation is from God.]

Which option and opinion is best or most true? Answering this question 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.

While conducting a comprehensive comparison of theistic religions is not my desire, I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including IS 53 and PS 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).

Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (descendants of Abraham), with a UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile) and even including one’s enemies (per Matt. 22:37-39 & 5:44). The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham (Rom. 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).

 

[GWH]

Apologetics is related to the physical sciences in various ways:

If atheists or anti-Christians created eternal life as some trans-humanists are attempting, that would contradict the Biblical teaching that eternal life is God’s gift only to believers in Him (John 3:16).

If biology proved that moral free will (MFW) is an illusion, because the premise of biblical morality is that human souls are accountable (Deut. 30:19-20).

If those searching for human-like beings on another planet discovered that they had no salvation history involving God and Christ, because the Bible teaches that God is Lord of all (Phil. 2:9-11). (Caveat: If they are included in the Great Commission, their history would be like the OT.)

If astrophysicists proved that the universe is not created, because resurrection or re-creation presupposes creation and thus a Creator (Acts 17:24-31). (This is being discussed on the Key OT Teachings thread.)

 

[GWH]

Apologetics is another word for testimony per 1 Peter 3:15b, which 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 explain how we became a Christian and why we remain a Christian. Here is mine:​

I was raised by loving, Christian (Southern Baptist) parents, who were happily married for 70 years. I attended church regularly as a child, and about the age of eight I had enough courage to walk the aisle during an invitation and profess publicly my faith in Jesus by being baptized.

My personality was rather introverted as a teenager, so I discussed my beliefs only with a few close friends. When I was a senior in high school, my favorite teacher was a former preacher turned agnostic, and in my freshman year of college, the daughter of a missionary became an atheist. My ignorance of answers to questions asked by skeptics prompted me to read the entire Bible,
which I did over the course of my life in four translations, each time making notes in the margins to connect verses on various themes.

After college and military service I attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where a professor of systematic theology,
Dr. William Hendricks, stimulated my thinking. During this time I heard a debate on the radio between Christian evangelist Bob Harrington and atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair. Although the exchange was quite humorous, I was chagrined to concede that the atheist won the debate on substance, and I determined to seek better replies to such questions and criticisms as I continued searching Scripture.

Years later as a military chaplain, I encountered the Atheist Community of Austin and offered to speak at one of their meetings.
I also debated atheists on an Army online chat site for several years. Although I cannot claim to have converted anyone, the discussions helped hone my own beliefs, which I published on a website <truthseekers fellowship.com> in 2005. In 2018 and 2019
I published two booklets, "The Best Belief" and "The Christian Creed", which I also put on the website for folks to use as a resource.
(A book by Dinesh D’Souza, “What’s So Great about God”, and the movie “God’s Not Dead”, have a similar approach to apologetics.)

The following excerpts from “Love God with All Your Mind” by J.P. Moreland expresses my experience and beliefs: “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)

I encourage everyone to write down their own testimony for sharing on this thread.

 

[GWH]

My testimony indicates that the faith of my parents made the way straight for me to believe in God/Jesus (cf. Matt. 3:3),
and the apostasy I encountered as a teenager who had been taught OSAS prompted me to search the Scriptures for answers
to questions asked by atheists or to go beyond the preaching of the Gospel I heard every Sunday to learn teachings that
build on that foundation, which I eventually came to designate by means of the terms "kerygma" for the essential creed
and "didache" for secondary doctrines regarding how believers should behave.

Again, I encourage everyone to write down a detailed testimony and share it here, so we can appreciate the variety of ways
God leads people to the WAY and by understanding those differences attain greater spiritual unity.

 

[GWH]

Apologetics is usually thought of as the attempt to witness to atheists who think they know scientific facts
whereas Christians have only blind faith, but oddly enough some Christians claim to have inerrant certainty
rather than a confident faith--as though they had the gift of papal infallibility. Thus, apologetics also needs
to help these folks realize that they live by reasonable faith, not by sight or proof or absolute certainty (2Cor. 5:7).

Does anyone have any ideas for witnessing to this denomination of would-be popes?
How can we help these proud people learn humility?

 

[GWH]

Apologetics is usually thought of as the attempt to witness to atheists who think they know scientific facts
whereas Christians have only blind faith, but oddly enough some Christians claim to have inerrant certainty
rather than a confident faith--as though they had the gift of papal infallibility. Thus, apologetics also needs
to help these folks realize that they live by reasonable faith, not by sight or proof or absolute certainty (2Cor. 5:7).

Does anyone have any ideas for witnessing to this denomination of would-be popes?
How can we help these proud people learn humility?

The only way I know of helping to "depope" the population on CC is by sharing GW regarding humility and pride,
so let us mine Scripture for passages regarding such. I will begin with Proverbs 16:18, "Pride goes before destruction;
a haughty spirit before a fall." And I think Jesus refers to humility in the first beatitude (Matt. 5:3), "Blessed are the
poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Any others?

 

[GWH]

The only way I know of helping to "depope" the population on CC is by sharing GW regarding humility and pride,
so let us mine Scripture for passages regarding such. I will begin with Proverbs 16:18, "Pride goes before destruction;
a haughty spirit before a fall." And I think Jesus refers to humility in the first beatitude (Matt. 5:3), "Blessed are the
poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Any others?

Here are three follow-ups:

Pro. 3:34, "The Lord mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble."

Matt. 11:29a, "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart."

Eph. 4:2, "Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love."

Are there more?

 

[GWH]

Three from Psalms for would-be popes:

Psa. 18:27a, "You [O Lord] save the humble."

Psa. 25:9, "He [the Lord] guides the humble in what is right and teaches them his way."

Psa. 149:4, "The Lord takes delight in his people; He crowns the humble with salvation."

 

[GWH]

A few more antidotes for pride:

Col. 3:12, "As God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility,
gentleness and patience."

James 4:11, "Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another."

Phil. 3:15b, "If on some point you think differently, that God will make clear to you."

1Cor. 8:1b-3, "We all possess knowledge, but knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something
do not yet know as they ought to know, but whoever loves God is known by God."

Nuff said.

 

[GWH]

Who do Jesus and the NT describe as being atheists?
Is it possible to be anti-Christian believers in the one true God?

 

[GWH]

Who do Jesus and the NT describe as being atheists?
Is it possible to be anti-Christian believers in the one true God?

No, it is not.
It IS possible to be a pre-NT believer in God because of Him being revealed in creation and by conscience.
It is also possible to be a pre-NT believer in God because of OT revelation.
However, once a sinner hears the Gospel, it is incumbent for him/her to repent and believe in God/Christ.
This is because GW is not only propositional but also invitational, so ignoring it is rejecting it.

 

[GWH]

No, it is not.
It IS possible to be a pre-NT believer in God because of Him being revealed in creation and by conscience.
It is also possible to be a pre-NT believer in God because of OT revelation.
However, once a sinner hears the Gospel, it is incumbent for him/her to repent and believe in God/Christ.
This is because GW is not only propositional but also invitational, so ignoring it is rejecting it.

This is why Jesus described the Jews who had believed him but failed to persevere as atheists and children of Satan.
(John 8:31-47)

 

[GWH]

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...

Although my original calling was to witness mainly to atheists (for which my Baptist upbringing had made me ill-prepared),
after participating on CC for a year, I now feel a calling to witness also to tulipists (which is what several of us MFWers have been doing on various threads), and at this point I have enough content on that topic so that I am considering whether to add another lesson on our website for consolidating the information as a resource and perhaps also beginning a corresponding thread for the same purpose.

Any thoughts?