Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[GWH]

As I indicated in the previous post, I have come to realize that apologetics does not necessarily mean only explaining why Christian theism is the best belief to atheists and anti-Christians, but it also can refer to explaining to Christians why one interpretation of Scripture is better than another. On several CC threads we have been discussing (sometimes arguing) whether the understanding known by the acronym TULIP (defined below) or the opposing viewpoint designated as moral free will (MFW) is better or closer to the correct New Testament teaching concerning salvation.

Not receiving any thoughts regarding adding a lesson on our website, I decided to do so, and I will sponsor a thread on this topic
with the intention of discussing the issue systematically in the hope that everyone will eventually be in agreement about the better belief on this divisive subject and some other. Hope those who share this desire will participate.

 

[Jordon]

As I indicated in the previous post, I have come to realize that apologetics does not necessarily mean only explaining why Christian theism is the best belief to atheists and anti-Christians, but it also can refer to explaining to Christians why one interpretation of Scripture is better than another. On several CC threads we have been discussing (sometimes arguing) whether the understanding known by the acronym TULIP (defined below) or the opposing viewpoint designated as moral free will (MFW) is better or closer to the correct New Testament teaching concerning salvation.

Not receiving any thoughts regarding adding a lesson on our website, I decided to do so, and I will sponsor a thread on this topic
with the intention of discussing the issue systematically in the hope that everyone will eventually be in agreement about the better belief on this divisive subject and some other. Hope those who share this desire will participate.

I have a good understanding of tulip you either love it or hate it

But the ones who hate it are the ones who need saving

 

[GWH]

I have a good understanding of tulip you either love it or hate it

But the ones who hate it are the ones who need saving

A God who hates sinners would deceive those who think they don't need saving!

 

[Jordon]

A God who hates sinners would deceive those who think they don't need saving!

The word would be God would correct you

 

[GWH]

The word would be God would correct you

We just learned GW per John 1:6-9 on the Systematic Bible Study thread that “There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.”

The man sent from God to testify and witness in hopes that everyone would believe God’s light was John the Baptist, whose testimony included this point: Jesus will baptize his followers with the HS and fire (judgment). (John 1:33, Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16-17)

 

[GWH]

Where's the_seeker?

 

[GWH]

Where's the_seeker?

Here I am!

My quest for ultimate truth led me to find the following Top Ten foundational Scriptures in logical order:

1. Formerly/at first I was without hope of salvation from meaninglessness and death. (Eph. 3:12b)

2. So I sought salvation and found God. (Matt. 7:7, Heb. 11:6b)

3. The loving God who wants all souls to learn the truth about how to be saved. (1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16)

4. Which is to believe that Jesus is Christ, whose death atoned for humanity’s sins. (1Tim. 2:5-6)

5. As taught in all inspired Scripture interpreted in light of this Gospel of salvation. (2Tim. 3:15)

6. Such interpretation of GW also teaches how to be godly after being saved. (2Tim. 3:16-17)

7. Which doctrine Jesus summarized as loving God, oneself and everyone else. (Matt. 22:37-40)

8. And which moral maturity Paul termed as the fruit of the Holy Spirit. (Gal. 5:13-23)

9. That requires persevering in saving faith and learning God’s Word. (Matt. 4:4, 10:22)

10. So that we will grant the prayer of Jesus for us to be one in our witness. (John 17:20-23)

PTL!

 

[GWH]

Now my quest in chronological order:

Age 1-9: I was raised by spiritually mature Christian parents and attended SBC churches from infancy,
so I learned about salvation and believed in God/Christ as soon as my brain was capable of understanding #1-5.

Age 10-16: Having learned the Gospel, I professed my faith publicly via water baptism and continued to learn
God's Word about how to behave in a godly manner per #6-8.

Age 17-37: Encounters with apostates, atheists and charismatics made me aware of the need for learning perseverance,
apologetics and harmonizing Scriptures regarding controversial subjects such as speaking in tongues in order to attain #9 &10.

Age 38-76: Experiences as a parent, military chaplain and now on CC have honed my beliefs, which I began putting on a website
(created with the help of my son about a dozen years ago) to use as a resource, because it was/is difficult for me to remember
what I have learned and how to share my beliefs in the way I feel led is best to word them with appropriate citations of God's Word.

 

[Standard]

Where's the_seeker?

In that question is a lot of the battle when witnessing to and atheist. Rather than pouring scripture on them with constant bombardments (The word of God is folly to the non-believer 1 Corinthians 1:18), we need to create a seeker. They need to question truth and look for it if they're to find it.

That's not to say there's no domain for using scripture with a non-believer, but we should be wise with words and manners of conveying a message to make them question their perception of reality which contains no God. With a seeker, they'll be open to finding.

 

[GWH]

In that question is a lot of the battle when witnessing to and atheist. Rather than pouring scripture on them with constant bombardments (The word of God is folly to the non-believer 1 Corinthians 1:18), we need to create a seeker. They need to question truth and look for it if they're to find it.

That's not to say there's no domain for using scripture with a non-believer, but we should be wise with words and manners of conveying a message to make them question their perception of reality which contains no God. With a seeker, they'll be open to finding.

Very true--and applicable also to the need for believers to be open to learning more truth without experiencing a Damascus road miracle.

 

[Jordon]

We just learned GW per John 1:6-9 on the Systematic Bible Study thread that “There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.”

The man sent from God to testify and witness in hopes that everyone would believe God’s light was John the Baptist, whose testimony included this point: Jesus will baptize his followers with the HS and fire (judgment). (John 1:33, Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16-17)

Which makes John one more believable, but you should carry on reading John 1 as he came to many who did not receive him,

So therefore you have John testifying, to the one who is coming, is greater than me, then he comes then he testifies and still the people didn't receive him,

Why well his light testifies to those who receive and those who don't, and as cited here everyone is given the chance to believe, before they can believe.

The light burns in the heart, the living word, that tests the heart in fire, and the word changes the hearts and makes the heart believe , without him you can do nothing

 

[GWH]

Which makes John one more believable, but you should carry on reading John 1 as he came to many who did not receive him,

So therefore you have John testifying, to the one who is coming, is greater than me, then he comes then he testifies and still the people didn't receive him,

Why well his light testifies to those who receive and those who don't, and as cited here everyone is given the chance to believe, before they can believe.

The light burns in the heart, the living word, that tests the heart in fire, and the word changes the hearts and makes the heart believe , without him you can do nothing

1. Romans 1:16 says the Gospel reveals that (s/e) is for “everyone who believes”, both Jew and Gentile.

2. Romans 1:17 describes s/e as “righteousness from God” that is by faith “from first to last” or from creation until the end.

3. Romans 2:4 teaches that God’s kindness or patience with sinners is meant to lead them toward repentance, which implies that sinners are able to repent because of God’s leading.

4. Romans 2:5 warns that those who do not repent but instead stubbornly resist God’s leading are storing up wrath against themselves for the day when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed, which implies that God enables sinners to repent–or not (cf. Deut. 30:19).

5. Romans 2:6 affirms what is called karma by saying that “God will give to each person according to what he has done”, which (in Gal. 6:7-9) is called reaping what a person sows.

6. Romans 2:7 speaks of the need for “persistence in doing good” and seeking glory, honor and immortality in order to receive s/e or eternal life, which echoes what Jesus commanded (in Matt. 7:7) and connects with the doctrine of perseverance (cf. Heb. 10:36 & Jam. 1:3-4).

7. Romans 2:11 teaches that “God does not show favoritism” (cf. Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, 1Pet. 1:17), which is how God judges people justly, so the fact that some sinners ignore God’s Gospel indicates that His will or leading is resistible because of MFW.

8. Romans 2:15 teaches that sinful souls have a conscience or awareness of “the requirements of the law”, which may be combined with Romans 1:20 to teach that God’s power and moral nature or will may be perceived via creation and conscience (called natural revelation), thus those unfamiliar with God’s Word in Scripture have no good reason for resisting divine leading and choosing atheism/evil.

9. Romans 3:20-21 states the law makes souls conscious of sin and that “the Law and Prophets testify” or prepare the way for the new revelation of righteousness from God apart from the Law, which takes up where Romans 1:17 left off.

10. Romans 3:22a says that “righteousness from God” or s/e comes through faith “in Jesus Christ” (cf. Eph. 2:8), a phrase Paul used eleven times in Ephesians 1:3-14 to indicate s/e.

11. Romans 3:22b says that God’s righteousness is given “to all who believe—there is no difference”” signifying that all sinners may believe or be s/e (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16, Tit. 2:11), because there is no favoritism (#7).

12. Romans 3:23 teaches that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, meaning that no one can be good enough to earn salvation because of their own merit.

13. Romans 3:24 says sinners “are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (via faith per v.22, cf. 3:27-28); s/e is free because Christ paid the price/cost.

14. Romans 3:25a explains redemption as being “a sacrifice of atonement” for those who have faith in Christ’s work of dying in their place.

15. Romans 3:25b further explains that God demonstrated his just patience (#3) or forbearance in leaving unpunished those sins committed before the revealing of the Gospel (foreshadowed in Gen. 22:8 & 13), implying that sinners had/have the opportunity to believe and be s/e thereby demonstrating God’s justice/not showing favoritism (#11).

16. Romans 3:26 continues to emphasize divine justice by declaring it three ways (“justice…, just…, justifies”), which justness is synonymous with righteousness (2Thes. 1:5-6, Heb. 6:10).

17. Romans 4:1-25 presents Abraham as a Gentile who became the physical father of the Jews and the spiritual father of all who choose to have faith in God/Christ.

 

[GWH]

18. Romans 5:1 echoes Eph. 2:8 by describing s/e as justification through faith, Eph. 1:5 & 7 by using the phrase “through Jesus Christ”, and Eph. 2:14 by describing s/e as having peace with God. [IF whosoever believes in JC]

19. Romans 5:2 & 5 also echo Eph. 2:18 & 3:1 by describing s/e as having access to God’s grace via the Holy Spirit.

20. Romans 5:6-10 states that God’s love (cf. kindness in #3) for the ungodly, for sinners and for His enemies is demonstrated by Christ dying for their s/e or justification/reconciliation.

21. Romans 5:12-21 describes s/e in corporate terms, saying that–like the first man–all (many?) men also sinned and died, and God’s grace comes to all (many?) because of Jesus Christ.

22. Romans 6:1-14 describes s/e in terms of Christians being united with Christ’s death and resurrection, so they who are under grace should not allow sin to reign in their bodies but should instead serve God as instruments of righteousness.

23. Romans 6:15-23 describes s/e in terms of being slaves to whom one willingly obeys, whether to sin or to obedience of God’s teaching that leads to righteousness, which results in eternal life “in Christ Jesus our Lord” (cf. #10).

24. Romans 7:1-6 describes s/e in terms of a wife’s remarriage after the death of her husband, saying that Christians have been released from the dead letter of the law so that they may serve God in the new way of the Spirit.

25. In Romans 7:7-25 Paul describes s/e in terms of struggle between what a person’s conscience wants to do and what his sinful nature causes him to do until he is rescued by Christ.

26. In Romans 8:1-25 Paul describes the s/e struggle in terms of Christians–who are indwelt by the Spirit and freed from living in accordance with the sinful nature—as putting to death sinful deeds, because they are God’s children and co-heirs of Christ’s glorious resurrection.

27. In Romans 8:28-30 Paul says that those who love God were foreknown and “predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son”, which is akin to what Paul said in Ephesians 1:4-14, that before creating the world God chose or predestined those sinners “in Christ” to be blameless sons and receive the Holy Spirit.

28. Romans 8:31-39 elaborates on the previous point by saying that there is nothing that can separate “we” (who reflect God’s love per v.28) from Christ’s love (but Heb. 10:26-36 indicates one exception).

29. In Romans 9:1-5 Paul notes how sad it is that those who are part of the human ancestry of Christ reject him as Messiah, but being a member of Abraham’s spiritual children is what is crucial (#17).

30. Romans 9:6-13 states that God had chosen which one of Rebecca’s sons (through whom Messiah’s lineage would be traced) before they were born (cf. Mal. 1:2-3). The word translated as “hate” (miseo) is the same as in Luke 14:26 with reference to family, so a better translation would be “preferred”: loving Jacob/hating Esau refers to God preferring that Jacob’s descendants serve as the heritage for Messiah rather than to individual salvation.

31. Romans 9:14-16 stresses that s/e depends on God’s mercy rather than being achieved by human effort (#12), although the preceding context has shown that (the non-meritorious condition of) faith is involved, which truth can be stated as “God initiates; sinners cooperate—or not”, because of MFW.

32. Romans 9:17 refers to pharaoh in Exodus 9:13-35 as an example of someone whom God allowed to oppose His will so that His power might be manifested by the plagues. The OT passage indicates that pharaoh was conscious of his sin but “He and his officials hardened their hearts” (v.34b).

33. Romans 9:18 says that God “hardens whom He wants to harden”, which raises the question asked in v.19, “Why does God blame sinners who cannot resist His will?” Paul’s response (Rom. 9:20-21) is that God has the might and thus the right to determine what is right. Then he speculates (“What if”) that God might have patiently endured evildoers (#20) as evidence of His glory toward recipients of His mercy (Rom. 9:22-23).

34. In Romans 9:24-33 and 10:1-4 Paul notes that God elected to choose Gentiles with saving faith instead of Israelites who sought salvation by works and stumbled over the Gospel of Christ, even though “everyone who believes” receives righteousness or s/e.

 

[GWH]

We read in John 1 that the Word came to many who did not receive him, although they were given the chance to believe the Gospel,
and in Romans 1-5 we read essentially the same thing, but by the time Paul wrote the companion epistle of Galatians he had come to realize that there were some ostensibly within the Christian ranks who were perverting the Gospel, so we can see the need to apply apologetics to heretics as well as to atheists, hoping God will grant them the chance to return to the fold. (Let us pray...)

 

[rewriter]

I would note that based on current scientific knowledge, largely based on repeatable experiments and repeated observations, that God is not just plausible but probable, even in the eyes of atheistic scientists who basically admit that they refuse to accept the evidence based on their dogmatics. If someone makes that confession, using logic is meaningless, they know the truth but refuse to accept it. As a side note, using scripture in apologetics is valid only with regards to those who are willing to accept it as credible. As a seminary prof observed, to be a good basketball player you need to be able to play without the basketball, to be good in apologetics, you need to be able to argue for God without the scriptures

 

[GWH]

I would note that based on current scientific knowledge, largely based on repeatable experiments and repeated observations, that God is not just plausible but probable, even in the eyes of atheistic scientists who basically admit that they refuse to accept the evidence based on their dogmatics. If someone makes that confession, using logic is meaningless, they know the truth but refuse to accept it. As a side note, using scripture in apologetics is valid only with regards to those who are willing to accept it as credible. As a seminary prof observed, to be a good basketball player you need to be able to play without the basketball, to be good in apologetics, you need to be able to argue for God without the scriptures

Yes, and a similar situation also applies to heretics: If they refuse to accept Scripture that contradicts their dogmatic proof-texts,
then using GW is pointless, because they are so brain-washed they won't even consider how to harmonize it in context.

 

[rewriter]

Yes, and a similar situation also applies to heretics: If they refuse to accept Scripture that contradicts their dogmatic proof-texts,
then using GW is pointless, because they are so brain-washed they won't even consider how to harmonize it in context.

An excellent point, but remember according to John 1, God's word is a person, not a book. Also, Jesus taught against the traditions established in the Jewish faith supposedly under the guidance of God and well harmonized, are the traditions established in the Christian faith any more secure? Many of the traditions in Western Christianity were approved of by the Roman government, sometimes even telling the Church what to affirm and what to outlaw. Some heresies exist only because of Rome's decree, without Rome's support, the majority of bishops likely would have voted differently when determining what was or was not heretical in some councils.

 

[GWH]

An excellent point, but remember according to John 1, God's word is a person, not a book. Also, Jesus taught against the traditions established in the Jewish faith supposedly under the guidance of God and well harmonized, are the traditions established in the Christian faith any more secure? Many of the traditions in Western Christianity were approved of by the Roman government, sometimes even telling the Church what to affirm and what to outlaw. Some heresies exist only because of Rome's decree, without Rome's support, the majority of bishops likely would have voted differently when determining what was or was not heretical in some councils.

Yes, GW = HS, who inspired Scripture, but Bibliolatry is wrong.
The Christian Gospel is secure, but our understanding of it and various secondary issues should improve as we persevere in learning GW.
Roman Catholicism perverted rather than improved understanding of many Biblical truths including the Gospel, and it did not repent of
its heresy and cult status until it ended the Inquisition against Protestants in Vatican II about 1965.
When will the problematic dogma of TULIP end?

 

[rewriter]

So far, we can agree. Looking closely at the Council of Nicaea can uncover some of the problems, but my investigations suggest that the initial problem dates back to the early 70's CE, when Rome won the 1st Jewish War and certain things started to be denied.

 

[GWH]

So far, we can agree. Looking closely at the Council of Nicaea can uncover some of the problems, but my investigations suggest that the initial problem dates back to the early 70's CE, when Rome won the 1st Jewish War and certain things started to be denied.

Yes, and the solution is agreement about the Gospel,
but would another ecumenical council be good?
(Not if the UN wins.)