Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:This is all really said to me. You have a guy here who wants to believe but is having trouble with it, and all anybody keeps telling him to do is just "have faith" (yeah, that helps). This is no different from the "miracle workers" you see on TBN. They say they can heal you if you have faith. They win either way. You get "healed", they are right. You don't get "healed", they still are right. In the latter case, it isn't their fault. It's yours, because you just didn't believe enough.

Stupid.

Not to stir up even more dissension, but I do feel I should point out these verses:

"Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven." ~James 5:14-15, emphasis mine.

Then the woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. In the presence of all the people, she told why she had touched him and how she had been instantly healed. Then he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace." ~Luke 8:47-48, emphasis mine.

Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"
He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." ~Matthew 17:19-20

I am not implying that man is healed by what he does. It is ALL what God does, but we have to trust that He will do as He promises, and that He has power over our lives. Also, even if we pray out of faith, sometimes we are not healed. Why? Well, the Bible does not say why. But we have to trust that God has a higher purpose than what we can see. Just look at Job.

However, I must agree with you on the Miracle Workers on TV. Whenever it's something big and entertaining, you have to question it. But I'm referring to healings that occur in the church, or just by your own prayers. The Bible clearly states that faith plays a vital role in what God accomplishes through us. He is all powerful, but He made us to interact with Him. Just look at Adam and God: before the Fall, they had a close, personal relationship. It wasn't all God; Adam had to interact as well. That's the only thing I can think of that explains why God wants our faith and trust, but not our works. I don't think "faith" counts as a work. I think "work" implies us attempting to earn our righteousness and salvation through "good deeds" we do.

So I stumbled across this post, and it caught my interest because some of the doubts Kioku is facing are ones I recently struggled with. I'm hoping some of the things that helped me will help him, too.

First, I remember you asking something about consciousness. I had read somewhere that evolutionists believe our emotions are nothing but chemical reactions, and that our "spiritual" feelings with God were just a certain part of our brain they titled the "God spot." This deeply troubled me, making me think it was all in my head. However, then I got thinking: Why would we even have that spot in our brain? I do think we have a "God spot", but it's in our spirit. I also think that we control our emotions, and when we decide we feel a certain way, it kicks off a chemical reaction. Our bodies are a mystery, because God has made them "wonderfully complex" (Psalm 139:14). Because they have got to be some PRETTY smart chemicals if they know exactly when to start a reaction. And how would a chemical establish that "sad" means sad? What chemical decided tears go with sorrow, and laughter with joy? Yet it is like this in every person!

The "God spot" is evident, though. People have a reaction to the name of Jesus. People all across time and the world have made gods, most of them false. The false gods never last long, because they don't truly fill that dry spot.

And I don't think we developed this spot over time, either. (Going back to the assumption that is is in our brain, which it isn't.) Why would an "intelligent" species "adapt" part of their brain to believe a lie? Also, spiritualaity and intelligent don't necessarily go together. For instance, look at Koko, the gorilla that could even learn sign language. Never did she ask, "Is there more than this zoo?" or "Where did I come from?" Yet these are questions that even children who cannot read yet ask.

Second, you were wondering if morals were "learned" behaviors, therefore making "good" and "evil" quite subjective. Well, think of this. Today, many people have formed their own opinions about pretty pivotal controversies. For example, abortion. Some teach that it is wrong. Some teach that it is okay. Both are taught. But it is up to YOU to choose which you think is RIGHT.

Another example is from a personal experience. I won't go into many details, because it is personal, but you might be able to guess just from the clues. I was addicted to a certain sin for many years, and never knew it was wrong. I didn't even know what it was--I thought I was the only person in the world. I never told anyone about it. Yet I still felt wrong doing it. God gave me my own conviction--WITHOUT outside help--that it was a sin. Even when I found out what it was, and that it wasn't just me, and that many think it's okay, I still think it a sin, because GOD TOLD ME SO. No person told me so; it was not a "learned" thing. It was a Holy Spirit knock on my heart.

Also, I'd like to point out something interesting. Though the world TEACHES (aka, we "learn" it) that certain things are okay and make us happy, they don't. For instance, many people today say that sex, drugs, alcohol, and "doing what you want" make you happy, and that nobody should "harsh your buzz". I've known people who live like this, and they are not happy. I hear testimonies all the time of people coming from these lifestyles, confessing that they only made them feel empty. Interesting that after being "taught" that it was all right, they still felt a conviction. Thus, I think there's a lot more to morals than learned behavior. Otherwise, someone just teaching us it was right would satisfy us and make it feel right. Choosing between right and wrong is not like learning how to read or drive.

So, what do we desire? Think about this for a second. Humans are very unique from each other. An analogy used earlier was ice cream. Favorites in flavor vary greatly. People have preferences. Some people are scared of heights. Some people like performing. Some people have special gifts, like Mozart. But there are a few things desired by ALL people. The first is love. Never will you meet someone that does not have a desire to be loved. Love makes us truly happy; no one ever says they regret love (note that love and lust are different). Everyone wants to feel cared for, significant, and appreciated. I read a story of an atheist who grew so depressed because he felt he was as insignificant as an ant...just a cluster of perfectly constructed molecules, running on chemical reactions. He had a desire to have some kind of purpose.

The next thing universally desired is stability. Think about it. Everyone loves a reliable, dependable person. The "fun and flaky" type is only fun on the surface. Science becomes unsatisfactory; what is "law" and "fact" today will be disproved tomorrow.

Another thing people desire is truth. While some are okay with spreading lies themselves, they feel hurt when they've been lied to. People want truth.

The interesting thing about these universal desires is that they are all characteristics of God. God is love; God has a plan and a purpose for us; God is unchanging and dependable; God cannot lie.

Well, then you might think: "What if people constructed God that way because those are the things they desire?" Man also has a sinful nature, though. Though the sin doesn't satisfy us, we think it does and hold onto it with a tenacity. So it is surprising (though not really) to think that not ONE sinful attribute touched God's character. The gods that people made themselves didn't last. For instance, take Asherah. She was a Canaan goddess who glorified promiscuity. Nobody worships her anymore. But Jehovah is still worshipped. He has passed the test of time.

Godly attributes, or characteristics of God, TRULY satisfy us. Our carnal desires don't....but we like to think they do, and delve in them anyway. But they will leave us empty and wanting. But look at what is good: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. Never do these things leave us empty.

Anyway, hopefully this clears up some of the morality being "learned" or just a product of our brains. I hope this really points out that there is a moral God who has placed desires for what is truly moral within us. Anything outside of Him won't satisfy...interesting "coincidence."

cslewislover wrote:This is a great post, Narniaaa.

You and others might like this, as it relates to the subject in the beginning or your post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo

It's about the belief that all our beliefs and things are explained by genes, mechanically (John Cleese Podcase 32).

(Thanks Swamper for pointing this video out)

Yes, that video was funny. I especially liked the part about the gene that makes you see Nicholas Cage movies.

Kioku also mentioned he wanted evidence. There are many wonderful testimonies and stories out there, and a few I will share because I hope they will strengthen his faith, but I'll also touch on why I don't think they will be enough.

I also want to go ahead and clarify that though these are true, I won't give a lot of details, just in the interest of remaining safe on the internet:

After spending all of the money in my wallet, I tithed what was due. The tithe was set apart in a separate envelope and I turned it in. At home, I found the exact amount I had tithed sitting in my wallet.

A kid had a skin problem that the doctors could not heal. They went down for prayer at a service, had a vision of an angel, and walked out healed.

A Christian boy was talking to a friend of his. His friend was an atheist. They talked about religion, and couldn't agree. The Christian noticed that his friend had scraped his leg badly skating. He asked to pray for it. The atheist was like, "Okay...suuure, I guess." His leg was immediately healed, and he became a believer.

While a pastor was preaching somewhere (I can't remember if it was at a church or a missions trip) a demon-possessed man latched onto the pastor's arm with his teeth. The pastor used the name of Jesus to cast out the demon, and the man was fine.

Another missionary was going to comfort a family whose daughter had just died. He sent them all out of the room to pray alone. He held the dead girl's hand and was praying earnestly, but was interrupted when the voice of the dead girl said, "Mister, you're hurting my hand."

This is from The Power of a Praying Teen by Stormie Omaritan: "One night I prayed that my friend would realize his life was going off the deep end. He called me that night and said 'My life is going off the deep end' and gave his life to Christ. I knew my prayers were powerful then." (page 105)

There are so many stories, miracles, and testimonies out there--striking evidence for God. Yet even with this knowledge, even I have doubt. And it's because I believe doubt attacks every believer, even if they are literally drowning in evidence for God. Here are some biblical examples:

1) Job. His whole story is about his faith and continual trust in God. But even he had his doubts. "I go east, but He is not htere. I got west, but I cannot find Him. I do not see Him in the north, for He is hidden. I look to the south, but He is concealed." (Job 23:8-9, New Living Translation)

2) Peter. Remember the story of him walking on water to Jesus? He had all the evidence in the world: he was watching a guy WALK on WATER. Yet what did Peter do? He doubted. He began to sank and cried out to Jesus to save him.

3) John the Baptist. Even after seeing the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus like a dove, he faced doubts while in prison and even sent a message to Jesus asking if he truly was God's Son. Jesus responded with miracles. (You can find this in Matthew 11).

So, what does this mean? Well, even if we have tons of evidence, we will still have doubt. I believe it is because doubt is an attack of the enemy. But all three of the examples above showed the correct response to doubt: KEEP SEEKING. Smack Satan in the face and refuse to ignore God simply because of doubt. Because if you seek, you will find. Job refused to deny God. Peter cried out to Jesus to save him. John asked Jesus if He was the Messiah...he was seeking an answer. Note the difference between John's question and the Pharisees. The Pharisees asked for a miracle, and had already decided to reject Christ. John asked if Jesus was the Messiah. He wasn't seeking signs, he was seeking truth.

Anyway, I hope this helps and I will continue to pray for you, kioku. Pray that God suits you up in his armor so you can resist the devil's schemes. (Ephesians 6:10-17)

"I don't really know what to think about the atheism debate. On one level, I guess it will be exciting to watch an explosive Christian apologist go mano a mano with a group of mockers and scorners. But I'm skeptical about Dr. Caner's ability to win this one, mostly because, well, isn't this sort of an old battle? In Theology class, we've been reading about theologians going all the way back to Thomas Aquinas who have agreed with Kierkegaard in saying that while logic can get you most of the way to faith in God, it can't cross the bridge completely. Charles Spurgeon, the legendary nineteenth-century Prince of Preachers and a man whose work Dr. Caner quotes regularly, warned Christians against 'perpetually demanding arguments and logical demonstrations' for their faith. Even C.S. Lewis separated faith into two steps, Faith A and Faith B--Faith A being a general intellectual assent to the existence of a higher being and Faith B being an orthodox belief in the specific God of the Bible. Faith A, Lewis said, can be proven logically, but Faith B requires a leap."

I just don't agree with this. The fact that God exists is a matter of rigorous logic. Even if one attempts to maintain absolute skepticism so as to avoid granting any premise that may lead to God, even the notion that "all knowledge is impossible" is an absolute that, ultimately, will lead to God. No, God's existence is a matter of shear logical fact.

The God of Christianity is no less necessary. Philosophically, we can rule out all other gods in that every other conception of God is incoherent. And concerning Yahweh Himself, the historical record is undeniable. Warren F. Draper showed way back in 1874 in his very short book Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buoneparte (available in full text here, the whole of which can easily be read in an hour) that the methodological skepticism that leads a person to reject Jesus necessarily leads to such absurdities as to the denial that Napoleon never existed (a fact he rigorously demonstrates). And that was before much of the 20th century had established much of the facts that modern apologists appeal to when talking about Christ.

So, again, I simply disagree with the quote. Atheists may choose disbelief, but it is only because they willfully choose to. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and conclusions logically necessary.

No, God's existence is a matter of shear logical fact.

I actually drempt about Jac's post before I read it this morning. I am not professing any great vision, you can take it for what it is worth. I didnt' even give it much consideration until I read this post. But, I did dream, and basically remember the essential meat of what Jac's last posts includes. And it was not a confirming agreement that was impressed upon me.

The fact that God exists is a matter of rigorous logic.

Although I agree with the premise, I fail to see it as the crux of evangelism as Jac seems to propose. Convincing someone through logic that "god" exist is a far cry from saving faith. Whoever believed more that God exists than the Pharisees?

It is my opinion that the church today has placed way too much emphasis on apologetic arguments and forsaken puritanical preaching. As if Christianity is just some argument to win, and all we have to do is stack more weight on our side of the scale and the non beleivers are just going to slide over.

The Wesley's and Spurgeon cried out in the public square. Where are our preachers today? Locked up in the safe confines of a building. We are trying to rationalize the existence of God to people who are at enmity with Him. Yet the bible warns us that our battle is not flesh and blood, but spiritual. And we fight to open eyes that are blinded by powers of darkness, not by lack of information.

What is logical about the lost sinners position? You can make all the logical points about the existence of God you like. Paul said they had all they needed in the most simple of truths. The conscience and the creation. The sinner rejects even the most basic truth to eat of his own tree of good and evil.

I find the philosophy quite interesting from this side of belief. But the sinner loves their sin, and drinks in iniquity like water. Intellectual convincing is not what the sinner needs. They will never embrace the beauty of the cross until they see they utter wickedness of their sin.

So, just as the bible confirms, it is not believing God exists that is the ultimate concern.

Atheists may choose disbelief, but it is only because they willfully choose to. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming and conclusions logically necessary.

The ardent atheist makes it quite clear that they have not chosen unbelief because it is illogical, but because if the God of the bible is real, they hate Him, and want no part of Him.

Now I know that there are those who are not fist shaking atheist, but their problem is not different when it boils down to it. Their sin, before a Holy God.

The step that Lewis talks about is not an intellectual assent, but a spiritual surrender. I am not saying we abandon the philosophy, but understand its position in bringing sinners to repentance and faith in Christ.

So, it's not that I am right and you are wrong. Your intelligence is well evidenced and I admire your pursuit of truth and reason. But I see them in a much lesser role when it comes to the gnitty gritty work of winning souls.

Although I agree with the premise, I fail to see it as the crux of evangelism as Jac seems to propose. Convincing someone through logic that "god" exist is a far cry from saving faith. Whoever believed more that God exists than the Pharisees?

I defy you to show me any place in my post or any place where I have ever posted to say that simply believing in the existence of God is sufficient to save.

The second half of my post went further, as to point out the same can be said not of god generally, but of the Christian God specifically, that this to is a matter of shear logic and cannot rationally be denied. And even here, I offer the same challenge. Where have I even once claimed that belief in the existence of the Christian God warrants salvation?

It is my point that one must believe that God is before one can come to Him in faith (Heb 11:6), and until one is convinced that God is, all of the "puritanical preaching" in the world will do nothing but drive those who might otherwise believe away from the truth.

Thus, far from the church having too heavy an emphasis on apologetics, I charge that it is our anti-intellectualism, our appeal to non-existent faith and mere moralistic preaching against the sin inherent in all sinners--such preaching that equates to begging the leopard to change its spots(see Jer. 13:23)--that encourages works-based salvation, arrogance, judgmentalism, and Pharisaicalism of the worst sort. It is precisely that attitude that brought men such as Gandhi to argue that Christ they like, but Christians they hate.

It is certainly illogical to reject Christianity based on the behavior of Christians, but we do nothing but encourage that very objection when we push our "evangelism" in that sort of way. Against all this, just as Paul reasoned with polytheists concerning Jesus and the Resurrection (Acts 17:16ff), so should we, too, in our own day. Blind, if not passionate, demands to repent of sin are far more than harmful than helpful. Remember that the people who received that command in Scripture invariably are those who are already convinced of Yahweh's existence (save one example, in which polytheists are told to repent, not of immorality, but of their polytheism, the very thing I am arguing for here!).

I find the philosophy quite interesting from this side of belief. But the sinner loves their sin, and drinks in iniquity like water. Intellectual convincing is not what the sinner needs. They will never embrace the beauty of the cross until they see they utter wickedness of their sin.

And this is simply wrong. Beyond, again, Paul's own evangelism (which led to conversions), I can point you to several people whom I have had the wonderful privilege of leading to the Lord in just the manner you condemn here. To take one example, over the past three months, my wife and I were able to bring a friend of her's to Christ. We never so much as opened the Bible for three whole months. We spent that time convincing her of God's existence, of the importance of believing Truth, of the reality of sin and morality and her place before an omnipotent, holy, and sovereign God. It was only after she was convinced of those facts and asked the Billy Graham question, "Then what can I do?" that we took her to God's own answer in Scripture. And even there, it took many weeks of talk and reason before she finally was able to submit to it. And when she did, she, not surprisingly, found a joy that she did not know she could ever find.

God gave us general revelation for a reason, which is this: to guide unbelievers to the place where they are able to accept special revelation. Until we, as a body of believers, embrace that, we are missing out on one of God's greatest gifts to mankind.

Before you go off all red faced, please know that I am not accussing YOU of saying that belief is saving faith. Perhaps I should have started a new paragraph at, "convincing."

God is a Jesus pusher.

I am a Jesus pusher.

You've never led anyone to the Lord, as neither have I.

I was saved in spite of some dismal evangelism attempts. Many people come to the Lord in spite of our methods. It could be that what took you 3 months could have taken far less. But, if that is the leading of God's spirit, then praise be to God alone. Not your methods.

It is precisely that attitude that brought men such as Gandhi to argue that Christ they like, but Christians they hate.

Pure balogne. Gandhi had an excuse and he played it up. He encountered the hypocrisy of man, but that is not why he rejected Christ. He studied and read the NT many times over, and still rejected Christ. Why? because some racist redneck said something that he just couldn't get over? Balogne. Gandhi thought himself righteous in his own eyes. I've read about the man enough to know why he rejected Christ.

Beyond, again, Paul's own evangelism (which led to conversions), I can point you to several people whom I have had the wonderful privilege of leading to the Lord in just the manner you condemn here.

examples?
I can think of Paul before Felix where he preached judgment and righteousness.

So it is the success of witnessing getting decisions? I guess Jesus was a failure with the rich young ruler.

I didn't condemn apologetics. I USE apologetics. I just said we need to know the appropriate use and place of apologetics. If someone has sincere questions, then we should most definately be prepared to answer them.
Take a survey and see how many people believe in God. Then ask if they are born from above. The majority of people are just like Paul said. They know god exist. And a good portion of people who deny God will admit once you dig, that they don't reject God because of lack of convincing, but because they don't like the God of the bible.

Jac3510 wrote:

"I don't really know what to think about the atheism debate. On one level, I guess it will be exciting to watch an explosive Christian apologist go mano a mano with a group of mockers and scorners. But I'm skeptical about Dr. Caner's ability to win this one, mostly because, well, isn't this sort of an old battle? In Theology class, we've been reading about theologians going all the way back to Thomas Aquinas who have agreed with Kierkegaard in saying that while logic can get you most of the way to faith in God, it can't cross the bridge completely. Charles Spurgeon, the legendary nineteenth-century Prince of Preachers and a man whose work Dr. Caner quotes regularly, warned Christians against 'perpetually demanding arguments and logical demonstrations' for their faith. Even C.S. Lewis separated faith into two steps, Faith A and Faith B--Faith A being a general intellectual assent to the existence of a higher being and Faith B being an orthodox belief in the specific God of the Bible. Faith A, Lewis said, can be proven logically, but Faith B requires a leap."

I just don't agree with this. The fact that God exists is a matter of rigorous logic. Even if one attempts to maintain absolute skepticism so as to avoid granting any premise that may lead to God, even the notion that "all knowledge is impossible" is an absolute that, ultimately, will lead to God. No, God's existence is a matter of shear logical fact.

Jac, I don't understand what got you all worked up. He's saying that yes, God's existence can be shown logically. It's faith in him that can't be received through logic. I haven't read the other posts yet, I just wanted to say that before reading them. The logic of God can lead to faith, but not necessarily.

Ok, now I've read them. The debate I saw between Craig and Hitchens comes to mind. Craig used logic to show that God exists, and as far as I could tell, he won the debate. Hitchens didn't care about the logic of God's existence. He was concerned about the logic of evil, about morals. Hitchens thinks his own morals are better than God's, so that's it. Whether God can be shown to exist logically didn't matter to him, he simply could not have faith in the God of the bible.

Before you go off all red faced, please know that I am not accussing YOU of saying that belief is saving faith. Perhaps I should have started a new paragraph at, "convincing."

Perhaps you should have. Miscommunication hardly helps to get your point across, my apparently inarticulate friend.

God is a Jesus pusher.

I am a Jesus pusher.

As we all are. And there are sales people who push there products poorly, and some who push them very well. The Catholic Church at one time pushed Jesus by torturing people to get them to repent. I would assume, then, that you would agree that simply pushing Jesus doesn't justify our means. That includes your puritanical preaching.

You've never led anyone to the Lord, as neither have I.

Semantics. Would you say that to Paul when he said, "Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men"? All are agreed that men are saved by God's work, but it is our job to bear witness and to do so effectively.

I was saved in spite of some dismal evangelism attempts. Many people come to the Lord in spite of our methods. It could be that what took you 3 months could have taken far less. But, if that is the leading of God's spirit, then praise be to God alone. Not your methods.

Garbage. Some may have had dismal evangelism attempts. If so, they should revisit their methods. But if methods mean nothing, then we should give up all apologetics. We should simply declare "PLACE YOUR FAITH IN CHRIST FOR ETERNAL LIFE!" and no more and let God do the rest. But you know it takes more than that. And what is that "more"? It is your method.

Pure balogne. Gandhi had an excuse and he played it up. He encountered the hypocrisy of man, but that is not why he rejected Christ. He studied and read the NT many times over, and still rejected Christ. Why? because some racist redneck said something that he just couldn't get over? Balogne. Gandhi thought himself righteous in his own eyes. I've read about the man enough to know why he rejected Christ.

Of course, and had someone sat down with him and explained the self-contradictory nature of seeing himself as righteous before God, he may have been converted. But that would require some philosophy. On the other hand, we have self-righteous Christians who gave Gandhi his EXCUSE. I agree his excuse was balogne of the purest kind, but it was his excuse and HE believed it. People hide behind such things. It is our job to remove those barriers so, in the end, they are forced to face the naked truth. But all the demands to repent in the world won't do that.

examples?

I've given you one already. Paul's preaching in Athens, or have you not read the story:

• While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he 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.

He REASONED with them, J. Demanding people repent isn't reasoning. Further, I already gave a biblical passage that directly supports my view:

• And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Still further, I've already pointed out that EVERY command to repent was directed at believers in the True God, with exception to the command to repent of polytheism. No unbeliever is commanded to repent of his immorality, which is exactly what puritanical preaching requires. The Bible expressly condemns such an approach, as I've already quoted:

• Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

Puritanical preaching does nothing but produce self-righteous pharisees, not believers in Jesus Christ.

I can think of Paul before Felix where he preached judgment and righteousness.

Yes, and the same text says that he and Paul spoke for two years. Further, we have no indication that Paul engaged in "puritanical preaching." Against this, Paul very likely gave a very historically oriented apologetic, especially given the noted fact that his wife was a Jewess. As such, Felix would have been still more familiar with the OT prophets.

So it is the success of witnessing getting decisions? I guess Jesus was a failure with the rich young ruler.

On the contrary, Jesus had perfect success. He never gave the man the gospel. He showed him his need for it. And the man went away sad. Why do you think he left sad? Not because of disbelief, but because of belief. If he rejected Jesus' statements, he would not have been upset. But seeing his sin, he left sad, knowing he could not conquer it. Jesus then did exactly what He set out to do in that story: demonstrate for the man his need for salvation.

Further, where again did I ever say that "success of witnessing [is] getting decisions." I don't believe that at all. You may say, "Well, I'm not saying YOU do that", but in that case, why bring this up at all as it is totally irrelevant. Success it witnessing is only this: to get people to acknowledge truth. That truth may be as simple as the fact that God exists, or that they need a Savior, or even that Jesus is Who He says He is. The rest is up to God.

I didn't condemn apologetics. I USE apologetics. I just said we need to know the appropriate use and place of apologetics. If someone has sincere questions, then we should most definately be prepared to answer them.

Why are we to defend our faith only to the sincere? Who are you to decide who gets our best defense and who does not? Should we not challenge the insincerity on their insincerity, and should we not present a positive case and demand either refutation or consent? It is playing God to practice apologetics only when people have asked you the Billy Graham question. On the other hand, positive apologetics can lead even insincere to people to ask that. I have experienced that, as I'm sure others have as well.

But as for you, you seem to condemn even sincere questions. Kioku had very real questions, and you condemned philosophical answers to his questions. You chose, instead, to point the man to his sin rather than to the Truth. Now, tell me, J, if the Corinthians were not ready for solid meat but had to be given milk, how much more are unbelievers not ready for meat and must be given the most elementary things of the world--those from the area of general revelation?

Take a survey and see how many people believe in God. Then ask if they are born from above. The majority of people are just like Paul said. They know god exist. And a good portion of people who deny God will admit once you dig, that they don't reject God because of lack of convincing, but because they don't like the God of the bible.

And many don't know God exists, and many more don't know that Jesus is the Only Way. Salvation is never about moral purity. It is about Whom they are trusting to save them. To demand they trust a Savior about Whom they know nothing is simply absurd.

I think both of you are arguing 2 sides of the same coin. IMO both methods are quite appropriate in their own rights, given the circumstances in which they must be applied. Just a thought.

cslewislover wrote:Jac, I don't understand what got you all worked up. He's saying that yes, God's existence can be shown logically. It's faith in him that can't be received through logic. I haven't read the other posts yet, I just wanted to say that before reading them. The logic of God can lead to faith, but not necessarily.

I understand what you are saying, csl, and in large part, I agree. My disagreement with jlay goes way back earlier in this thread. We're just carrying on a conversation we've been having for awhile now. The two of us are in obvious agreement on the majority of Christian doctrine (as we all are on this board). We just have a basic disagreement on methodology when it comes to evangelism, so we're just working out the consequences of our respective views.

In the end, I think everyone--myself included--would acknowledge that the moment of salvation is not a simple matter of assent. It is a matter of choice. We choose to rest in what we believe that God has done for us through Christ. My argument is that, for most people, that choice cannot be made until their intellectual excuses have been removed, and that is done in the realm of philosophy and apologetics. I further contend that all of the puritanical preaching in the world will not remove such excuses and will thus not result in the choice we all hope to see people make. My disagreement with J, then, is that I believe his method--though certainly well intentioned!--is actually destructive with a certain type of person, a person that is, unfortunately, become more and more prominent in our society.

edit:

Byblos wrote:I think both of you are arguing 2 sides of the same coin. IMO both methods are quite appropriate in their own rights, given the circumstances in which they must be applied. Just a thought.

I would strongly highlight "given the circumstances." When preaching/evangelizing to people who profess to believe in God and the Bible, I spend my time doing what J is talking about. But if you remember the entire thing that started this conversation, I am talking entirely and completely about people who have no such faith in God. You cannot preach people into accepting God's existence, the veracity of Scripture, the reality of Jesus, etc. For those people, biblical exhortations are as effective as speaking to a rock (unless you are Moses, and none of us are!). People who are looking for evidence for Christianity so that they can believe it--non-Christians--need something different than mere puritanical preaching. They need solid reasoning, philosophy, and apologetics. Nothing less will do.