Philip wrote:Hey, Jac, glad to see you rejoin us!
But, yeah, who really comes to Christ based on how well they can perfectly harmonize the Bible with their scientific understandings? Fact is, that while many do INITIALLY start down a faith journey because they can logically see that a universe beginning where there was previously nothing, and subsequently/eventually, life beginning WITHOUT God existing, the design, complexity, harmony, and functionality of what has been made coming about uncaused makes no sense - yet, they don't let the lack of having a perfect Bible/science understanding keep them from faith. Those whom assert this to be the reason for their lack of faith are using it as an excuse, a smokescreen, denial, etc. No, what really matters is how a person responds to what is in The Gospel and the New Testament, not unsortable issues from The Beginning.
Thanks, Philip. Things are starting to lighten up just a little bit. I still don't have time to post very much -- very sporadically at best for the next few months. But EBTC is coming along well as well as some other projects I've been putting a lot of time into recently. So hopefully I can cruise for a bit.
Anyway, more to the point, this above is exactly the point. I hope winner and everybody else takes that very seriously and not as just some nice words to gloss over. I mean, somewhere (maybe this thread? I don't know, too lazy to look it up) he basically said that he was trying to decide if it was worth staking his life on this crucified Jewish carpenter. See, that's getting to the
real issue. All this other stuff is related, I grant that. But even if every single question he and everybody else ever had was given a plausible answer, it would still come down to whether or not he's willing to stake his life on a crucified Jew.
I'm putting together an apologetics certificate right now. As part of the series, we're talking about the place of apologetics--including creationism--in evangelism. One of the points I'm making (and testing my students on
) is that apologetics is a branch of
theology. And while it is certainly useful in evangelism--indeed, there's a lot of overlap between the two fields--it is still that: theology. It's far more valuable to the believer than it is to the unbeliever, and that's something I bet everybody on this board (especially those who have made the journey from no faith to faith) can attest to.
So by all means, we should continue to talk about theology, about apologetics, about creationism. But we should never be so dense as to think that any unbeliever is going to come to faith once he gets a few theological questions out of the way. The unavoidable and absolute fact that what such people need is not theology, but Christ. They need a Person. They need their Savior. And we really only do well to talk about theology with such people to the extent that it relates back to their need for Christ. Everything else is, as you say, a smokescreen. Or worse, it's a mere curiosity, and to be very honest, to reduce theology--which is the study of God and therefore the holiest of all sciences--to something to study out of idle curiosity ought to be regarded as incredibly offensive. And, as we've all been getting at of course, wrongheaded. After all, theology only comes to life when it deepens our relationship with God, which we only have in Christ.
Bottom line, my sarcasm in the post above aside, I really hope that winner reads the last bit of this exchange and takes it to heart. Study theology later. That includes apologetics and creationism. There is only
one question for you: who is Jesus Christ of Nazareth? Is He God, as He claimed to be? Is He the Savior of the world as He claimed to be? He said that whoever believes in Him has everlasting life (John 3:16; 6:47) and worse that those who do not believe in Him are condemned (John 8:24). I mean, really think about how audacious a claim that is! To say to a person, "What you do with me will determine what happens to your eternal soul." I mean, either those are the words of a clinically insane person (or, maybe worse, a truly evil person) or else . . . well, or else, what? If it's true . . . think about that for a bit? If it's true, then nothing else--no one else--matters.
So how do you know if it's true? What would prove it? How about His resurrection? Not just coming back to life, but His resurrection and ascention into glory. Such an event would be the stamp of God's own testimony of the truth of Jesus' claims. And guess what? It IS true. Jesus REALLY died and He REALLY was resurrected. How do we know THAT?
THAT is question you should be asking. You study that, and once you get that out of the way and get your relationship with God right, then you can look at those pesky questions around things like theology. But prior to that, you are wasting your time . . . and, to be a little bit aggressive about it, running the risk of increasing your offense before Him. After all, if what Jesus said and did is true, and if you
ignore that to talk about something a trite as the gap theory vs evolution, just imagine what
that is saying to God! "I know, God, that You--the Maker of All Things and King Over All--have said that the most important thing is Your Son. But, yeah, I'm not really so interested in that subject. With all due respect to You, You are mistaken. The question of Genesis 1 and how it fits or doesn't fit with modern science is definitely more important. So I'll get around to looking at Your testimony about Your Son later. In the meantime, I'm going to deal with way more important issues."
I trust you can see how ridiculous such a position is . . .
Praying for you. God bless!
