As I look forward to tomorrow's debate over the issue "Is baptism a necessary condition for salvation." I've given some thought yet once again about the purpose of apologetics. That is, why is apologetics important and what purpose does it serve. It is my personal conviction that apologetics has (at the very least) three major and crucial functions within the church.
1. Defending the Faith: Obvious I know. But let us never forget that the word apologetics comes from the Greek phrase "pros apologian" which literally means "toward a defense." Apologetics is the area of ministry that stands as a shield for the church. I think this is a major reason why I am so passionate about apologetics. With all of the wolves that are trying to snag the sheep, apologists play the role of a shepherd in a universal sense. I do not mean this in any way to downplay the more central role that pastors play as shepherds to local congregations, I honor that role as supremely important and it is an official office given by Scripture where "apologist" is not.
But nonetheless, apologist's practice the art of refuting false doctrine and clarifying Biblical doctrine. The work of an apologist is to silence "false prophets" and point towards the truth of Jesus Christ as found in the Scripture. Apologetics is an academic ministry, a fight on the front line of Christian doctrine, saying "thus says the word of God" and telling false teachers "you stand condemned by Scripture." I love apologetics because it is a noble profession of holding the line.
2. Building up the Body: Another purpose of apologetics that is closely related with the first purpose, the other side of that coin perhaps, is encouraging Christians to know what the Bible teaches and have confidence in solid Christian doctrine. While apologetics is the art of defending the faith, the best way to defend the faith is to equip the church with the truth so that each believer can themselves call a spade a spade. Apologetics keeps out false doctrine away from the church and solidifies Biblical doctrine within the church.
3. Evangelism: A good apologist always has, in addition to the first 2 points, this third one in mind. A desire to see the lost saved. Whether it be the false teachers we refute, the people who follow them, or the people who are neutral but by hearing the truth compared to falsehood are drawn by God's Spirit to know Christ Jesus. Yes apologetics is also a way of proclaiming the gospel. One cannot help while clarifying the gospel message to also proclaim it and pray that God draws His elect to Himself.
As I engage in this debate tomorrow, I hope I accomplish in the name and power of Christ and the authority of Scripture, all three of those purposes. I appreciate your prayers for the debate tomorrow.
In Him
-Jacob
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Friday, November 9, 2007
Thursday, May 24, 2007
After Centuries of Confusion the Truth... is Still Being Attacked!
We've probably all seen by now the massive campaign that the Mormon church has been waging via the TV commercials. Their tagline is "After centuries of confusion the truth has been restored." I've got to hand it to them from the standpoint of their marketing and enthusiasm. Of course the only problem is that they are preaching another gospel. This is exactly what we are warned about in Galatians 1:8-9,
"8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon church), claimed that an angel did appear to him. And if Joseph Smith had been a Bible believing Christian, and this were to have actually happened (which is more than questionable), he would have known to reject the message of this angel. Eventually Joseph Smith would found a religion that would exalt men to gods and lower God to man.
Christians need to be very aware about what Mormon's believe and its incompatibility with Scripture. Here is a ----> "link" <---- that should make anyone who knows and loves the gospel of Christ shudder. In this link you will see a video of a person talking about how unfair and unloving it would be for God to send to Hell people who have not heard about Jesus, and people who have done "good things" (Rom 3:10-12) but are not Christians.
Hello! What about the fact that the Bible says we are all sinners and deserve HELL! (Romans 1-3) It's not unfair that people go to Hell! It's unfair that God had to die in the place of sinners because we rebelled against Him! But how wonderful is His grace that He would do it anyway! You must repent of your sin and trust in Christ alone for salvation! If you do not, you go to Hell, and you deserve to. I deserve to, and I praise God that I'm notgetting what I deserve because Christ has saved me! There is only one way to Heaven (John 14:6, Eph. 2:8-9). But this is just a small part of the dangerous message that is being preached by the Mormon church.
It is because of cult groups like this that deceive people and pull them away from the true Jesus and His gospel that I am an apologist. This is why I am creating a new "site" that will be a resource for defending the Biblical Christian faith. But since my site has a long way to go, I suggest that you check out "Alpha and Omega Ministries" and James White's book's, "Is the Mormon My Brother" and "Letters to a Mormon Elder" for more information on the Latter Day Saints.
Know what you believe and why. Don't be silent about the truth! If you don't share Christ with your neighbor, someone else might share a pseudo Christ with them instead.
-Jacob
"8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon church), claimed that an angel did appear to him. And if Joseph Smith had been a Bible believing Christian, and this were to have actually happened (which is more than questionable), he would have known to reject the message of this angel. Eventually Joseph Smith would found a religion that would exalt men to gods and lower God to man.
Christians need to be very aware about what Mormon's believe and its incompatibility with Scripture. Here is a ----> "link" <---- that should make anyone who knows and loves the gospel of Christ shudder. In this link you will see a video of a person talking about how unfair and unloving it would be for God to send to Hell people who have not heard about Jesus, and people who have done "good things" (Rom 3:10-12) but are not Christians.
Hello! What about the fact that the Bible says we are all sinners and deserve HELL! (Romans 1-3) It's not unfair that people go to Hell! It's unfair that God had to die in the place of sinners because we rebelled against Him! But how wonderful is His grace that He would do it anyway! You must repent of your sin and trust in Christ alone for salvation! If you do not, you go to Hell, and you deserve to. I deserve to, and I praise God that I'm notgetting what I deserve because Christ has saved me! There is only one way to Heaven (John 14:6, Eph. 2:8-9). But this is just a small part of the dangerous message that is being preached by the Mormon church.
It is because of cult groups like this that deceive people and pull them away from the true Jesus and His gospel that I am an apologist. This is why I am creating a new "site" that will be a resource for defending the Biblical Christian faith. But since my site has a long way to go, I suggest that you check out "Alpha and Omega Ministries" and James White's book's, "Is the Mormon My Brother" and "Letters to a Mormon Elder" for more information on the Latter Day Saints.
Know what you believe and why. Don't be silent about the truth! If you don't share Christ with your neighbor, someone else might share a pseudo Christ with them instead.
-Jacob
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Check out the new additions to the site...
Hello all!
I've made some more additions to the new apologetics site. I would love your feedback and suggestions as well as pointing out any corrections I need to make for spelling and grammar. It is my goal to be fair and accurate in representing other faiths and their positions, so those of you who are Roman Catholic or LDS or anything else, I would love your advice on different theologians and websites I could read to make sure I can give an accurate representation of your view on the site. I don't believe in making "Straw Man" arguments. I want to be fair and honest with other people's positions just as I want them to be fair and honest with mine. "Do unto others..." you know.
Clearly the articles that will eventually be on this site will be a rebuttal against other religious perspectives, but I want the arguments against them to be arguments against what people in those faiths actually believe and not just a caricature of their faith.
I welcome suggestions for further topics that are not yet listed on the site also. As of now I am still just trying to get the shell of the website done, their will be much to come in the way of content later. It will be a slow but hopefully fairly steady process.
http://reformationapologetics.com
Let me hear what you think!
In Him -Jacob
I've made some more additions to the new apologetics site. I would love your feedback and suggestions as well as pointing out any corrections I need to make for spelling and grammar. It is my goal to be fair and accurate in representing other faiths and their positions, so those of you who are Roman Catholic or LDS or anything else, I would love your advice on different theologians and websites I could read to make sure I can give an accurate representation of your view on the site. I don't believe in making "Straw Man" arguments. I want to be fair and honest with other people's positions just as I want them to be fair and honest with mine. "Do unto others..." you know.
Clearly the articles that will eventually be on this site will be a rebuttal against other religious perspectives, but I want the arguments against them to be arguments against what people in those faiths actually believe and not just a caricature of their faith.
I welcome suggestions for further topics that are not yet listed on the site also. As of now I am still just trying to get the shell of the website done, their will be much to come in the way of content later. It will be a slow but hopefully fairly steady process.
http://reformationapologetics.com
Let me hear what you think!
In Him -Jacob
Monday, May 21, 2007
Sorry I have been preoccupied...
I haven't poste much over the last week because I've been busy with a number of things. One of those things that I've been busy doing is creating a new website for my apologetics ministry. It is still very much under construction and will be for a while, but feel free to check it out as I continue to work on it and if you'd like to leave a comment or make a suggestion, please do so.
Here is the link: www.reformationapologetics.com
The site is going to be a resource for Christian apologetics and theology, a place where believers can come and learn what they need to know to defend the biblical Christian faith against all who would oppose it or hold up a false portrait of it.
It will also contain polemic resources for defending correct doctrine amongst those within the faith. For instance Believers baptism versus infant baptism, etc.
It will take me quite some time to have the site where I want it to be, but it will hopefully eventually be a great resource for many people.
-Jacob
Here is the link: www.reformationapologetics.com
The site is going to be a resource for Christian apologetics and theology, a place where believers can come and learn what they need to know to defend the biblical Christian faith against all who would oppose it or hold up a false portrait of it.
It will also contain polemic resources for defending correct doctrine amongst those within the faith. For instance Believers baptism versus infant baptism, etc.
It will take me quite some time to have the site where I want it to be, but it will hopefully eventually be a great resource for many people.
-Jacob
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Can The Existence of God be Proven?
Last night I watched on ABC's Nightline as they covered a debate between two Christian evangelists (Ray Comfort and Kirk Cammeron) and two atheists (Brian Sapient and "Kelly"). I was a bit disappointed by the fact that they really showed next to nothing of the debate itself. Perhaps 5 minutes of it total even though the debate was well over an hour or perhaps closer to two hours in length. I intend to see if i can find the debate in its entirety on http://www.wayofthemaster.com/. I suspect it will be there.
However, I saw enough to make a few comments. First of all, it strikes me yet once again, how angry atheist usually are. I don't say this as a blanket statement, but as a general consensus of what I personally have seen and heard when debating with or listening to others debate "atheists." Basically it is my opinion that in 95% of the cases when you run into someone who claims to be an atheist, it comes down to the fact that they don't really not believe there is a God, they simply, openly, loudly, vocally, HATE God.
The report last night showed a time where the audience was allowed to ask questions and, oh my, were there ever some angry atheists. One lady, practically screaming at Ray Comfort, wanted to know how there could be a God because cancer exists. When Comfort started to talk about the problem of suffering, she got infuriated because he said "suffering" rather then "cancer" so he rephrased it for her. Clearly this woman had lost a loved one to cancer, or at least I would assume. Comfort did a good job of explaining why there is "cancer" and "suffering" in the world due to the fallen creation from Genesis 3. Not as though it was a satisfactory answer for this lady.
The two atheist who were actually debating were, to say the least, extremely rude. Scoffing at the two Christians as they shared their views. Basically just being antagonistic, no surprise. These two are the ones who started the movement calling for atheist to "commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" by denying Him and say that they aren't afraid. And then posting the recorded video of themselves on an Internet web-site. Not that these people actually have a clue about what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit really is.
From my perspective, what little I got to see last night on "Nightline", the atheist in the debate as well as in the crowd, showed their true colors. There is no sense of respect for others, there is extreme anger against the very notion of God, (which only supports the Bible's position about fallen man, read Roman 1-3) they have to make outlandish claims and reject plain reason to deny even the possibility of God.
That said, I want to offer my critique on the Christian view point that was extended last night. First let me say that I love and appreciate Ray and Kirk. On the whole (from what I saw) they did a descent job. However, here is where I disagree with the position my two brothers in Christ put forward.
Comfort and Cammeron used the famous "proofs" for the existence of God that Thomas Aquinas made famous. Things like the Ontilogical argument (The necessity of a perfect being) and Telelogical argument (if there is a watch, there is a watchmaker, if there is creation, there is a creator) as well as the moral argument (man instictively knows right from wrong, because there is a divine law giver.)
I believe that such arguments have their place. These are often referred to as "Classical Apologetics." If someone say he is a classical apologist, then he probably means that he utilizes these arguments. Here is the problem with these arguments though, they give some logical reasons to believe that there is a God, they make sense, however they don't necessarily prove the God of the Bible. They give some reason to believe in omnipotent being, but they don't single out YAHWEH as that omnipotent being. So these "proofs", on their own, are not enough. Now I will say that Comfort and Cammeron do point to reasons to believe that the God of the Bible is the true God, and they have some good evidential arguments for that too.
But ultimately, here is the real problem. Can anyone "prove the existence of God?" No. I don't think we can. In fact I think only God can prove that He is God directly to someone. The problem is that man is completely tainted by sin. When these "classical proofs" were first being formed, they were largely being formed by Roman Catholic apologists who believed that man could come to a true understanding and knowledge of God by what is revealed in creation. And therefore it was largely believed that God's existence could be proved by plain reason and pointing towards creation and moral arguments such as the ones still used often today. But according to Romans 1:18-23 man is so messed up because of sin they are unable to see what God has plainly put right in front of their faces!
The Scripture says:
"18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."
According to Scripture if it weren't for sin, everyone would recognize the one true God merely by looking out their window at His creation, but sin has darkened their "foolish hearts." What does that mean? It means that we can give 1,000,000,000,000 and 1 reasons to believe that there is a God and then give that many more to believe that this omnipotent God is the God revealed in the Bible, and they will still not believe. Not because these truths are not self evident, not because they don't make sense, but because they don't make sense to a person who has been totally corrupted by sin in their mind body and soul. Aquinas was wrong. Man cannot come to know God by plain reason. God must shine light on darkened hearts.
The honest truth is, we must hold the Bible to be self evident as proof that God exists and is who He reveals Himself to be in the pages of Scripture. John 10 tells us that Christ's sheep will hear his voice. We preach the word and those whom God chooses to save He gives His Spirit and they follow the voice of the Good Shepherd. But without God's action in the life of a sinner, there is nothing you can say or do that will "prove" to them that God exists. The best apologetic against atheism is to give reason to believe in God and that this God is the one the Bible speaks of and then preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and trust the Holy Spirit to convict sinners and make them new in Christ and give them faith.
I've heard Ray Comfort say that people need to "pray and listen to the voice of their conscience" to find out what is true. I would definitely have to refute that as a God idea. Our conscience is corrupted by sin as well, it could very easily tell us something untrue. But I do agree that telling a person their need for Christ and telling them to read the Scriptures and ask God to reveal Himself to them is a good thing, but let's leave our subjective conscience out of it. That's what the LDS do after all, and people follow after their false doctrine. It is the word of God that will convict people of their need for Christ alongside the Holy Spirit.
Can anyone prove God? No, not to sinful humanity. But God can and does make Himself known. Jesus calls to His sheep and His sheep hear His voice.
However, I saw enough to make a few comments. First of all, it strikes me yet once again, how angry atheist usually are. I don't say this as a blanket statement, but as a general consensus of what I personally have seen and heard when debating with or listening to others debate "atheists." Basically it is my opinion that in 95% of the cases when you run into someone who claims to be an atheist, it comes down to the fact that they don't really not believe there is a God, they simply, openly, loudly, vocally, HATE God.
The report last night showed a time where the audience was allowed to ask questions and, oh my, were there ever some angry atheists. One lady, practically screaming at Ray Comfort, wanted to know how there could be a God because cancer exists. When Comfort started to talk about the problem of suffering, she got infuriated because he said "suffering" rather then "cancer" so he rephrased it for her. Clearly this woman had lost a loved one to cancer, or at least I would assume. Comfort did a good job of explaining why there is "cancer" and "suffering" in the world due to the fallen creation from Genesis 3. Not as though it was a satisfactory answer for this lady.
The two atheist who were actually debating were, to say the least, extremely rude. Scoffing at the two Christians as they shared their views. Basically just being antagonistic, no surprise. These two are the ones who started the movement calling for atheist to "commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" by denying Him and say that they aren't afraid. And then posting the recorded video of themselves on an Internet web-site. Not that these people actually have a clue about what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit really is.
From my perspective, what little I got to see last night on "Nightline", the atheist in the debate as well as in the crowd, showed their true colors. There is no sense of respect for others, there is extreme anger against the very notion of God, (which only supports the Bible's position about fallen man, read Roman 1-3) they have to make outlandish claims and reject plain reason to deny even the possibility of God.
That said, I want to offer my critique on the Christian view point that was extended last night. First let me say that I love and appreciate Ray and Kirk. On the whole (from what I saw) they did a descent job. However, here is where I disagree with the position my two brothers in Christ put forward.
Comfort and Cammeron used the famous "proofs" for the existence of God that Thomas Aquinas made famous. Things like the Ontilogical argument (The necessity of a perfect being) and Telelogical argument (if there is a watch, there is a watchmaker, if there is creation, there is a creator) as well as the moral argument (man instictively knows right from wrong, because there is a divine law giver.)
I believe that such arguments have their place. These are often referred to as "Classical Apologetics." If someone say he is a classical apologist, then he probably means that he utilizes these arguments. Here is the problem with these arguments though, they give some logical reasons to believe that there is a God, they make sense, however they don't necessarily prove the God of the Bible. They give some reason to believe in omnipotent being, but they don't single out YAHWEH as that omnipotent being. So these "proofs", on their own, are not enough. Now I will say that Comfort and Cammeron do point to reasons to believe that the God of the Bible is the true God, and they have some good evidential arguments for that too.
But ultimately, here is the real problem. Can anyone "prove the existence of God?" No. I don't think we can. In fact I think only God can prove that He is God directly to someone. The problem is that man is completely tainted by sin. When these "classical proofs" were first being formed, they were largely being formed by Roman Catholic apologists who believed that man could come to a true understanding and knowledge of God by what is revealed in creation. And therefore it was largely believed that God's existence could be proved by plain reason and pointing towards creation and moral arguments such as the ones still used often today. But according to Romans 1:18-23 man is so messed up because of sin they are unable to see what God has plainly put right in front of their faces!
The Scripture says:
"18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."
According to Scripture if it weren't for sin, everyone would recognize the one true God merely by looking out their window at His creation, but sin has darkened their "foolish hearts." What does that mean? It means that we can give 1,000,000,000,000 and 1 reasons to believe that there is a God and then give that many more to believe that this omnipotent God is the God revealed in the Bible, and they will still not believe. Not because these truths are not self evident, not because they don't make sense, but because they don't make sense to a person who has been totally corrupted by sin in their mind body and soul. Aquinas was wrong. Man cannot come to know God by plain reason. God must shine light on darkened hearts.
The honest truth is, we must hold the Bible to be self evident as proof that God exists and is who He reveals Himself to be in the pages of Scripture. John 10 tells us that Christ's sheep will hear his voice. We preach the word and those whom God chooses to save He gives His Spirit and they follow the voice of the Good Shepherd. But without God's action in the life of a sinner, there is nothing you can say or do that will "prove" to them that God exists. The best apologetic against atheism is to give reason to believe in God and that this God is the one the Bible speaks of and then preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and trust the Holy Spirit to convict sinners and make them new in Christ and give them faith.
I've heard Ray Comfort say that people need to "pray and listen to the voice of their conscience" to find out what is true. I would definitely have to refute that as a God idea. Our conscience is corrupted by sin as well, it could very easily tell us something untrue. But I do agree that telling a person their need for Christ and telling them to read the Scriptures and ask God to reveal Himself to them is a good thing, but let's leave our subjective conscience out of it. That's what the LDS do after all, and people follow after their false doctrine. It is the word of God that will convict people of their need for Christ alongside the Holy Spirit.
Can anyone prove God? No, not to sinful humanity. But God can and does make Himself known. Jesus calls to His sheep and His sheep hear His voice.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Can an atheist call something evil?
We must call atheist's to be consistent with there own proclaimed view. Obviously the meaning of atheist is the concept that there is no God. Frankly it's the "belief" that there is no God, even though they hate that word to be used of their view.
Frequently I have found when speaking to, reading the writings of, or listening to an atheist speak, the most common objections against the idea of GOD is that there is so much evil in the world. Therefore, by their conclusion, there is no God. After all if there really were an omnipotent, omniscient, loving being, then that being would not allow such evil. This is from my experience the most common objection (to the God whom we as Christians worship) that atheist usually give. I'm not saying that they don't object on the basis of other things also. Many atheist claim that science and the Bible conflict in an irresolvable manner. (Of course many scientists find that the Bible and good science always agree.) Regardless of what other objections there are against the idea of GOD, evil is the most common problem in the minds of most who reject the idea of a supreme being.
The ironic thing about this ever common objection to God, is the fact that the very objection defeats itself. To say "There can be no God because there is so much evil" is a ridiculous statement. For if you throw out the idea of God, then by default, you also toss out any real definition of evil. What is evil? Who decides what is evil? Is not evil the opposite of good. Who decides what is good? Do you see the problem?
The Christian appeals to God as the ultimate standard of good. Good is whatever God calls good and evil whatever He calls evil. For God is the creator of all things and who but He could define good and evil. Good is whatever is in accordance to the expressed will of God and evil is anything that opposes it. Because God says "You shall not steal" I know that stealing is evil and not stealing is good. Because God said "You shall not lie" or "Murder" I know that those things are evil and not doing them is Good. Because God said "You shall have no other God's before me" I know to worship Him alone is good, and to worship anything else is bad.
But what right does an atheist have to call something good or evil? By what standard do they call something good or evil? Is it there own subjective opinion? For if I proclaim to be an atheist, and I say "this thing that you have done is pure evil" you should rightly say "according to what, you?" Personal opinions are subjective. My opinion is not any more authoritative then the next person, so if an atheist calls something good or evil, who cares? It's just good or evil from their perspective, that doesn't make it actually so.
Indeed this worldview promotes what I would call evil based on God's truth and His revealed will in the Scripture. For if an atheist sees fit to murder, who is to tell him he is wrong if there is no objective truth about good and evil?
This is where some atheists will object and say, "Well, society defines good and evil. There has to be laws given by society or it would be utter chaos." Fine then. So why is murder wrong by this standard? Because the majority of our society deems it as wrong. But what if the majority shifted? What if all of a sudden 60% of people thought murder was a reasonable action if someone made you angry enough? By the standard given by atheism, this would then have to be called "good."
The problem is obvious. Aside from an omnipotent law-giving God, it's all subjective. An atheist has no right to call the incident at Virginia Tech or 9/11 or anything else for that matter "evil." Because to call something objectively, positively evil, one would have to go to an authoritative source outside of himself. Otherwise it is nothing more than an opinion.
Christians have a God of truth, He is the standard for good and evil. It is because of this that even if the whole world but me believes that murder, homosexuality, stealing, etc., are OK I can say "NO! It is evil because God said so!" I can call mass murder evil (including abortion). I can call stealing evil. Not because of my objective opinion, but because of the revealed will of the creator.
Can an atheist call something evil? Only if they realize it is either just their own opinion and holds no objective truth to it, or if they admit that there is a law-giving God and therefore lose their atheistic status.
Frequently I have found when speaking to, reading the writings of, or listening to an atheist speak, the most common objections against the idea of GOD is that there is so much evil in the world. Therefore, by their conclusion, there is no God. After all if there really were an omnipotent, omniscient, loving being, then that being would not allow such evil. This is from my experience the most common objection (to the God whom we as Christians worship) that atheist usually give. I'm not saying that they don't object on the basis of other things also. Many atheist claim that science and the Bible conflict in an irresolvable manner. (Of course many scientists find that the Bible and good science always agree.) Regardless of what other objections there are against the idea of GOD, evil is the most common problem in the minds of most who reject the idea of a supreme being.
The ironic thing about this ever common objection to God, is the fact that the very objection defeats itself. To say "There can be no God because there is so much evil" is a ridiculous statement. For if you throw out the idea of God, then by default, you also toss out any real definition of evil. What is evil? Who decides what is evil? Is not evil the opposite of good. Who decides what is good? Do you see the problem?
The Christian appeals to God as the ultimate standard of good. Good is whatever God calls good and evil whatever He calls evil. For God is the creator of all things and who but He could define good and evil. Good is whatever is in accordance to the expressed will of God and evil is anything that opposes it. Because God says "You shall not steal" I know that stealing is evil and not stealing is good. Because God said "You shall not lie" or "Murder" I know that those things are evil and not doing them is Good. Because God said "You shall have no other God's before me" I know to worship Him alone is good, and to worship anything else is bad.
But what right does an atheist have to call something good or evil? By what standard do they call something good or evil? Is it there own subjective opinion? For if I proclaim to be an atheist, and I say "this thing that you have done is pure evil" you should rightly say "according to what, you?" Personal opinions are subjective. My opinion is not any more authoritative then the next person, so if an atheist calls something good or evil, who cares? It's just good or evil from their perspective, that doesn't make it actually so.
Indeed this worldview promotes what I would call evil based on God's truth and His revealed will in the Scripture. For if an atheist sees fit to murder, who is to tell him he is wrong if there is no objective truth about good and evil?
This is where some atheists will object and say, "Well, society defines good and evil. There has to be laws given by society or it would be utter chaos." Fine then. So why is murder wrong by this standard? Because the majority of our society deems it as wrong. But what if the majority shifted? What if all of a sudden 60% of people thought murder was a reasonable action if someone made you angry enough? By the standard given by atheism, this would then have to be called "good."
The problem is obvious. Aside from an omnipotent law-giving God, it's all subjective. An atheist has no right to call the incident at Virginia Tech or 9/11 or anything else for that matter "evil." Because to call something objectively, positively evil, one would have to go to an authoritative source outside of himself. Otherwise it is nothing more than an opinion.
Christians have a God of truth, He is the standard for good and evil. It is because of this that even if the whole world but me believes that murder, homosexuality, stealing, etc., are OK I can say "NO! It is evil because God said so!" I can call mass murder evil (including abortion). I can call stealing evil. Not because of my objective opinion, but because of the revealed will of the creator.
Can an atheist call something evil? Only if they realize it is either just their own opinion and holds no objective truth to it, or if they admit that there is a law-giving God and therefore lose their atheistic status.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Why Apologetics?
In so many words, if not the exact word, I get called "arrogant" more and more often. I've given some real thought to this. I mean after all, if indeed I am an arrogant person, that is not a good thing to be. However, the more I thought about being called arrogant, I started thinking about "why" I am being called arrogant. And pretty much it comes down to this. I make "truth claims." I do it all the time. I say "This is right, true and good." And by so doing I imply, and often directly point out that "This is wrong, false and bad." And that makes me arrogant in the eyes of many people.
Frankly, I don't care. If I was making dogmatic statements about things that Scripture is silent upon, then that would indeed be arrogant. If I talked about how wonderful I am, and said that I was the greatest Christian thinker since C.S. Lewis or Cornelius Van Til, that would be arrogant. But I don't think I really do that. Oh don't get me wrong, I'm a horrid sinner! I make many mistakes on a daily basis, but I don't claim infallibility or perfect knowledge. If I did, I would be horribly arrogant as would anyone apart from God Himself who would say such a thing.
But again, I don't think that this is why I am being called arrogant. I'm being called arrogant for echoing Scripture. I am being called arrogant for saying that Jesus Christ is Lord and God and no enters Heaven apart from faith in Him. And I go further to say that it is not by works but by God's grace, through faith which are all gifts of God not of our own selves.
Why do I tell my L.D.S. friend Pat that he is wrong in his beliefs? Because if I am right and I understand Scripture correctly, Pat will go to Hell for all eternity unless he repents and turns his heart to Jesus Christ, the one that the Bible teaches and not the book of Mormon.
Why do I tell my friend Gregory that he is wrong and in danger of Hell if He does not reject the Roman Catholic gospel, because I love him, and I love pat, and I love all of you who read this now and want you to have eternal life!
Why do I do apologetics? That is why do I defend the historic Christian faith? One, I do it for the Glory of God. It is my desire to know Him and make Him known as He reveals Himself in the pages of Scripture. Truth matters to God! Jesus made emphatic truth statements all the time, and He wasn't much liked for it either often times. But as God reveals His truth in His word (the Bible) I want to bring Him glory by proclaiming and defending that truth. As if He needs me, no not at all. God is more than sufficient to take care of Himself, He does not need me!!! But I love HIM! I want to speak for Him because He is my world and I am zealous and jealous for His glory! He doesn't need my defense but when people attack Him and His truth I can't help but stand for Him because He is my God who saved me, who loves me, and whom I will spend eternity with! I cannot help but shout "Glory to the one true God!!!" And I am obedient to Scripture when I fight false teaching and ideas that oppose the truth of God. As it says in 2 Corinthians 10:5 "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ." I love God and I defend Him because of it, not because He needs me.
Secondly, I do apologetics because I love you. When a person is blind and deaf and standing on a train track with a speeding train coming at them, what is the loving thing to do? Watch them get hit? Or do everything you can to push that person out of the way of that train? Anyone who believe that there is a way to heaven aside from God's grace through faith in the Jesus Christ presented in Scripture (Eternal God) is in danger. I do apologetics to attempt to show them the danger they are in, and then I show them the narrow road that is difficult, but leads to life.
Go ahead, call me arrogant. But I love God, and I love you. I know I'm far from perfect, but when it comes to the gospel, I know I have it right. So I will continue to shout "Glory to God" and proclaim Him as He proclaims Himself, and I will continue to try and push you out of the path of that eminent train. And if you are a Christian already and think I should just leave people alone, wake up. God saves people, but God uses us to proclaim. Romans 10:14-15 says, "14But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
If you think you have the answer of how a man can have eternal life, you do not love me if you do not tell me.
May the Spirit of God convict you to know Him, and to make Him known.
In Him -Jacob
Frankly, I don't care. If I was making dogmatic statements about things that Scripture is silent upon, then that would indeed be arrogant. If I talked about how wonderful I am, and said that I was the greatest Christian thinker since C.S. Lewis or Cornelius Van Til, that would be arrogant. But I don't think I really do that. Oh don't get me wrong, I'm a horrid sinner! I make many mistakes on a daily basis, but I don't claim infallibility or perfect knowledge. If I did, I would be horribly arrogant as would anyone apart from God Himself who would say such a thing.
But again, I don't think that this is why I am being called arrogant. I'm being called arrogant for echoing Scripture. I am being called arrogant for saying that Jesus Christ is Lord and God and no enters Heaven apart from faith in Him. And I go further to say that it is not by works but by God's grace, through faith which are all gifts of God not of our own selves.
Why do I tell my L.D.S. friend Pat that he is wrong in his beliefs? Because if I am right and I understand Scripture correctly, Pat will go to Hell for all eternity unless he repents and turns his heart to Jesus Christ, the one that the Bible teaches and not the book of Mormon.
Why do I tell my friend Gregory that he is wrong and in danger of Hell if He does not reject the Roman Catholic gospel, because I love him, and I love pat, and I love all of you who read this now and want you to have eternal life!
Why do I do apologetics? That is why do I defend the historic Christian faith? One, I do it for the Glory of God. It is my desire to know Him and make Him known as He reveals Himself in the pages of Scripture. Truth matters to God! Jesus made emphatic truth statements all the time, and He wasn't much liked for it either often times. But as God reveals His truth in His word (the Bible) I want to bring Him glory by proclaiming and defending that truth. As if He needs me, no not at all. God is more than sufficient to take care of Himself, He does not need me!!! But I love HIM! I want to speak for Him because He is my world and I am zealous and jealous for His glory! He doesn't need my defense but when people attack Him and His truth I can't help but stand for Him because He is my God who saved me, who loves me, and whom I will spend eternity with! I cannot help but shout "Glory to the one true God!!!" And I am obedient to Scripture when I fight false teaching and ideas that oppose the truth of God. As it says in 2 Corinthians 10:5 "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ." I love God and I defend Him because of it, not because He needs me.
Secondly, I do apologetics because I love you. When a person is blind and deaf and standing on a train track with a speeding train coming at them, what is the loving thing to do? Watch them get hit? Or do everything you can to push that person out of the way of that train? Anyone who believe that there is a way to heaven aside from God's grace through faith in the Jesus Christ presented in Scripture (Eternal God) is in danger. I do apologetics to attempt to show them the danger they are in, and then I show them the narrow road that is difficult, but leads to life.
Go ahead, call me arrogant. But I love God, and I love you. I know I'm far from perfect, but when it comes to the gospel, I know I have it right. So I will continue to shout "Glory to God" and proclaim Him as He proclaims Himself, and I will continue to try and push you out of the path of that eminent train. And if you are a Christian already and think I should just leave people alone, wake up. God saves people, but God uses us to proclaim. Romans 10:14-15 says, "14But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
If you think you have the answer of how a man can have eternal life, you do not love me if you do not tell me.
May the Spirit of God convict you to know Him, and to make Him known.
In Him -Jacob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
