Saturday, October 27, 2007
Here's the scenario:
You're a Christian. You've come out from among the "Honorary-Altar-Call Society" and the mentality of the "Get-Your-Ticket-to-Heaven-Punched" prayer and are truly professing and believing in Jesus Christ. You're starting to believe and what happens? Of course. An unbeliever comes along and tries to dissuade you from "growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." What do you do? Well, if you ask much of the modern church, they would either tell you to "avoid confrontation all together because the Christian religion means that everyone gets along" or simply not care at all because College football is coming on soon. Since they're no help, where do you go when you're confronted by someone with an atheistic-gun pointed at you alone in a dark alley? The answer is clear: The Scriptures.
Recently, a friend of mine posted a response to the atheist/theist debate that aired on ABC with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and the (ir)Rational Repsonse Squad that she just got around to watching recently. Less than 24 hours later, a member of the "WOTM Watch-Dog" team was posting on her site trying to refute claims about the Bible. Notice what I just said, "trying to refute CLAIMS about the Bible." He was not trying to refute what the Bible actually says, but caricatures he has made by comparing an incomparable book to other religions. I wanted to post this so you can see how these people work and why it is vitally important to not only know the Scriptures, but to believe them as being true and use them accordingly. The atheist goes by the name of "morsecode". (If you ever go on great sites like Truth Matters or Extreme Theology, you'll notice that the people that are usually in objection to the truth never use their real names, but some username like bigguns2437 or godseeker972 or something of the sort. Saul, later renamed Paul, stood up for the truth with giving his own real life, and these people won't even share their own real names, but this is an aside...)
This is a quick story that will help you immensely before I share the dialog. R.C. Sproul spoke of a lecture he was involved in when he was a student. His teacher was the late John Gerstner. The subject was "If a Mormon comes up to you and tries to tell you that God has a body, how would you refute that?" Gerstner said, "I'll play the Mormon. You all refute me." So he went to a few then came to Sproul. Sproul immediately took him to (John 4:24) where it says that "God is a Spirit." Sproul said, "There is NO WAY that God can have a body because here it is clearly stated that God is a Spirit!" Gerstner said, "Oh, no, no... I don't believe that.", and he went on asking others. The entire class went by focused on the same question. Sproul says facetiously that he was considering converting to Mormonism because Gerstner just wouldn't give up. So finally just before the bell, Sproul said, "We give up. What is it!? What do we do!?" "Well," Gerstner said, "You take them to John 4:24." "I DID THAT!" said Sproul. "Then", Gerstner continued, "you tell them that there is no possible way that God could have a body because God is a Spirit." "I DID THAT, TOO!" said Sproul. "What else could I have possibly done?" Gerstner said, "Yes, you had me. The problem is, you let me get away. The debate was over when you said John 4:24, but you let me persist."
Even though a person doesn't believe what the Scripture says, it isn't necessary for you to believe it as being true and stick to that truth. Here, Sproul's debate was over, but he acted in such a way that he needed the unbeliever to agree with him. That's not what needs to be the case because truth stands on its own. The argument is over when Scripture is presented regardless if the person you're conversing with believes it. There were unbelievers from way before Christ came in the flesh as there will be to the time he will come back. The object of a Christian's faith is not involved in needing unbelievers to believe in sound doctrine in order for it to be true because it is true whether they believe in it or not.
With that said, here are the comments shared on the recent blog post. What I want you to notice is not only how he evades direct questions, but tries to direct me into agreeing with a characterization of Christianity which is nothing but fallen man's "logic". Also, I want you to notice the subjectivity of his arguments versus the objectivity of the Bible. His arguments were trying to lure me away into a subjective form of reason which is opposite of objective truth as revealed in the Bible. (ie If I said, "Well, to me, the earth is square." It would be my subjective opinion instead of the objective truth that the earth is round. Notice how holding onto objective truth defeats a subjective argument always without fail.) Finally, I want you to notice how he doesn't answer the direct question because when he does, well, he has to come to the light in order to do so, and what does an unbeliever not want to do? Come to the light lest their deeds be exposed. (John 3:19-21)
In his second comment, notice what he does. He tries to get me to agree to something I do not agree with. He says, "So to you, it is rational to prove a book because the book says the book what the book says is true? If that is so, then the koran has just as much validity as the bible." This is not what I believe at all. I believe the Bible because it is true, and its claims are valid. There is a difference there. If I believed everything that claims itself as being true, I would be one naive person, but the reason I believe the Bible is because it is true. Me believing the Bible does not make it true, and anything that claims itself to be true, must have evidence of it being true. Some evidence that the Bible is true is shown in the latter part of the comments when our screennamed "truth-bearer" is confronted as being himself evidence that the Bible is true as it will speak directly about him.
In his third comment, after I talked of martyrs, he tried to make my argument into another subjective reason. He said, "I once believed, and then changed my mind when I realized what I believed was irrational and not based on evidence. (Subjective) If being a martyr means that your belief is true, then isn't every suicide bomber who thinks he will get his heavenly reward proving Islam true?" Again, I did not say that I believed that the Bible is true because of martyrs, I believe it is true because it is true, which is what he could not and would not consider. Only the grace of God can reveal this to an infidel.
Notice what happened when he was asked a direct question. The entire conversation turned from one of subjective interpretation to one of objective truth. I asked an objective question: "Do you agree that the only people that are going to agree that the record of the Bible is false is you, your unbelieving friends, and every unbeliever in the world and the only people that are going to agree that it is true is me, my believing friends, and every believer scattered throughout the world?" What did he do? Well, three consecutive responses he avoids the question until the end of the last when, after much rambling, he says, "No. (I do not agree with that statement.)"
The objective truth was then brought into full light. Him, an unbeliever and me, a believer, cannot have any agreement. What does the Bible say? "What agreement does he that believes have with an unbeliever? " (2Cor 6:15)
That is why I believe the Bible. It is objectively true. It is not left for the subjective opinion of anyone to verify its validity. With this verse, I added a command made by our Lord Jesus: "Let your conversation be "Yes, yes" or "No, no" for whatever is more than that comes from evil." (Matt. 5:37) The atheist proved our Lord to be true by his actions.
What did our subjective inquisitor say after he realized the objective point was made?
"It should probably read more accurately "Never think about your answers, only say yes or no...thought only leads to evil."
Again, he attempted to change what the Bible objectively says and give yet one more subjective interpretation to an objective command of truth. It's completely irrational to deal with people if one won't even consider what the text has to say and take it at that.
Finally, look at his last sentence:
"You believe that. I hope it makes you happy, I really do."
So much for a "rational response". He wouldn't even deal with the text honestly and rationally in the end.