/christian/ - christian

The following is a brief apologetical mock monolog I wrote based on sincere dialogs with professed atheists who woefully misunderstood the transcendental argument (which I find is very typical).



Your mistake is in thinking you put this belief over here, and this one over here, and maybe you could end up figuring it out. But that isn't the Christian religion. We believe that the immortal Triune God has a purpose in this world, that since the sin of man plunged the world into corruption He has kept for Himself a remnant who are faithful to His name, at various times and places He has spoken to them, revealing Himself and His will for man. And when the fullness of time had come God invaded His own creation, being born in the likeness of man. And being found in human form He sacrificed Himself, taking upon Himself the penalty which was due to His people. He died, was buried, and on the third day He rose again, ascending to the Father's side to intercede on behalf of the saints whom He purchased, and pouring out His Spirit on the same, that they may read His words in scripture and walk in the light of the truth. That is the Christian worldview.

Now I cannot stress this enough, that it is this *worldview* which my argument alleges, and not a generic god (which is meaningless). If you say to me "you may have proven the existence of God, but which God does this prove? Or how does this prove Christianity is true?" it means you have completely misunderstood, for to accept my argument is to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord over all things, to believe in the total inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of the holy bible, and the sovereignty of the Triune God, for it is only through belief in this Christian worldview that one can consistently say anything; it is the Christian God in particular and alone whose existence is presupposed by human thought and action. If you were to say you accept the argument, but you don't believe in Christianity, what will proceed? Will you determine to evaluate the world religions by examining them as a rational and sensible creature weighing the evidence to determine their truth? If so then you have certainly not accepted the argument, for you are still operating on the presupposition of your own rational autonomy and a faux neutral approach to evidence. Your worldview is unchanged; I tell you not to believe in Jesus because of evidence but to believe in evidence because of Jesus.

Nor can anyone say he "just doesn't believe in a god", for I do not just argue for a god. I do not merely assault your atheism but your entire worldview, for I allege that apart from the Christian God it is impossible to explain anything. We reject the wisdom of the world and proclaim Christ crucified; I advocate the peculiar Christian way of doing physics, the Christian way of doing biology, the Christian way of doing history, the Christian way of doing law, and doing logic. It is all of Christ, for all of life. You cannot "just go to the evidence", what those words really mean is "I reject the Lordship of Christ". There is no such thing as neutrality. Everyone at all times is wearing glasses, usually unbeknownst to them they see all things through these lenses; the Christian worldview is like corrective lenses, it lets you see the world as it is.

>>27553
Every rational act, every moral judgment, every human longing points back, whether in obedience or in rebellion, to the God who spoke creation into being, flooded it to purge evil, appeared in a burning bush, thundered from Sinai, took flesh in the womb of a virgin, and descended into Hades to shatter the gates of death.

>>27553
That all may be well and true; however, how successful can this argument be when your opponent doesn't share your worldview? There needs to be at least some appeal to rational autonomy, otherwise your argument can't convince anyone who doesn't already share your worldview. Even Jesus at one point made an argument that appealed to the evidence: "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. " John 10:37-38.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying you are wrong... but if you're right about "everyone wearing glasses", then there's really no hope for anyone unless God removes the blinders first. I prefer to err on the side of caution and argue historical and archaeological evidence for the truth claims of the Bible as well. It can't hurt.

>>27590
>however, how successful can this argument be when your opponent doesn't share your worldview?
It can be successful because the Holy Spirit can take out a heart of stone and put in a heart of flesh.
>There needs to be at least some appeal to rational autonomy, otherwise your argument can't convince anyone who doesn't already share your worldview.
We have an unceasing moral duty to obey God. As I pointed out, autonomy is rebellion. As soon as you appeal to autonomy you forfeit the argument because you have adopted the presuppositions of unbelief. Answer not the fool according to his folly, lest ye should become like unto him. I must stress the importance of not being a pragmatist; apologetics is not mere persuasion, but we must make good arguments in order to persuade the unbeliever. Good arguments may be unpersuasive, and bad arguments may be persuasive. But our duty is to present the truth, and if the Holy Spirit does not grant spiritual life to the listener we're speaking to the wind no matter what. What we preach is the Christian gospel and what that demands is a radical change of mind. 

Now it does mean nobody will accept it without changing their worldview (that is a good thing, because Christianity is for all of life). Suppose I am talking to a strict empiricist, he believes sense-perception is the standard of all truth. If I make to him an argument which denies sense-perception is the standard of truth he can only accept it by abandoning his ultimate presupposition. On the other hand if I make an argument which presupposes it and he accepts it nothing has changed because he was already committed to sense-perception as the standard of truth. 
>Even Jesus at one point made an argument that appealed to the evidence
But He never made a neutral appeal to evidence. "Oh, I might be the Messiah, who can say, look at the evidence and decide for yourself". Jesus spoke as one having authority (Matt 7:29). Where in the bible do we see anyone saying anything like "the greater preponderance of the evidence generally supports the existence of a god"? 
>I prefer to err on the side of caution and argue historical and archaeological evidence for the truth claims of the Bible as well.
I don't take issue with the use of evidence but with the neutral formulation of that evidence, neutrality is a lie. There is everything right and good about using evidence as long as it is presented in a presuppositional framework which makes sense. Present the evidence, but do not appeal to the unbeliever's autonomy as if he can consider the evidence and rationally make sense of it on his own without God, as if it is to prove God to him, but as that which exposes the absurdity of his denial and demands repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. I'm not saying not to use evidence, on the contrary, I am saying literally everything is incontrovertible evidence for the existence of God.

>>27591
>Present the evidence, but do not appeal to the unbeliever's autonomy as if he can consider the evidence and rationally make sense of it on his own without God, as if it is to prove God to him
I must admit that while I find the evidence convincing, every unbeliever I've presented it to is unmoved - even if he or she accepts other things on less evidence.
>but as that which exposes the absurdity of his denial and demands repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
From my experience, that's as much as I can hope to use it for. I presented an atheist/naturalist friend, who denied the miracles of Christ, with the Talmud's position, written by Christ's most bitter enemies, that He did genuinely perform miracles, which they attributed to Egyptian magic/sorcery. My friend's response was: "could it have been Egyptian magic/sorcery?".

>>27594
>"could it have been Egyptian magic/sorcery?"
You should have used that as an opportunity to springboard into Exodus, showing him the difference between the Egyptian magicians and God's creative power through Moses. Demonic or rebellious powers can echo creation, corrupt it, manipulate its forms, but they cannot initiate new creation. They do not possess what Lewis might call the “sub-creative gift,” the thing that humans wield only by divine concession. Only Moses, as prophet and servant of the Most High, could mediate acts of creatio ex nihilo, God calling forth life, law, and judgment from nothing. Christ’s miracles follow this pattern. He doesn’t perform magic to awe. He creates wine from water, multiplies bread, heals, re-creating broken reality. And like Moses, he doesn’t invoke a spell. He speaks, and it is.

>>27594
>every unbeliever I've presented it to is unmoved - even if he or she accepts other things on less evidence.
That's because the problem isn't lack of evidence, it's sin. The unbeliever already has sufficient evidence to convict them, but they hold down the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-21)
>My friend's response was: "could it have been Egyptian magic/sorcery?".
Not under naturalism.

It is true that, ultimately, ancient doctrines like stoicism or platonism fall apart as they were not revealed the Triune nature of God, much less His incarnation as Jesus Christ and divine plan to save the human kind and adopt us as children.
But as the Apostle said to have become similar to the Jews in order to preach among them, we should do that with each nation and their culture.

With the Jews I lived like a Jew, to win the Jews; with those who keep the law, as one who keeps the law (though the law had no claim on me), to win those who kept the law; with those who are free of the law, like one free of the law (not that I disowned all divine law, but it was the law of Christ that bound me), to win those who were free of the law.
1 Corinthians 9, 20-21

As everyone lives in the space and time God makes them to, we ought to apply this to the modern people and current knowledge, like Christians did with greco roman philosophy in the middle ages.
Paraphrasing Thomas Aquinas, you can argue with the Jew on the Old Testament, and in the Christian world on the New Testament, but with the rest of men natural reason is the first tool.

>>27597
>with the rest of men natural reason is the first tool.
There is no natural reason apart from the Christian God. This is not the apostolic method: while the Jew seeks a sign, and the Greek seeks wisdom, we preach Christ crucified. You are right about matching the custom of the audience, but all that means is our words should speak to them, and we should not culturally offend them.

Athens:
- Gave us philosophy, art and sciences.
Jerusalem:
- Killed Jesus Christ, rebelled against Roman Empire until Romans razed it, gave us Judaism.
And then two merged into a singular abomination called Alexandria.