Archive for the ‘Divine Revelation’ Category

The Maranatha Manuscripts

Posted: 02/14/2017 in Absolute Truth, atheism, Biblical inerrancy, Christian Doctrine, Defending the Faith, Divine Revelation, Justified Faith, Preaching the Gospel, presuppositions, The Bible, Ultimate Authority, Witnessing, worldviews
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 8]:

Greetings Soldier,

Yes, it really is a lot to take in and learn. However, you will find that the ‘Bible first’ approach to dealing with objections to the Christian faith is the God honoring way of resolving the dispute once and for all. While the old ‘evidence first’ approach accomplishes little more than allowing each side to present their interpretation of the evidence they are disputing–ultimately resulting in a ‘stalemate’—and shamefully allowing the unbeliever to replace God as judge in the process, the ‘Bible first’ approach challenges the very foundation and authority of the unbeliever’s worldview along with the assumptions that it is based upon to show that Christianity is necessarily true by the impossibility of the contrary (rather than only possibly or probably true IF the evidence happens to be correct) and asserts God’s Ultimate Authority over the believer instead of vice versa. Now, I will not pretend as if this approach will not take much intentional, deliberate effort on your part to put into practice and to ultimately master, but I can promise you that the results will be well worth the challenge. Believe it or not, but you will actually come to see objections against the Christian faith as arguments for the Christian faith once this paradigm shift in your understanding of God and His Word as Ultimate Authority is made.

While all sincere Christians would no doubt say that God and His Word are their Ultimate Authority, the problem is, they often do not behave that way when it comes to defending the Faith, choosing to inadvertently grant to the unbeliever certain assumptions about the world and reality that they are not the least bit entitled to, given their professed beliefs. Consider for a moment how you might respond in the following scenario:

You have agreed to participate in a live formal debate.  After weeks of preparation, the big day arrives and you take your place on stage behind your podium as the auditorium begins to fill with people.  You look to your left and see your opponent behind his podium with a confident look upon his face.  The moderator gives the introduction and then it’s time to start.  Your opponent goes first and begins his opening statement.  His position? That air does not exist (an a-airist?).

Now, what would you say in response to such an obviously absurd position?  Sure, you could produce graphs, charts, tables, and endless other pieces of evidence to show that air does indeed exist (which your opponent may or may not find compelling and which he may even be able to explain away and rebut via his counter arguments), or you could take a decidedly different approach:  You could simply expose the glaring inconsistency of his position by pointing out that, if air did not exist, he could not possibly be doing what he is doing.  You could (and should) draw attention to the fact that, without air, he could not possibly be breathing, and, as a consequence, he also could not be talking since there would be no air in his lungs to create the vibrations in his vocal chords and, therefore, no way to produce the sounds used to form his words.  Not to mention the fact that, if air does not exist, there wouldn’t even be anything to convey the sound waves from his mouth to the ears of his hearers anyway!  In short, his entire ability to breathe and speak (much less to argue) depends completely upon the very thing that he is denying—-air!  He is defeating his own position with every breath he takes and with every word he speaks, since any argument he puts forth AGAINST the existence of air actually turns out to be an argument IN FAVOR OF the existence of air!!

Such is the predicament of the unbeliever.  The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious, that no one has an excuse for denying him (and are, in fact, behaving foolishly if they do so).  In other words, the evidence is all around us, but there are many who do not wish to accept it, and who will even go to great lengths to deny it.  So what should you do?  I submit that, just as in the example above, you should gently and lovingly expose the inconsistencies of such positions in hopes that the unbeliever will come to see the folly of what they are doing and repent.  It is important for Christians to understand and note that, when the Bible refers to those who deny the existence of God as ‘fools’ (Psalms 14:1), it is not merely engaging in name calling.  This is the proper term for someone who willfully refuses to acknowledge that which has been so plainly and openly revealed.  Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

The Maranatha Manuscripts

Posted: 02/12/2017 in Absolute Truth, atheism, Biblical inerrancy, Christian Doctrine, Creation vs. Evolution, Defending the Faith, Defense of Doctrine, Divine Revelation, folly of atheism, irrefutable truth, Jesus Christ, Justified Faith, Moral absolutes, presuppositional apologetics, presuppositions, special revelation, subjective morality, The Bible, Ultimate Authority, Witnessing, worldviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 10]:

Greetings Soldier,

You do not disappoint! I thought that you might ask for some practical examples of how to put this information into use when dealing with objections and/or arguments against, God, the Bible, or Christianity in general. Well, here you go! Let’s look at some scenarios you likely have or will encounter in your evangelistic endeavors:

First, suppose the unbeliever’s argument against God is presented in the form of a moral objection (e.g. claiming that He is evil, that certain acts in the Bible are immoral, etc.).  Now, you could spend a lot of time and energy providing evidence as to why that is not the case (only to likely have your evidence discarded or dismissed due the presuppositional bias of the unbeliever), or you could (and should) simply challenge their foundational assumption here and ask them how they arrive at absolute, objective standards of behavior in a universe without God in the first place.  After all, if God does not exist, there could be no absolute moral Authority and, therefore, no binding standard of behavior by which anyone (least of all, God) SHOULD conduct themselves.  If moral standards are arbitrarily stipulated, then the unbeliever loses any rational foundation for their complaint against God, since anyone is free to stipulate their own standard of morality in such a universe and no behavior could ever be truly ‘right’ or ‘wrong’–just ‘different’ from someone else’s personal preference.  The very argument itself reveals the internal inconsistency and contradictory nature of the unbeliever’s position and, as a result, makes this objection AGAINST God’s existence a valid proof FOR His existence!

Now, let’s suppose the argument comes in the form of a ‘logical’ complaint against God (e.g. the Bible is illogical, Christianity is nonsense, etc.).  Again, much time and energy could be spent providing ample, solid evidence to the contrary, only to likely be told “well that doesn’t prove anything.”  Instead of putting God on trial before the unbeliever, the more effective (and Biblical) approach would be to expose the self-defeating nature of such an argument by simply asking how there can exist any meaningful, objective, universal standard of logic and reasoning in a world without God.  Obviously, if there is no true Ultimate Authority, then there can be no absolute standard by which human beings should conduct their thinking and reasoning.  Therefore, no thinking or reasoning could ever truly be said to be ‘incorrect’ or ‘illogical’—just ‘different’ from the thinking and reasoning of someone else.  This internal inconsistency in the unbeliever’s position yet again testifies to the inescapable, self-evident truth of God’s existence and Authority. It also adequately demonstrates that, like the air, one must assume His existence to even begin to argue against it (which makes that position the very epitome of ‘foolishness’). That is why when the Bible refers to those who deny the existence of God as ‘fools’ (Psalms 14:1), it is not merely engaging in name calling.  This is the proper term for someone who willfully refuses to acknowledge that which has been so plainly and openly revealed. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

The Maranatha Manuscripts

Posted: 02/11/2017 in Absolute Truth, atheism, Christian Doctrine, Christlike living, Creation vs. Evolution, Defending the Faith, Defense of Doctrine, Divine Revelation, Jesus Christ, Justified Faith, Preaching the Gospel, presuppositional apologetics, presuppositions, self-deception, special revelation, The Bible, The Trinity, Ultimate Authority, Witnessing, worldviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 11]:

Greetings Soldier,

Your recent enquiries reveal a deep thirst for knowledge and an eagerness to put what you have learned thus far into action. Needless to say, the Heavenly Hierarchy is pleased with this! Regarding your question about whether unbelievers (whom we know to be living in willful denial of God’s revealed truth) are necessarily lying when they profess to believe the things they say they do: the answer is ‘no’—they are not necessarily lying but are often ‘self-deceived’. Remember, satan does have the ability to blind the minds of those who deny God in order to keep the Gospel from reaching their hearts. One of the ways he accomplishes this task is by means of cultivating and promoting an attitude of ‘willful ignorance‘ (merely one form of self-deception) on the part of the unbeliever with regards to things concerning God, Christ, and the Bible.  It has been rightly stated that one will not receive into their heart as true that which their mind rejects as false. Therefore, it is the concerned Christian’s urgent duty to engage in pulling down such ‘intellectual strongholds’ through the bold presentation and declaration of the truth in order that the unbeliever might be freed from the captivity of satanic deception and granted repentance unto salvation by God the Father, through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Understood in this light, Christ’s declaration in John 8:32–‘you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free’–is received with a new and fresh appreciation in the mind and heart of the Christian.

In response to your second question: ‘yes’ I do advocate trying out these arguments online. There you will find no shortage of anti-Christian blogs, posts, and websites where you may engage the unbeliever, expose the error of their worldview, and enlighten them with Biblical truth. Be forewarned, though, that unbelievers do not take kindly to having the basis of their worldview challenged and exposed in this way and you will almost certainly encounter hostility like you never have before. In truth, this is really a positive, since it is a sign that the arguments have struck a nerve and are provoking some discomfort in the unbeliever’s state of mind. Besides, any reaction is always preferred over apathy (since apathy is but one sure sign of intellectual and spiritual ‘deadness’). So long as there is passion and/or zeal present (even misguided passion and/or zeal), then there is hope of a genuine conversion; after all, who can forget the grand transformation that took place when a certain misguided zealot named Saul was converted into that radical new creature in Christ—the Apostle Paul! If you are interested in beginning a conversation on the Dialogue.org site you mentioned, then I suggest you simply state your position plainly as to how Christianity provides the foundation for preconditions of intelligibility and then challenge the unbelievers there with a few direct questions about how those things are reconciled within their worldview. The purpose of this is twofold: it will provide the unbeliever with an opportunity to tell you about their worldview so that an internal critique of it can be performed, while providing you with the opportunity to plainly demonstrate to them how and why Christianity alone provides a rational, internally consistent, foundation for the preconditions of intelligibility required to hold a discussion in the first place (knowledge truth, logic, etc.). For example, you could begin with something like this:

*’Isn’t Dialogue.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of ‘debate’ assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?’

This should elicit enough response from the other side to keep you busy for a while and provide you with plenty of hands on practice in evaluating non-Christian worldviews for the presence of arbitrariness, inconsistency, and the preconditions of intelligibility. Have fun,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

*To see this approach utilized at a real online debate site, check out: http://www.debate.org/forums/Religion/topic/55783/

The Maranatha Manuscripts

Posted: 02/09/2017 in Absolute Truth, atheism, bias, Biblical inerrancy, Christian Doctrine, Christlike living, Creation vs. Evolution, Defending the Faith, Defense of Doctrine, Divine Revelation, folly of atheism, irrefutable truth, Jesus Christ, Justified Faith, Moral absolutes, presuppositional apologetics, presuppositions, self-deception, special revelation, The Bible, Ultimate Authority, Witnessing, worldviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 13:  A Word of Encouragement]

Greetings Soldier,

Don’t worry about feeling overwhelmed right now, as these concepts can take some time to wrap your brain around. Remember, though, always doggedly stick to your guns and keep challenging and exposing the internal inconsistencies of the unbelievers’ worldview, as they would like nothing more than for you to stop this line of argumentation and engage them on ‘neutral’ ground. However, ‘neutral’ ground does not exist with regards to this issue, as one either submits to God as their Ultimate Authority and the foundation of their thinking and reasoning, or they do not. I remind you of the very words of Jesus in Matthew [12:30] and Luke [11:23] when He stated that someone is either for Him or they are against Him, but certainly never ‘in between’. After all, when one even argues that there is neutral ground to be held here, they are necessarily disagreeing with the words of Jesus in the Bible and are, therefore, adopting a non-neutral position in relation to Biblical Authority and the truth of Christianity. Do not fall for this tactic! The unbeliever is NOT neutral in their presuppositions about God and the Bible and you SHOULD NOT be either. In the paraphrased words of Peter [1 Peter 3:15], ‘sanctify Christ in your heart and be prepared to give an answer to everyone that asks you of the reason of the hope that is within you with meekness and fear’. The foundation provided by God and His Word is indeed a sure one, and nothing overcomes and exposes that which is false like absolute Truth from THE absolute Authority. Stand upon that firm foundation, and you will always prevail. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

The Maranatha Manuscripts

Posted: 02/08/2017 in Absolute Truth, atheism, bias, Christian Doctrine, Defending the Faith, Defense of Doctrine, Divine Revelation, folly of atheism, irrefutable truth, Justified Faith, presuppositional apologetics, presuppositions, secular humanism, self-deception, special revelation, The Bible, Ultimate Authority, Witnessing, worldviews
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 14]:

Greetings Soldier,

I see that some of the ‘intellectual’ unbelievers have presented arguments for how they can know things to be true in their worldview. Let’s walk through some of these, as they are an invaluable resource for your training in mastering the ‘Bible First’ (presuppositional) method of defending the faith. The gist of the argument from the unbelievers so far is that they are able to know things for certain because they use their senses and reasoning to make observations and formulate rational conclusions about the world around them through ‘trial and error’. Can you spot the inconsistency here? Indeed, human senses and reasoning are wonderful gifts from God and provide the means of exploring and learning about God’s creation and would, therefore, be expected to be basically reliable and trustworthy according to the Christian worldview. However, what basis does any non-Christian have for trusting their senses and reasoning according to their professed worldview? No doubt, they would say that their observations and experiences have told them that their senses and reasoning are basically reliable over time, but this will not suffice. After all, it is via one’s reasoning that their sensory input and experiences are interpreted, which means that they are basically arguing that they ‘sense and reason that their senses and reasoning are reliable’. Of course, this is viciously circular and renders that position an irrational one–and necessarily false. If one does not know for certain that their senses and reasoning are trustworthy to begin with, then obviously they cannot know anything at all. I recommend pointing this out as soon as possible (and for their own good). Remember, the truth only hurts when it should. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

The Maranatha Manuscripts

Posted: 02/07/2017 in Absolute certainty, Absolute Truth, atheism, bias, Biblical inerrancy, Christian Doctrine, Divine Revelation, folly of atheism, irrefutable truth, Jesus Christ, Justified Faith, presuppositional apologetics, presuppositions, secular humanism, self-deception, special revelation, Ultimate Authority, Witnessing, worldviews
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 15]:

Greetings Soldier,

It seems the hornet’s nest has been stirred. In fact, the comments you’ve fielded thus far in your online endeavors include remarks from professing atheists, agnostics, theists, Hindus, Buddhists, and the list goes on. What you will find, though, is that each of these positions ultimately contains the same fundamental logical flaws and destroys the possibility of knowledge, truth, logic, or morality–rendering them all rationally indefensible and absurd. Consider one of the first responses you received from the atheist who asserted that ‘it is not possible to know anything to be true with 100% certainty’. Did you catch the contradiction here? Essentially, he is claiming to know with 100% certainty that it is not possible to be 100% certain of anything. Of course, this is a self-defeating argument, which makes it false. On the other hand, if he wants to argue that he is not 100% certain that it is impossible to know anything to be true with 100% certainty, then he is forced to admit that, since he is uncertain of his argument (that 100% certainty is NOT possible), then it IS possible to know things to be true with 100% certainty. Either way, he ends up demonstrating that it is possible to know things for certain to be true and that he has no rational answer as to why that is in his worldview. As such, it is exposed that he must accept the existence of knowledge and truth solely on blind faith alone, whereas the Christian can (and does) justify their ability to know some things with certainty by appealing to God’s Divine Revelation of Himself (via both direct and indirect means) to all mankind. I trust I don’t have to remind you that blind faith is but a form of irrationality (and, not to mention, the basis of all superstition as well). Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

~P.S. It should also be pointed out that, once someone professes that they can’t know anything for certain, then they have forfeited any logical basis or justification for all of the things they may claim to be true (since knowledge (i.e. ‘justified true belief’) is certain by definition, as one cannot know something to be true which could also be false at the same time and in the same way). You should keep this in mind as you address future comments. Nothing wrong with holding the unbeliever to his professed beliefs in order to show the irrational conclusions they ultimately lead to.

Older Entries
Newer Entries