Discussion with a New Age Philosopher
... Some people are athiests (I'm sorry to say), simply because they are fools (Ps 14:1). But intellectual athiests, who disbelieve from their head and not necessarily from their heart, can be a little different. .
.... These persons are often very insecure in their unbelief, especially at first, before their hearts become hardened and their conscience seared. Because of this insecurity they'll feel the need to argue their points frequently. Often, they will do this with a sense of crudeness or rage (Karl Marx would be a good example), because, deeper down, their apprehension needs constant reaffirmation from others. Persuading others to join in their doubts helps them reassure themselves, like a vote of confidence and agreement to keep their shaky anti-faith alive for another day. This makes them worthy of our pity, though not of our sympathy.
.
.... In your efforts to share the gospel you may eventually be confronted by new age philosophers, many of whom follow the writings of men like Feuerbach, and who love to argue. As we've just described, they may insist on debating you on the terms of their own philosophy. Even though the Bible thoroughly equips you and would enable you to win this debate (2 Tim 3:16-17), there is never a way that they can win it in the sense that really matters, that is, in the sense that would bring them to the Lord:
.... "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect."
(1 Cor 1:17)
.... The gospel cannot be mixed with worldly wisdom if it is to save anyone, so arguing on the premise of their philosophy defeats the purpose of sharing the gospel at all. Therefore, even if you argue with them and their tables are turned, and you convince them on their own philosophical terms, and even if they turn completely around and believe and call on the Lord as a result, they will remain unsaved:
.... "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."
(1 Cor 1:21)
.... In a situation like this, the best you can do is plant a seed that will defeat their worldly thinking over a longer period of time; and then, just maybe, at the end of that process, it will bring them to a place of starting over with the gospel, to approach the Lord correctly (see the special notes in the 'comments' section).
.
.
.... I recently had a chance to do this through an online discussion with a person named Matt. Below is an example of what you might tell such a person. (I’ve added scriptural references for the benefit of the reader):
Hi Matt,.
.... I’ve read your entries and part of your blog. You seem like a person who is searching pretty intensely for meaning and truth, but you also seem to be frustrated with your discoveries on a fairly frequent basis (which is too bad). If you’ve read my entries, you know that we disagree on many things, but let me meet you halfway with some ‘ifs’. I mean these objectively, so I would like you to think about them sincerely too, and not just look for how many ways you can find holes in them.
..... First of all, if there is a God, what would that mean? By definition, He would be in a class by Himself (Ps 71:19; Job 40:7-14). His way of thinking and everything else about him could very well be far, far higher than we, as humans, could even begin to grasp -- like an earth worm trying to figure out Einstein (Is 55:8-9). This means that searching for him by using our own, human intellect may be an entirely futile hope (1 Cor 1:21). It could very well mean that we could never know him at all, ever, unless He is the one who took the initiative to make Himself known to us in some way (Matt 11:27)...... And here is another side to the same scenario. If he is God, original and uncreated, and everything else was made by him, then he himself becomes the ‘standard’ by sheer default. This is because everything else owes its form and state of existence to his thoughts and decisions -- including abstract concepts...... For example we might ask, What is truth? Who is to say what is true or untrue? But if God is the source of everything, then the bottom line is that He is the truth. Truth is not a concept in its own right; truth is an expression of God himself, reflected in His creation (John 14:6). In other words, the concepts we hold as ‘true’ are true because they reflect his way of thinking. The closer they match this, the truer they are. The more they deviate, the more untrue they are...... Like you, I’ve studied the philosophers to some degree. I’m sure you’ll agree that almost all of them were very interested in explaining the nature of God. The problem is that, as a premise, they rejected the ways he had already expressed himself to man. Instead, essentially, they sought to re-define him according to their own thoughts and ideas of what he must be like. So most of them ended up as atheists. But why?..... When someone is so interested in defining God by their own intellect, however brilliant they may be, their ‘god’ ends up as a mere reflection of their own thoughts. He becomes a figurehead who conforms to their suppositions, happens to agree with their conclusions, and who allows for all of their vices. In the end they find he is very faulty, and not worth believing in at all. And I agree! Because, beneath that fig leaf, their real ‘god’ was simply themselves the whole time...... This brings us back to the point we started with, in the analogy between the earthworm and Einstein. Their version of ‘god’ was merely a self-deluding veneer because their thoughts never took them any higher than the ceiling; they never broke out of the realm of human logic and into the realm where God might actually be known. No wonder it ended in frustration for them. Why should anyone worship a god who is no better than themselves? Because the whole time, that’s all it was...... I mean this very sincerely, so please think about this. Nietzsche said that God is dead, but the truth is that Nietzsche is dead. But Jesus is alive forevermore. So what does that mean? Who could Jesus be? Where did he come from? What kind of life did he live? Why did he die? Why could death not hold him? Where did he go after his resurrection? And why did those who saw him, alive from the dead, devote their lives to him even though many (if not most) ended up gladly giving their own life in order to remain loyal to him?..... If you’ll think about those questions, you’ll do something that none of those famous philosophers was ever able to accomplish: you’ll break out, and see an understanding that is higher than they could ever obtain...... One more ‘if’. The case that I've made is perfectly fair, but you must think about it objectively to see what you come up with. So it will only help you 'if' you put aside your pre-suppositions and consider this fairly and objectively, otherwise it will be a waste of time.
posted by loren at 12:08 AM
5 Comments:
In the same discussion, I was challenged by another person over Christianity’s claim of exclusive truth. Here was the answer:
You’ve put your finger on something that many people consider a ‘sore spot’. How can any religion say it is the only true religion, and others are not? Isn’t that condescending? Who is to say that all religions are not equally valid? But I think it goes right back to the thoughts in my previous comment.
Here’s the most fundamental question: does religion rise from man, or from God? If it’s only a man made system, of course they’re all equally valid. But that premise also carries the implication that God really, truthfully, does not exist at all; that He is simply the product of our joint imagination, the personified ‘standard’ of the thoughts and ideals of mankind. In which case, man is the real ‘god’ beneath that thin veneer, and the entire exercise is self-serving.
But what if God really does exist? Do all paths lead to Him? Let’s look at that question in terms we can all understand. ‘Beggars can’t be choosers’; ‘Might makes right’, ‘To the victor goes the spoils’. But what does this concept mean?
It means, why would God be obligated to save men on our own, human terms, just because we have come up with a system that says so? Why should He honor our human systems at all? If, on the other hand, He is willing to establish terms for a relationship, who are we to argue with Him? Can we set aside His provision and tell Him that He must accept ours because it is equally valid? Let us understand clearly that in doing this, we would be telling Him that He sent His Son Jesus to died in vain, because 'who needs Him'?
I really think we are in no position to dictate terms to God. How arrogant that would be. We are the beggars, so we cannot choose; He has the might and the victory, so we must accept the terms He is willing to offer us. If we reject them, a further offense is offered to Him; if we try some other religious approach, we delude ourselves because He, Himself, will not be impressed with it.
God wouldn’t be much of a God if He let our human understanding tell him how He should behave, what He must accept because we say so, what He must or must not like, and of what He must approve. Would you worship a god like that? I sure wouldn’t (Job 34:33). What’s the difference between that and simply pleasing myself? When you’re God, you get to have things your way. You get to call the shots. And that is the very quality that makes Him worthy of human submission and devotion.
Is Christianity that one, true religion? I gave an objective reason for reaching that conclusion in an earlier posting. But let's be careful to note again that it’s not about objective reasoning; God requires that we approach Him on the basis of faith (see 1 Cor 2:5-7, which speaks volumes).
Now about Matt? Here’s the thing. The things that I mentioned in my last posting included the gospel, in the next-to-last paragraph, which would normally have the power to save someone and help them begin a relationship with God if they responded with faith (Rom 1:16). But in this case, because the same posting included so many other things, made up of human reasoning, it can not bring him to that place (1 Cor 1:17). Nor would this posting be able to do so, nor any of the others here, no matter how sincerely they were offered -- not for Matt or for anyone else. The best I could hope for was to address some of the obstacles and try to remove them.
But maybe one day Matt (or some of the others) will consider that next-to-last paragraph in it’s own right, as a completely separate issue on it’s own merit, and they will find that it contains the true power and wisdom of God that eludes them. Because, Yes, God does think on a completely different plain than ourselves, and He hides this from our human reasoning. But He humbles us by revealing His perfect wisdom to simple faith, such as a young child would have (1 Cor 1:18-25).
Is that a kick in our pride, or what? But He does this because He is God, and He allows no human to glory in His presence (v 29). But He honors those who will trust in Him, and this in one way that He shows it.
By
loren, at 9/23/2005 8:31 PM
I recently had another encounter with an athiest who claimed he had read the Bible from cover to cover. Well if he did, he obviously didn't get it.
In a spew of vile comments, he named every evil in the world and blamed them all on God. But 'Why are you blaming God?' I asked him. 'Take another look at your own list. These are things men have done to each other. If they had listened to God instead, none of this would ever have happened.'
Needless to say, his rage was redoubled. This is what happens when such a person is rebuked, and further argument will only make them more defensive. This, in turn, will entrench them further in the unreasonableness of their own conclusions.
The best thing to do is to take a clue from Jesus. "If I have done evil, bear witness of the evil" He said, "But if not, why do you strike Me?" And after this, He fell completely silent.
In doing this, Jesus refused to change the subject. Later, when the course of His death, burial and resurrection followed (the gospel,) this was the only testimony left standing.
When the chief priests reviewed the argument in their own minds, in the days that followed, in attempt to find 'the weak point' and justify themselves in thier actions, they simply had no where to go. Well, yes, there was one other things Jesus had said. "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." After thinking about this and having no where else to go with it, many f the priests repented and became obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7)
In a similar way, when we share the gospel with an enraged person and we refuse to say anything else, that is, we refuse to change the subject, a certain effect will follow. They are defensive, so afterward they will always review the arguments in their own mind to find your 'weak point', in order to sooth their unbelief and further justify themselves. But refusing to change the subject makes them face the gospel head on. It leaves them no where to go except, in time, to seek the Lord for forgiveness.
By
loren, at 9/23/2005 8:45 PM
Ooooh you Calvanist you:-)
Hey isn't it ironic that some assume us to be Arminian.
On a serious note. This is very good. You and I think a lot alike on many things. Didn't Jesus ask questions in the temple as a boy?
I always wondered why he never led the rich young ruler in the sinners prayer or anyone else he delt with for that matter. A person is saved only when the soul calls out in positive response to the Holy Spirit of God.
You know another thing I struggle with? All these creation scientists convincing men with scientific research to get men to believe. How do you feel about that.
You are right though, we must plant seeds. The Holy Spirit then takes those seeds and brings the heart, soul and mind to true faith.
This was a good quote as well>This makes them worthy of our pity, though not of our sympathy.<
We have to watch ourselves in our love of others that we do not succumb to false feelings but we are to love.
Good post. I like how you deal with people. God has really gifted you brother.
By
Bhedr, at 9/24/2005 8:07 PM
Excellent Post.
Arguing with anyone about the gospel is useless (notice Jesus never argued the point- presenting the gospel as The Gospel. Paul did the same thing (Acts 17:16-34) when they started arguing with him he left.)
That said, we can always, as you say plant a seed as we are leaving...
Two really 'pithy' sayings come to mind as 'seeds'.
To the Evolutionist:
"I really respect your faith - It certainly takes more faith to believe we evolved from a rock than it does to believe in a God that created everything."
To the 'Rational Atheist/Agnostic':
"Is it more irrational to believe in a God I can not see OR to be offended by a God I do not believe exists?"
Not very gentle, nor necessarily a way to open doors - but 'seeds' planted on an exit so that another may reap...
In Christ,
By
Unchained Slave, at 5/19/2006 1:23 PM
Well stated as always. But a seed is still a seed (even if it's a seed of demise - of their illogical logic) and we should still follow up by praying for God to open the eyes of their understanding.
By
Cleopas, at 5/19/2006 2:14 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home