On 14 Jun 97 12:33:32 EDT, Jim Bell wrote:
JB>In light of recent weeks, when it sometimes has seemed like the
>irresistible force has met the immovable object, one might
>justifiably wonder why some of us continue to press the case for
>Christianity.
I have largely stayed out of the debate between Jim and our atheist
friends. But I would here like to publicly support Jim for his
patience and courteousness under great provocation.
JB>I would like to give an answer.
>
>One of the benefits of these debates is the stimulation to read
>deeply from great books.
Amen. And some of these "great books" are written by evolutionists.
I regard Darwin's "Origin of Species" and Dawkins "The Blind
Watchmaker" as great books, even though I disagree with their
major thesis. Other great books are written by non-theists - I
regard Macbeth's "Darwin Retried" and Denton's "Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis" as great books. But Ramm's "The Christian View of Science
and Scripture" and Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" have probably
influenced me more than any others (apart from the greatest book of
all - the Bible), so they are the greatest books to me.
JB>A few weeks ago I dusted off a volume from my shelf that I had
>not fully completed. It is Wilbur M. Smith's magnificent
>"Therefore, Stand." Written in the mid-40's, it is one of the
>classics of contemporary apologetics, and I would urge all
>interested parties to hunt down a copy, either in a used bookstore
>or a good library. His last chapter is a clarion call to Christians
>to reaffirm the admonition of Jude, namely, "earnestly contend for
>the faith." This is especially needed in an age of widespread
>skepticism, and we must not shrink from the duty.
Agree. How easy, how tempting it would be to beat an honourable
retreat from this Reflector, saying to oneself, "Well, I lasted in
the ring with the evolutionists (atheistic and theistic), for more
than the 15 rounds. I am bloody but unbowed. I have more than done
my duty. I know so much about the strengths and weaknesses of
evolution now that I am unlikely ever to be troubled by anyone I am
likely to meet in real life. My wife is unhappy by all the time I
spend on the computer. My house is going to rack and ruin. Many of
my Christians brothers on the Reflector do not appreciate my efforts
and some are downright hostile. Why don't I get a life? Why? Why?"
Why? Because I believe that evolution is false and that creation is
true! That the Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker' is in slow but sure
retreat and there is nothing even in principle (thanks to Dawkins for
making that point!) to take its place. That in the near future the
tiny minority of atheists who lead the scientific establishment (no
conspiracy is implied), will be forced to allow theistic voices to be
heard. That once the materialists power to silence dissent is
broken, a great many scientists will "come out" and declare their
belief in an Intelligent Designer. It is *exciting* and a priceless
privilege being here close to the centre of a debate that will see
those historic changes take place. And I might just be able to help
the process along. And I might even be able to help someone in
that process. That's why!
JB>While dogmatic atheists in our culture and universities feel no
>qualms about trumpeting their beliefs, and denigrating the Bible and
>the Christian message, Christians often shrink back from confronting
>them. Some are worried about making a bad impression, and enemies
>of the Gospel are not averse, as a strategic matter, to pointing
>this out. Thus, a strong defense of Christianity might provoke an
>atheist to label the messenger "arrogant," or some such. It is well
>to remember, however, that worse was said of Paul, and Smith's volume
>is really a tribute to that spirit (indeed, most of the book uses
>Paul's address on Mars Hill as a template for Christian
>apologetics).
Agreed. The real problem as Johnson points out, is that many
"Christians" half-think in their heart of hearts that naturalism is
true and it would be better not to provoke it in case they find out
that it *is* true. But Christians should realise that in the search
for truth they have absolutely *nothing* to lose. If atheism is true,
better to find out that it is. And if Christianity is true, then they
have nothing to lose and everything to gain by debating with
atheists.
JB>Smith also quotes one of this century's great men of faith, J.
>Gresham Machen, who said:
>
>"There are, indeed, those who tell us that no defense of the faith
>is necessary. 'The Bible needs no defense,' they say; 'let us not
>be forever defending Christianity, but instead let us go forth
>joyously to propagate Christianity.' But I have observed one
>curious fact--when men talk thus about propagating Christianity
>without defending it, the thing that they are propagating is pretty
>sure not to be Christianity at all....A chip that floats downwards
>with the current is always at peace; but around every rock the
>waters foam and rage. Show me a professing Christian of whom all
>men speak well, and I will show you a man who is probably unfaithful
>to his Lord."
Agreed Jim. The atheists attacks on you tell us both that you are
hitting the mark. My morning reading was Mt 22:2-6:
"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet
for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to
the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. "Then he
sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited
that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have
been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding
banquet.' "But they paid no attention and went off--one to his
field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants,
mistreated them and killed them."
So being mistreated is what the faithful servant should expect, if
he is doing his job.
JB>But the fact remains that the arguments--even when logical,
>reasonable, and supported by substantial evidence--fail to move
>those who are determined to resist. When that happens, Machen
>reminds us:
>
>"It is perfectly true, of course, that argument alone is quite
insufficient to make a man a Christian. You may argue with him from
>now until the end of the world; you may bring forth the most
>magnificent arguments: but all will be in vain unless there be one
>other thing--the mysterious, creative power of the Holy Spirit in
>the new birth. But because argument is insufficient, it does not
>follow that it is unnecessary. Sometimes it is used directly by the
>Holy Spirit to bring a man to Christ. But more frequently it is
>used indirectly. A man hears an answer to objections raised against
>the truth of the Christian religion; at the time when he hears it he
>is not impressed. But afterwards, perhaps many years afterwards,
>his heart is at last touched: he is convicted of sin; he desires to
>be saved. Yet without that half-forgotten argument he could not
>believe; the gospel would not seem to him to be true, and he would
>>remain in his sin. As it is, however, that thought of what he has
>heard long ago comes into his mind; Christian apologetics at last
>has its day; the way is open, and when he will believe he can
>believe because he has been made to see that believing is not an
>offense against the truth." [Therefore, Stand, pp. 499-500]
It is interesting that on one of Phil Johnson's tapes he says that
when he was an agnostic he read C.S. Lewis and wished it was true,
but thought it couldn't be. Then many years later he had a mid-life
crisis and in that state he was prepared to consider afresh what he
had previously rejected. We may never know if anyone will ever be
convinced by the Spirit through our arguments, but we can be
absolutely certain that if we don't make any, they won't!
JB>Writing from the perspective of the 1940's, the following words
>from Dr. Wilbur Smith seem almost prophetic for us today. Their
>power has only increased over the decades:
>
>>"As far as I can see, humanly speaking, the forces which have
created the unbelief of today are going to grow more powerful rather
>than less powerful. What is going to stop them? We certainly are
>not going back to the days of our forefathers, and in many ways we
>do not want to. What force is going to bring about a knowledge of
>the Word of God in place of the ignorance of our day, what power is
>going to deliver us from the every deadening influence of
>>materialism, what force in the world is able to cope with the
>demonic influences that have been released in our century? There is
>only one power that can ever break the spell of all these earthly
>and superearthly powers combined, and that is the power of an
>omnipotent God manifested through the Holy Spirit, as He works
>through yielded servants of God, that with great boldness and
>increasing power they might proclaim the only gospel which is able
>to deliver men from the present wicked world, from the grip of sin
>and the power of evil, and translate them into the kingdom of the
>Son of God. Unbelief as it now is, is blighting the very life of
>the church; unbelief as it is going to be will work even worse havoc
>unless--unless we who believe give ourselves to prayer and the Word
>of God, and boldly stand up in a skeptical yet ignorant world to
>give a reason for the hope that is within us, setting ourselves for
>the defense and confirmation of the gospel." [Id., pp. 185-186]
It is the very least we can do. Indeed there is nothing more
important we can do.
JB>That is why we contend for the faith.
Amen brother! "...fight the good fight" (1Tim 1:18; 6:12; 2Tim
4:7).
On Sat, 14 Jun 1997 11:50:10 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>I fully agree with you on this Jim. But we are not going to win
>the battle by ignoring observational evidence and we will not win
>the battle unless we have a historical framework for the events in
>Genesis which matches scientific observation. By this I mean, that
>we must have scenario which can not be criticized on a factual
>basis.
I disagree with Glenn here. Most of the atheists he polled on
talk.origins did not consider a literal Genesis (ie. chapters 1-11)
a necessary problem for Christianity. Most of them freely conceded
that Genesis could be symbolic. It is not necessary *in apologetics*
to have "a historical framework for the events in Genesis which
matches scientific observation". Paul did not hit the Athenians with
a literal Genesis 1, but quoted their own pagan literature to them
(Acts 17:28). For apologetics, it is only necessary to have an
*interpretation* of Genesis which *does not conflict* with
"scientific observation".
I have told the story before how an older man John who was an avowed
atheist had started coming along to our Church. He was a former
geologist in the coal mining industry. He had big problems with a
literal Genesis and his well-meaning fundamentalist daughter-in-law
was trying to give him a Henry Morris book, but asked me what I
thought. I told her that even if the world was created in 6 literal
days and was only 10,000 years old, her father-in-law would find
that almost impossible to believe, as many Christians do. I told
him that it was not essential to believe that the days of Genesis 1
were literal 24-hour days and that I believed they could have been
long periods of time (I was keeping it simple-my view is more
complex than that). I gave him Hugh Ross' "Creation and Time" and
he has become a Christian.
If I believed in Glenn's 5.5 mya Mediterranean Flood and that Adam
was a Homo habilis, and I had told John that this was the *only*
"historical framework for the events in Genesis which matches
scientific observation", it might have been just as hard for John to
accept as Henry Morris. Indeed, I wonder in the same circumstances
whether Glenn would have done the same as me?
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------