I have some atheist friends I talk to regularly so I am exploring more deeply the evidences of Jesus Christ. There are at least 3 methods I have found described in scripture for how mankind can know that Jesus is the promised Christ. There may be more as well. I am interested in exploring these methods further with all of you.
What bible example case studies can we look to in order to see these principles in action?
What personal experiences do you have with these three methods?
What are the limits of each method?
How can we use these methods given by Jesus Christ to help in spreading the Gospel?
1. Observation:
“By their Fruits ye shall know them.” Matt 7:20
I think this is where apologetics tends to focus most of its attention. We can point to Historical accuracy of biblical writings, fulfilled prophecy, miracles, and love and other fruits of the spirit manifested in the lives of true Christians and of those who have written scripture.
2. Repeatable Tests:
“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” John 7:17
We put our trust in Him and note how our lives change and our love for God and our neighbor increases.
3. Revelation:
“flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 16:17
This is perhaps the most sure way of knowing eternal truth but it can’t be forced. I would also note that God doesn’t seem to reveal himself the same way every time to every person. Some examples include appearing as a burning bush or a pillar of fire, sending angels to appear, and speaking through a still small voice.
How can we Know?
Re: How can we Know?
In my experience, most atheists will not be impressed by any apologetic 'proofs.' As children of the Enlightenment, they are convinced that they should only believe in things that are proven in an absolute/observational sense. They do not realize that the most important 'truths' are not of that sort (it could even be argued that no truths are of that sort). They are looking for certainty when truth is almost (always?) provisional.
In other words, what they need is not apologetics, but a good thorough discussion of their flawed epistemology.
In other words, what they need is not apologetics, but a good thorough discussion of their flawed epistemology.
Re: How can we Know?
Yet isn't it interesting how they default to a faith position - naturalism. 'Skeptics' never seem skeptical about that.mattrose wrote:In my experience, most atheists will not be impressed by any apologetic 'proofs.' As children of the Enlightenment, they are convinced that they should only believe in things that are proven in an absolute/observational sense. They do not realize that the most important 'truths' are not of that sort (it could even be argued that no truths are of that sort). They are looking for certainty when truth is almost (always?) provisional.
In other words, what they need is not apologetics, but a good thorough discussion of their flawed epistemology.
Re: How can we Know?
I have some experience dealing with skeptics and atheists. What I've observed is that they mostly argue from the perspective of emotion (Why did the tsunami kill so many? Why do babies die in Africa? Etc) or what we call "the problem of evil." It almost always boils down to that, because if you can answer all their "rational" arguments, they will always come back to the problem of evil and how a loving God, if he does exist, could not permit such things. Some of them are more open to exploring actual answers than others, but it's important to note that this seems to be more of a concern among atheists than things like biblical inerrancy. If we Christians preach a God of love, and yet around our planet there are people starving to death and being killed by waves, it does seem, at first glance, that we Christians are mistaken. However, the problem of evil only makes sense in light of eternity, where all things will be perfectly sorted out, and that is a proposition the atheist won't allow. Nevertheless, it's still the only way to call God just in a world where criminals get ahead and die at a ripe old age while kids are swallowed by tsunamis. If God is truly just, there will be a reckoning in the end, something Jesus pointed out in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
So while the atheist might bring up any number of objections to God, he post prizes those that object to a loving God. It's easy to demonstrate to someone how God might best account for things like DNA and the fine tuning of our universe, but the heart of the debate is always "Given that God might possibly exist, what kind of God is he?" Atheists think the answer to this question is, "Surely not the God of you Christians, because what happens on earth is so contrary to justice and love." If you can get someone to share your eternal perspective, they might just find themselves mistaken. The problem is that it will be very, very hard for them to see that solution as anything but wishful thinking.
So I agree with Matt here. My goal with a skeptic is to gently point out inconsistencies in their own thinking, because we all have them. It's not a very lofty goal, but one that can be accomplished. It's also important to note, as Bruxy Cavey often does, that the method IS the message. If you respond to intellectual arguments with a smug disposition then don't expect any fruit to occur. I've been more influenced by people with weak arguments and a gentle spirit than anything else, and I pride myself on being a rational man. There's just something about the aroma of a humble and meek soul that cuts through the nonsense.
So while the atheist might bring up any number of objections to God, he post prizes those that object to a loving God. It's easy to demonstrate to someone how God might best account for things like DNA and the fine tuning of our universe, but the heart of the debate is always "Given that God might possibly exist, what kind of God is he?" Atheists think the answer to this question is, "Surely not the God of you Christians, because what happens on earth is so contrary to justice and love." If you can get someone to share your eternal perspective, they might just find themselves mistaken. The problem is that it will be very, very hard for them to see that solution as anything but wishful thinking.
So I agree with Matt here. My goal with a skeptic is to gently point out inconsistencies in their own thinking, because we all have them. It's not a very lofty goal, but one that can be accomplished. It's also important to note, as Bruxy Cavey often does, that the method IS the message. If you respond to intellectual arguments with a smug disposition then don't expect any fruit to occur. I've been more influenced by people with weak arguments and a gentle spirit than anything else, and I pride myself on being a rational man. There's just something about the aroma of a humble and meek soul that cuts through the nonsense.
-
nancyer
Re: How can we Know?
While I am a Christian and believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of God there are many who do not. So I find it hard to point to Scripture as proof of anything. If you say this prophecy came true, and Jesus said this and it happened then your assuming the person believes there was a prophecy and Jesus actually said that (and that Jesus actually existed for that matter).
I don't see proof a possibility, just a knowing that you know what you know and that's enough for Christians.
My husband wants proof and aside from God Himself coming down from heaven and speaking to him in a seeable, touchable form, I don't know what proof it would have to be.
(sort of like friends who say Barry Manilow is gay even though he was married and has lived with a woman for 30+ years. Whatever he does I don't know how I could "prove" he isn't)
I don't see proof a possibility, just a knowing that you know what you know and that's enough for Christians.
My husband wants proof and aside from God Himself coming down from heaven and speaking to him in a seeable, touchable form, I don't know what proof it would have to be.
(sort of like friends who say Barry Manilow is gay even though he was married and has lived with a woman for 30+ years. Whatever he does I don't know how I could "prove" he isn't)