How will they hear? ...
How will they hear? ...
Hi LightSon,
First, let me thank you for your post. Clearly you gave it much thought and time, and for that I'm much appreciative. However, I am frustrated that after all you've read and thought, you still seem to miss the point. I know it took me a long time to understand the differences that I'm trying to point out, so I want to be patient. What puzzles me a bit are the statements that are simply false, or have already been thoroughly answered, or are irrelevant.
I commend you for the seeing the point of my Benny Hinn illustration. That was a big step in itself, and I am pleased that you boiled it down appropriately to this:
I think the correlation works just fine, provided Bob and Benny’s heresy is commensurate. The question is, are they?
LightSon writes:
You seem to be arguing that Atheists are fools and liars in that they deny God’s existence whilst they know in their heart He does in fact exist. We observe this principle to be rooted in Romans 1 circa verse 21.
That is indeed a point of complaint, but not the only one. The corollary points, which cohere specifically with the first point, are those of false atheistic reasoning, the question-begging nature of the atheist's claims, and the error of allowing the atheist to wield the tools of reason as if they were neutral with respect to truth.
LightSon writes:
Further you argue based upon Prov 26:4 “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”
Not only this verse, but the one preceding, the one following, and every apologetic encounter we find in Scripture.
LightSon writes:
Jim, for all your explaining of this suppositional principle and its inappropriate (unbiblical) counter approach, many on this list are just not getting it.
It has been, and continues to be my experience, and that of other apologists that try to teach this approach, that the false methods of argumentation are difficult for people to jettison. I readily admit that I often find myself having to step back and say, "Wait a second -- I shouldn't be arguing this way." Usually it is a temptation of the flesh. Rather than argue biblically (which is more difficult and requires sharp biblical clarity in one's thinking), it's easy to get drawn into the secular methods of fallacious reasoning. For example, when an atheist points out the multifarious evils in the history of Christianity as proof of God's nonexistence, the flesh wants to defend the Christians he is accusing, or to explain away those evils, because the flesh hates that kind of embarrassment and tries to argue in the manner of the critic to disprove it. We see children argue like this, albeit in a much less complex or sophisticated manner: "Yes it is." "No, it's not." "YES, it IS!" "NO, it's NOT!" and so forth. It is in our sin nature to argue this way, and we readily slip into it. However, the way to answer the atheist's charge against the evils of historic Christianity is not to counter with examples of evil atheists or to try to defend the reputation of evil "christians," but rather to demonstrate the fallacious reasoning behind the accusation, to dismantle the question-begging standard by which an atheist presumes to assess good vs. evil on his worldview. Do you see the difference?
LightSon writes:
I do NOT offer this observation as an argument that you are wrong, but if I had a series of God-fearing Biblicists cautioning me, I would at least want to pray about and reconsider my position. Anyway, that was an aside.
But an important one. I assure you that I do not take your caution lightly. It is something that I must continually ask myself and re-assess, "Could all these people be wrong? Perhaps I am the one who needs to change my position?" Not only on this topic, but on other theological points where I disagree with mainstream evangelical doctrine (there's an example below). So I sincerely appreciate your exhortation, and I take it sincerely to heart.
LightSon writes:
POINT 1:
If the atheist knows God exists and is just feigning a pretense, then they would rightly be deemed liars. This seems to be your invariable position. You offer Romans which says, “Because that, when they knew God…”. This you insist blows the whistle on the atheist’s heart and motive.
Not just that verse. The entire passage. Also throughout the scriptures that say the fool has said in his heart there is no God. Why is he a fool for saying that? Especially if he is merely deceived? If I truly believe the Pirates won against the Brewers because I unwittingly saw a taped news report of an earlier game, thinking it was actually the current live broadcast, when in actuality they lost, am I a fool for asserting that the Pirates won? Do I have a defense for my false belief? Of course. The atheist doesn't have this. What would be the difference?
LightSon writes:
Two observations:
First, a number of atheists have sworn to you that they honestly do not believe God exists.
Well, given the fact that they are liars, should their oaths have any bearing on my opinion of the true state of their thinking, especially given the explicit biblical counter-claim to these oaths?
LightSon writes:
Some have tried to convey how infuriating it is to have someone call them a liar on a Biblical basis. Your insistence of their false pretense is only as appropriate as your understanding of scripture.
If you examine my interactions with atheists, I don't start off, or make it a primary point of argument, to call them liars. But rather it is something that I keep in my mind and am aware of as I debate them. The only reason it has come up here (with the atheists) is that they, too, are reading discussions between biblicists openly considering the claim.
LightSon writes:
Second (and as a corollary), let us look at the Romans’ passage more closely and your understanding of it. The statement says, “when they knew God” certain things happened. “knew” is carried by the Greek aorist tense, and in most cases can be rendered in the past tense.
I dealt with this thoroughly in my latest post to Bob Enyart. Please refer to it and let me know if/where you disagree with my handling the text (the entire passage).
LightSon writes:
The atheist “knew” God at one point, but do they know Him now? The latter part of the verse gives us a clue when it states that “their foolish heart was darkened.”
It also says they became empty in their reasoning. Does that mean they were no longer able to reason? Of course not. It means that their reasoning becomes futile, because without the God they deny, reasoning, the laws of logic, mathematics, science, etc. do not make sense. They become inane and pointless, and their minds (hearts) become darkened.
LightSon writes:
As a spirit indwelt believer, I have to pray that the Lord would search my heart, as so many times I am self-deceived.
Does the fact we are deceived provide a defense? If not, then how so? "But I was tricked (deceived)!" is an acceptable defense when it is true, right? Does it apply here? Or is the deception willful? And rooted in our sinful natures? Eve got a pass. Adam did not. Adam was an evidentialist, by the way. He was right there watching the whole event ("... then Eve turned to her husband"). Adam was willing to say, "If someone can provide evidence that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil will not adversely affect me, then I will disbelieve God's Word." Satan proved it through deceiving Eve. Eve was the evidence. Adam knew better. He was a fool.
LightSon writes:
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? If I can be deceived by my heart as a Christian, how much more so could an unbeliever’s heart be so dark that they truly believe they do not know God. In other words, they are not lying per se; they are just mistaken.
I call this the George Costanza fallacy. Some may get that, some may not, but here it is in a nutshell. George believes you're not really lying if you can convince yourself to believe the lie you want to tell. This is exactly what the atheists are doing. But as I said, I don't use that as a point of argument until they betray it or expose it, but I keep it in my mind and am ever aware of it as I debate them.
LightSon writes:
They are deceived and mistaken about what is in their heart. Scripture seems to allow for this.
Those scriptures must not be merely taken at face value. The kinds of questions I asked above need to be considered: What is the nature of their deception? Is it willful? Or are they merely victims?
LightSon writes:
POINT 2:
You are making much of the passage in Prov 26:4 “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” In fact, your whole case seems to be anchored in this verse. You take this verse to be a command, and those who answer “according to [the fool’s] folly” (i.e. the presumptive lie of not-God) you deem to be using unbiblical methods.
As I said above, the entire context, the full context of Romans 1, Psalm 19, Romans 10, Acts 17, and every apologetic encounter in scripture teach the principles I am trying to convey. Further, the scripture in the aforementioned passages, either by explicit statement or implicit example, condemn the kind of argumentation that I've been opposing.
LightSon writes:
Again I have 2 two observations:
First, While I am a Biblicist and believe that “all scripture is…profitable for doctrine”, I understand that not all scriptures where intended to be a formal basis for doctrine. In other words, I don’t think God intended that the book of Proverbs should be the sole reference for generating doctrine. Why? Because they are “proverbs”. Proverbs are generalizations about life and Godly wisdom. I don’t think you can make that single (proverbial) verse stand as a command.
If you want, we can leave out that verse entirely. It's not necessary to my argument. By the way, did Paul make an exception when he told Timothy that all scripture (except proverbial ones that are only generally true?) was profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness?
LightSon writes:
If that is what you insist on doing, then all of proverbs would be doctrine-ready, eg. Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Is this an axiom? No. It is a general principle.
Does that mean I should not base my training of my children on that verse? Because that's hard work and I could make life a little easier by not being so concerned about this. Obviously, I'm being facetious, but I'm no less serious about the point. How would you answer my question?
LightSon writes:
Second, and to continue my support of the first observation, many good theologians see these 2 verses in a different light.
Of course. That is irrelevant. The Jews of Paul's day, to whom belonged the scriptures and the covenants and the promises and the ceremonies, also saw verses in a "different light". See Romans 10 discussion below.
LightSon writes:
In fact there is question as to this verse’s application as juxtaposed to its successor. Prov 26:5 “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit”. According to your rule, this would be a command to do the opposite of what you are arguing.
This statement frustrates me, LightSon, because it appears that you've either forgotten or did not read my first post. Please take a moment to read it. These verses work together. I do not take them in isolation.
LightSon writes:
My larger point is that not all good men agree with you on how to best understand Prov 26:4,5.
It's irrelevant. Do you believe we can know with certainty what God was conveying and how He wants us to apply what Solomon's wrote to his son?
LightSon writes:
Matthew Henry: See here the noble security of the scripture-style, which seems to contradict itself, but really does not. Wise men have need to be directed how to deal with fools; and they have never more need of wisdom than in dealing with such, to know when to keep silence and when to speak, for there may be a time for both.
Here, MH violates the very words of both the immediate text and the larger context. It does not say or suggest keeping silent. Solomon is conveying his wisdom to his son, who presumable will one day rule over and adjudicate the matters of Israel and her people, and will need his fathers wisdom. Clearly, Solomon has had to deal with his share of fools, and he instructs his son on how to handle them.There is a time and place for keeping silent, but it is not taught here (unless you infer it in the case of beating the fool's backside with a rod taught in verse 3). Both verses are talking about providing an answer (not silence), the main point being the manner in which one answers. When one answers a fool according to his folly it must be done biblically. And when one answers a fool NOT according to his folly, it must also be done biblically. In either case, an answer is given, one for the intent of showing our dissimilarity to the fool (not being like him in his reasoning) and the other for the intent of exposing his folly (lest he be wise in his own conceit). Would you disagree with any of that?
LightSon writes:
In short, God may lead us to use any number of tools when combating fools or the unsaved.
I agree, but God will not lead you to use the tools unbiblically, as in the case of those who twist and pervert the gospel to their own ends. They use the scripture, which I typically encourage, but they use it deceitfully, which I (and the Bible) condemn.
LightSon writes:
Most any tool might be effective in showing the atheist the incoherence of his worldview.
For example?
LightSon writes:
All tools are used in support of presenting the gospel, ...
Would you agree that there are ways to use tools unbiblically?
LightSon writes:
... but as in Knights case, the false worldview must be dismantled.
You used "but," a contrasting conjunction. How does "showing the atheist the incoherence of his worldview" differ from the atheist having his "false worldview ... dismantled"?
LightSon writes:
Your efforts to draw the line so tightly between suppositional and evidential approaches, if based solely on Prov 26:4, is overreaching in my opinion.
If that were my sole basis, I might join you in that opinion. The verse is not necessary to make my case.
LightSon writes:
I see that you’ve just responded to DEVO. You’ve built a house of cards all based on this one Proverb.
I really urge you to reconsider that remark. If I were to cut and paste all of the other passages, examples, inferences, and direct exhortations from scripture that I've cited, your statement would itself be exposed as a house of cards.
LightSon writes:
If the Matthew Henry approach is valid, then your conclusions are suspect, i.e. the house of cards falls down. To check our work, let’s look at one conclusion you made to DEVO and see if it stands up to Biblical scrutiny.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on what I've written, why is it unbiblical to persuade the atheist on the basis of physical evidence?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your conclusion is that persuasion based on physical evidence is unbiblical.
Are you deliberately misstating my position? People are persuaded by any number of things, even false arguments. The fact of them being persuaded is not itself unbiblical. It is unbiblical for the believer to persuade the atheist based on physical evidence. Do you know why I make this statement? It's quite fundamental to my argument, and it will be a good test as to whether or not you, or Devo, even understand my contention. And if you don't fully understand my argument, it seems to me that you should be asking questions instead of lobbing premature judgments.
LightSon writes:
As I read the following scripture, I judge your conclusion to be wrong:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rom. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly “the things that are made” are physical evidence and they are arguing for God’s existence.
Are clearly seen. Are understood. Are without a reasoned defense. These are statements of fact about the atheist. So now what? You say, "Hey, I know you've clearly seen the evidence, and I know you already understand, and I know that you understand God's eternal power and nature, and you have a detailed knowledge of God's judgment against you (v. 32) -- the Bible says so -- but just in case that isn't enough, here is some additional evidence to persuade you." Do you see anything wrong with that rationale?
LightSon writes:
Also Psalm 19:1
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, nature is making an argument based on physical evidence. If we follow the scriptural pattern, we should be okay.
The scriptural pattern is that these things are sufficiently known by the atheist. The creation declares to the atheist the glory of God and his handiwork. The atheist has no reasoned defense against this. God himself, through his creation, has sufficiently declared it. Consider Paul's understanding of Ps. 19 as it is revealed in his rebuke of the Jewish gainsayers in Romans 10:14-18. Sometimes I avoid this passage because it is often the pet passage of evangelists and missionaries. Unfortunately, it is widely misunderstood and misapplied. In the context, Paul is answering the gainsaying Jews who are asserting their paramount importance to the spread of the knowledge of God, i.e., they are claiming that they are needed to persuade unbelieving people of God's truth, and that without the Jews, the truth will not be spread. Paul says they're wrong. The gainsayer says, (paraphrasing to give the sense of the passage) "You can't say anything against our role as the chosen people of God, because how shall the unbeliever call upon God if they haven't believed on Him? How then shall they believe in Him if they've never heard of Him? How then shall they hear of Him without us Jews to preach to them? And how shall we preach if we Jews are not sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!' But the world has not all obeyed the gospel, that is why you need us Jews, proven by the fact that even Isaiah says, 'Lord, who hath believed our report?' So then, the atheists might believe if they hear, and they can hear by our preaching the knowledge of God."
Then Paul says they're wrong (again, paraphrasing to give the sense of the passage): "But
I say, have they not already heard? YES! They have already heard, in fact, as the Psalmist says, the declaration has gone into all the earth, unto the ends of the world (the context being, the heavens and firmament sufficiently declaring the glory and handiwork of God)."
Now I realize the huge controversy this may rouse, but I think it is necessary to demonstrate how Paul understood and applied Ps. 19. The commonly assumed interpretation makes Paul's question (immediately above) meaningless. Why send a preacher if they've already heard, according to Ps 19?
LightSon writes:
This supports my theory that your position is wrong.
You apparently misunderstand the verses and their intent. They do not support your theory. In fact, they undermine your theory. Unless I am misunderstanding your point. Please clarify if necessary.
LightSon writes:
If your position can yield a demonstrably wrong conclusion, then either your premise or logic is flawed.
What wrong conclusion has my position demonstrated?
LightSon writes:
Please consider moderating your stance.
Please give me a better reason to do so. Thanks for taking the time to write. I hope we are making progress. Please don't hesitate to ask for clarification.
Blessings to you,
Jim
