One Eyed Jack
New member
You can get it here too. Scroll down the page a little ways, and it's the third link under the Dr. Greg Bahnsen heading.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/apologetics.html
ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...
- Thread starter Hilston
- Start date
- Status
You can get it here too. Scroll down the page a little ways, and it's the third link under the Dr. Greg Bahnsen heading.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/apologetics.html
One Eyed Jack
New member
Bahnsen cleans Stein's.
novice
Who is the stooge now?
Re: Welcome back ...
Re: Welcome back ...
Jims states:
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,....Romans 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
Jim states:
Do you agree that Zakath THINKS he has a defense or an excuse?
Jim states:
But then again maybe that is a good thing. :bannana:
Re: Welcome back ...
Oh well then, by all means!
Jims states:
Here...
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,....Romans 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
Jim states:
Yes.
Do you agree that Zakath THINKS he has a defense or an excuse?
Jim states:
Ya know I can honestly say I have no idea as to what sort of a point your making.
But then again maybe that is a good thing. :bannana:
Re: A real possibilty?
Re: A real possibilty?
Re: A real possibilty?
Jim, do you really think that was the point being made?
Jim Hilston's first e-mail to Bob Enyart ...
Jim Hilston's first e-mail to Bob Enyart ...
Jefferson informed me that this thread was mentioned on Bob Enyart Live. At Bob's suggestion, I am posting the private correspondence he and I had back in February of 2002 regarding apologetic methods. It was prompted by some inaccurate comments Bob Enyart made on Bob Enyart Live regarding presuppositionalists. I've annotated minimally only for the sake of providing context. I will submit the e-mails as separate posts.
Greetings Bob,
I heard part of your Feb 13 [2002] internet broad(band)cast and some of your statements got my attention. You said: "There are Christians who call themselves presuppositionalists. ... They are adamant; they get angry if they hear somebody try to convince an atheist that God exists."
Would you be willing to share what experiences you've had with presuppositionalists that give you this impression? Being a presuppositionalist myself, my experience is quite the opposite. Presuppositionalists tend to be more rational and less emotional, while evidentialists seem more likely to become angry, irrational and overly emotional, and eventually stomp away in a huff (figuratively speaking).
You said, "[Presuppositionalists] get angry because they believe that you can't become a Christian unless you already assume that the Bible is the Word of God."
This is a false statement. I don't know of a single presuppositionalist who would agree with this. In fact, I can't think of a single *person*, regardless of denomination or apologetic methodology, who would agree with this.
You said:
"[Presuppositionalists] think you canNOT become a Christian unless you assume, you presuppose that the Bible is the revealed will of God."
Also false.
You said:
"And that argument fails in a number of ways, one of which the Bible wasn't always here. We didn't always have the Bible."
Excellent point, albeit non sequitur, given that you're arguing against a strawman. Your statement here is nonetheless important because it addresses the following question: Prior to the books of the Bible becoming established, or let's say, before Moses wrote down the Pentateuch, how did people know what was and was not the Word of God?
You said:
"... Not only did [police officer Carroll] become a Christian [after hearing the scientific arguments that evolution was false], but he's brought many others to the Lord. And we've heard that story countless times from people around the country and even outside the country."
A presuppositionalist has no problem with people coming to faith in Christ from hearing scientific arguments against evolution, so this of course is not a refutation.
Bob, you've betrayed a very serious misunderstanding of the presuppositional apologetic. Moreover, you've done your listeners a disservice and probably prematurely alienated some to presuppositionalism (which is now a "bad word"), and not because you've adequately understood, let alone refuted, its thesis. You've basically and implicitly encouraged your listeners to disregard a certain label that you have yet to clearly understand.
Briefly stated, presuppositionalism is a uniquely biblical approach to apologetics, based on biblical examples and biblical principles, which employs evidence and arguments in a uniquely biblical way. Frankly, I was hoping you would embrace the apologetic once you heard it articulated. I urge you to find out what presuppositional argumentation actually is and how it profoundly differs from evidentialism (a.k.a. Classical Apologetics).
As an aside, while I disagree with much of your doctrinal views, I appreciate the example you set for having a zeal and enthusiasm for the truth. I especially like your repudiation of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" anti-truth of modern christendom.
Please write back if I can clarify anything further for you.
Yours,
James Hilston
Jim Hilston's first e-mail to Bob Enyart ...
Jefferson informed me that this thread was mentioned on Bob Enyart Live. At Bob's suggestion, I am posting the private correspondence he and I had back in February of 2002 regarding apologetic methods. It was prompted by some inaccurate comments Bob Enyart made on Bob Enyart Live regarding presuppositionalists. I've annotated minimally only for the sake of providing context. I will submit the e-mails as separate posts.
Greetings Bob,
I heard part of your Feb 13 [2002] internet broad(band)cast and some of your statements got my attention. You said: "There are Christians who call themselves presuppositionalists. ... They are adamant; they get angry if they hear somebody try to convince an atheist that God exists."
Would you be willing to share what experiences you've had with presuppositionalists that give you this impression? Being a presuppositionalist myself, my experience is quite the opposite. Presuppositionalists tend to be more rational and less emotional, while evidentialists seem more likely to become angry, irrational and overly emotional, and eventually stomp away in a huff (figuratively speaking).
You said, "[Presuppositionalists] get angry because they believe that you can't become a Christian unless you already assume that the Bible is the Word of God."
This is a false statement. I don't know of a single presuppositionalist who would agree with this. In fact, I can't think of a single *person*, regardless of denomination or apologetic methodology, who would agree with this.
You said:
"[Presuppositionalists] think you canNOT become a Christian unless you assume, you presuppose that the Bible is the revealed will of God."
Also false.
You said:
"And that argument fails in a number of ways, one of which the Bible wasn't always here. We didn't always have the Bible."
Excellent point, albeit non sequitur, given that you're arguing against a strawman. Your statement here is nonetheless important because it addresses the following question: Prior to the books of the Bible becoming established, or let's say, before Moses wrote down the Pentateuch, how did people know what was and was not the Word of God?
You said:
"... Not only did [police officer Carroll] become a Christian [after hearing the scientific arguments that evolution was false], but he's brought many others to the Lord. And we've heard that story countless times from people around the country and even outside the country."
A presuppositionalist has no problem with people coming to faith in Christ from hearing scientific arguments against evolution, so this of course is not a refutation.
Bob, you've betrayed a very serious misunderstanding of the presuppositional apologetic. Moreover, you've done your listeners a disservice and probably prematurely alienated some to presuppositionalism (which is now a "bad word"), and not because you've adequately understood, let alone refuted, its thesis. You've basically and implicitly encouraged your listeners to disregard a certain label that you have yet to clearly understand.
Briefly stated, presuppositionalism is a uniquely biblical approach to apologetics, based on biblical examples and biblical principles, which employs evidence and arguments in a uniquely biblical way. Frankly, I was hoping you would embrace the apologetic once you heard it articulated. I urge you to find out what presuppositional argumentation actually is and how it profoundly differs from evidentialism (a.k.a. Classical Apologetics).
As an aside, while I disagree with much of your doctrinal views, I appreciate the example you set for having a zeal and enthusiasm for the truth. I especially like your repudiation of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" anti-truth of modern christendom.
Please write back if I can clarify anything further for you.
Yours,
James Hilston
Bob Enyart's reply to Jim Hilston's first e-mail ...
Bob Enyart's reply to Jim Hilston's first e-mail ...
Bob Enyart's reply was as follows:
In a message dated 2/15/2002 1:06:24 AM Mountain Standard Time, Hilston1 writes:
More than a decade ago, I read a book by Van Til (was it?) suggested by some of his fans. I recall (or I think I recall, perhaps you can correct me), that they were trying to convince me that I should not debate evolution or science with unbelievers, as that approach could not even theoretically work. Now, am I dreaming this (the mind does strange things with memories), or is it possible this all actually occurred. I really don't recall exactly the debate, it was a while ago, and I only gave it some attention. But, can you please answer this question: Is it a worthwhile effort, and one that can move a man closer to conversion, to scientifically debate the existence of God with unbelievers, apart from quoting Scripture?
Thanks, -Bob
----------------
More to come ... (if I can find it ...)
Bob Enyart's reply to Jim Hilston's first e-mail ...
Bob Enyart's reply was as follows:
In a message dated 2/15/2002 1:06:24 AM Mountain Standard Time, Hilston1 writes:
More than a decade ago, I read a book by Van Til (was it?) suggested by some of his fans. I recall (or I think I recall, perhaps you can correct me), that they were trying to convince me that I should not debate evolution or science with unbelievers, as that approach could not even theoretically work. Now, am I dreaming this (the mind does strange things with memories), or is it possible this all actually occurred. I really don't recall exactly the debate, it was a while ago, and I only gave it some attention. But, can you please answer this question: Is it a worthwhile effort, and one that can move a man closer to conversion, to scientifically debate the existence of God with unbelievers, apart from quoting Scripture?
Thanks, -Bob
----------------
More to come ... (if I can find it ...)
LightSon
New member
Re: Jim Hilston's first e-mail to Bob Enyart ...
Re: Jim Hilston's first e-mail to Bob Enyart ...
Dear Jim,
I can only conjecture as to what such a repudiation would look like. What would be the antithesis you embrace?
-love the sin, love the sinner.
-hate the sin, hate the sinner.
-love the sin, hate the sinner.
That's about it. Are one of these preferred in your view?
Re: Jim Hilston's first e-mail to Bob Enyart ...
Dear Jim,
I can only conjecture as to what such a repudiation would look like. What would be the antithesis you embrace?
-love the sin, love the sinner.
-hate the sin, hate the sinner.
-love the sin, hate the sinner.
That's about it. Are one of these preferred in your view?
Scrimshaw
New member
Re: To Lion and Scrimshaw ...
Re: To Lion and Scrimshaw ...
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What? You mean God would need YOU to elaborate Proverbs 26:4,5??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't have anything to explain, why is there 9 pages in this thread of you bantering on and on about some semantical nonsense of calling God "the" intelligent designer instead of "an" intelligent designer? Did you take grammer in school? If so, you would know that "a" can be used when describing a singular noun, such as Creator. So your quibble is totally meaningless and shows a severe lack of understanding on your part.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. The Bible allows for all forms of reasoning and argumentation, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The folly of an atheist is that they disbelieve in God who has made his existence obvious through Creation. Therefore, the only way one could answer an athiest "according to his folly" is if they answered the atheist in a way that "disbelieved in Creator" also, because that is the atheist FOLLY.
Another example of answering a fool according his folly would be answering YOUR foolish arugment in this thread. For example, you foolishly used Proverbs 26:4,5 to argue against Bob's method of argument, but, that act in itself is an unbiblical act because Proverbs also says -
Proverbs 12:23 - A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly.
So we must believe that you are NOT a prudent man but a fool, because you did not keep your knowledge to yourself but opened this thread. So if we are to use Proverbs as our textbook for debate method, you have violated Proverbs 12:23, thus, at best you are merely a fool; and at worst, you're a hypocrite who condemns others for violating scriptures that you are violating yourself.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoken like a true sophist. Actually, we know of direct commands not to look at women lustfully, but we do not know of any direct commands that say - "thou shalt not debate an atheist by appealing to the laws of physics, or referring to God as an intelligent designer". Once you find that verse for me, I'll gladly concede my argument. But the fact is, no such verse exists.
Your silly quips have more holes in them than swiss cheese. Try again.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... You forget what Paul said here:
1 COR 9:19 -- "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exclusions are obvious - excluded is all means that would violate a law of God. Unforturnately for your hopelessly misguided arguments, there is no law of God that states you cannot call God an intelligent designer or appeal to the laws of physics when discussing the existence of God with a nonbeliever.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let's recap. 1st step = *existence* of the Creator, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they already know and lie about the existence of God, then reiterating the evidence that reveals the existence of the Creator would function as a rebuke. It'd be like showing the missing cookie to a child who stole it from the cookie jar and hid the cookie under his bed. Simply presenting the evidence that refutes the atheist lie is a good thing, and functions as a rebuke. There is nothing unbiblical about it.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said that simply saying the "Bible says so" is not a good form of ARGUMENT when talking to unbelievers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't get it do you? If the person you are speaking to considers the Bible to be an ancient book full of fallacies and myths, what good would appealing to it be? Are you going to argue that everyone is really a "Christian" deep down inside; so everyone is truely a bible-believer, but many lie about that as well?? Where exactly is your argument headed?
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be the same as if a Muslim told you that Muhammad was greater than Jesus because his "Quran told him so". His argument means nothing to you unless you believe the Quran is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the Quran is a book that says Muhammad is greater than Jesus. So if you believed the Quran was true, that means you'd believe Muhammad is greater than Jesus.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, and what would God do without Mr. Hilston to straighten out all the Mr. Enyarts and Scrimshaws for Him!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, you haven't shown how Bob's argumentation is unbiblical. Secondly, you are in violation of Proverbs 12:23 because you have not kept knowledge to yourself, but have been blurting it out in this thread. So using Proverbs as a standard for argumentation backfires on you very badly. :nono:
Wrong. You have totally failed to show any Scriptures that say it is wrong to argue for the existence of God based on the evidence found in Creation. In fact, David used this exact same argument in Psalms 19 -
Psalms 19:1,2 - "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge."
This knowledge displayed by creation not only expresses the existence of God, but His glory as well. Even if there are those who knowingly suppress this knowledge, exposing their deceitful tactics would function as a rebuke; and there is no better way of exposing a lie than by emphasizing the evidences that prove it to be a lie..........and that is exactly what Bob's arguments are doing.
Re: To Lion and Scrimshaw ...
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What? You mean God would need YOU to elaborate Proverbs 26:4,5??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't have anything to explain, why is there 9 pages in this thread of you bantering on and on about some semantical nonsense of calling God "the" intelligent designer instead of "an" intelligent designer? Did you take grammer in school? If so, you would know that "a" can be used when describing a singular noun, such as Creator. So your quibble is totally meaningless and shows a severe lack of understanding on your part.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. The Bible allows for all forms of reasoning and argumentation, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The folly of an atheist is that they disbelieve in God who has made his existence obvious through Creation. Therefore, the only way one could answer an athiest "according to his folly" is if they answered the atheist in a way that "disbelieved in Creator" also, because that is the atheist FOLLY.
Another example of answering a fool according his folly would be answering YOUR foolish arugment in this thread. For example, you foolishly used Proverbs 26:4,5 to argue against Bob's method of argument, but, that act in itself is an unbiblical act because Proverbs also says -
Proverbs 12:23 - A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly.
So we must believe that you are NOT a prudent man but a fool, because you did not keep your knowledge to yourself but opened this thread. So if we are to use Proverbs as our textbook for debate method, you have violated Proverbs 12:23, thus, at best you are merely a fool; and at worst, you're a hypocrite who condemns others for violating scriptures that you are violating yourself.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoken like a true sophist. Actually, we know of direct commands not to look at women lustfully, but we do not know of any direct commands that say - "thou shalt not debate an atheist by appealing to the laws of physics, or referring to God as an intelligent designer". Once you find that verse for me, I'll gladly concede my argument. But the fact is, no such verse exists.
Your silly quips have more holes in them than swiss cheese. Try again.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... You forget what Paul said here:
1 COR 9:19 -- "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exclusions are obvious - excluded is all means that would violate a law of God. Unforturnately for your hopelessly misguided arguments, there is no law of God that states you cannot call God an intelligent designer or appeal to the laws of physics when discussing the existence of God with a nonbeliever.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let's recap. 1st step = *existence* of the Creator, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they already know and lie about the existence of God, then reiterating the evidence that reveals the existence of the Creator would function as a rebuke. It'd be like showing the missing cookie to a child who stole it from the cookie jar and hid the cookie under his bed. Simply presenting the evidence that refutes the atheist lie is a good thing, and functions as a rebuke. There is nothing unbiblical about it.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said that simply saying the "Bible says so" is not a good form of ARGUMENT when talking to unbelievers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't get it do you? If the person you are speaking to considers the Bible to be an ancient book full of fallacies and myths, what good would appealing to it be? Are you going to argue that everyone is really a "Christian" deep down inside; so everyone is truely a bible-believer, but many lie about that as well?? Where exactly is your argument headed?
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be the same as if a Muslim told you that Muhammad was greater than Jesus because his "Quran told him so". His argument means nothing to you unless you believe the Quran is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the Quran is a book that says Muhammad is greater than Jesus. So if you believed the Quran was true, that means you'd believe Muhammad is greater than Jesus.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, and what would God do without Mr. Hilston to straighten out all the Mr. Enyarts and Scrimshaws for Him!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, you haven't shown how Bob's argumentation is unbiblical. Secondly, you are in violation of Proverbs 12:23 because you have not kept knowledge to yourself, but have been blurting it out in this thread. So using Proverbs as a standard for argumentation backfires on you very badly. :nono:
Wrong. You have totally failed to show any Scriptures that say it is wrong to argue for the existence of God based on the evidence found in Creation. In fact, David used this exact same argument in Psalms 19 -
Psalms 19:1,2 - "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge."
This knowledge displayed by creation not only expresses the existence of God, but His glory as well. Even if there are those who knowingly suppress this knowledge, exposing their deceitful tactics would function as a rebuke; and there is no better way of exposing a lie than by emphasizing the evidences that prove it to be a lie..........and that is exactly what Bob's arguments are doing.
Last edited:
novice
Who is the stooge now?
I think the debate is going better than I first imagined.
Bob is building a strong case from the ground up (covering truth first is important with those slippery atheists).
Furthermore...
Bob seems to have a great way of controlling the debate and sounding far more authoritative than Zakath does.
Zakath's 3rd post was his best and thankfully so, otherwise this might have ended early.
Zakath's "Unknown God" altar ...
Zakath's "Unknown God" altar ...
Hi Scrimshaw,
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw previously wrote:
To which Jim asked:Perhaps you can give an example of this: The Bible says "Answer NOT a fool according to his folly." Applying your understanding of 1Co 9:19, give me an example of how NOT to answer a fool according to his folly. Don't skip this, Scrimshaw. Your integrity is at stake here.
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw previously wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrimshaw writes:
Thus the ends do NOT justify the means. And that is the whole point. The bible forbids answering a fool according to his folly, and endorses answering not a fool according to his folly. There are proper and improper ways of answering the fool. Bob Enyart has answered the fool improperly, in both method and example, violating explicit biblical prescription and biblical models.
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw previously wrote:
Jim replied: I'm going to ask you a question, and please think carefully before you answer: Do you think, when Paul says, "all possible means" that there any any exclusions to that statement? If yes, then what exclusions? If no, then do you think Paul is saying it would be OK for someone to become a prostitute in order to save prostitutes?
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let's recap. 1st step = *existence* of the Creator, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which Jim replied:Why do you feed into the anti-theist lie? You don't have to prove what they already know and are lying about.
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Hope this helps.
Jim
Zakath's "Unknown God" altar ...
Hi Scrimshaw,
Scrimshaw writes:
Did you take speling in skool?
Scrimshaw previously wrote:
To which Jim asked:Perhaps you can give an example of this: The Bible says "Answer NOT a fool according to his folly." Applying your understanding of 1Co 9:19, give me an example of how NOT to answer a fool according to his folly. Don't skip this, Scrimshaw. Your integrity is at stake here.
Scrimshaw writes:
I'll ask the question again. I want an example of how NOT to answer a fool according to his folly.
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw, since you claim I foolishly misapplied the Prov. 26:4,5, please give me the correct application of the verse. Thanks.
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw, if that is what you believe that verse is saying, then you too are sinning by sharing your knowledge. Clearly it's not what the verse means.
Scrimshaw writes:
I've used Proverbs, Acts, Romans, Psalms. There are plenty more references to make the point. These ludicrous charges do not bode well for you, Scrimshaw. With every jab and the increasingly desultory points you make, you sound more and more desperate.
Scrimshaw previously wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrimshaw writes:
Right, so you admit there are exclusions. Will you now revise your claim that the manner doesn't matter "as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared"?
Thus the ends do NOT justify the means. And that is the whole point. The bible forbids answering a fool according to his folly, and endorses answering not a fool according to his folly. There are proper and improper ways of answering the fool. Bob Enyart has answered the fool improperly, in both method and example, violating explicit biblical prescription and biblical models.
Scrimshaw writes:
Prov. 26:4,5 is explicit. The condemnation of erroneous argumentation in scripture is explicit, and the endorsement of proper argumentation in scripture is explicit. Please see my previous posts.
Scrimshaw previously wrote:
Jim replied: I'm going to ask you a question, and please think carefully before you answer: Do you think, when Paul says, "all possible means" that there any any exclusions to that statement? If yes, then what exclusions? If no, then do you think Paul is saying it would be OK for someone to become a prostitute in order to save prostitutes?
Scrimshaw writes:
Would you agree it is a violation of the law of God to lie? To endorse a lie? To perpetuate a lie? That is what is happening when someone allows a person to claim to be an atheist and to claim that they haven't seen enough evidence for God's existence and attributes. Would you allow an alcoholic person continue to deny being an alcoholic? Would you allow a person to continue through life thinking that he is good enough to attain heaven without Christ? If not, then why would you allow someone to claim that they haven't seen enough evidence to believe in God?
Scrimshaw writes:
I'm not opposed to describing Jesus Christ as an intelligent designer or appealing to the laws of physics as long as it is done in the biblical way. What I'm opposed to is the failure to confront the lie of atheism, which is their claim regarding the insufficiency of evidence. It is biblically wrong to argue by first affirming a lie and, in this case, the myth that the anti-theist hasn't had sufficient proof for God's existence.
Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let's recap. 1st step = *existence* of the Creator, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which Jim replied:Why do you feed into the anti-theist lie? You don't have to prove what they already know and are lying about.
Scrimshaw writes:
A rebuke of what? Their claim of insufficient evidence? Or their claim of God not existing? You can't prove they've had sufficient evidence by showing more evidence. That's a self-refuting proposition.
Scrimshaw writes:
I agree. But Bob is not refuting the atheist lie (i.e. "there is not enough evidence and I don't believe in God"). Instead, he has bought into it. If Bob were rather showing Zakath that Zakath already knows God exists, as Paul did with the Athenians on Mars Hill (Acts 17:18ff), we would not be having this discussion. Bob is not showing Zakath the cookie he stole and lied about. Bob is trying instead to prove there is a cookie missing (which Zakath already knows but denies knowing).
Scrimshaw writes:
The Bible is truth. Declaring the truth changes lives. The spoken Word of God is the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17). Paul declared the gospel without shame, even to those who disregarded the scriptures and the revelation of God.
Scrimshaw writes:
No. I'm saying it is a lie for the anti-theist to claim that they have not seen enough evidence for God's existence. He has seen sufficient evidence and lies to himself and everyone else about it. Knowing the truth, yet suppressing it in unrighteousness, the anti-theist can still hear the declaration of Scripture and be moved by it. He may say, "Don't quote that book to me, it is meaningless to me," but in reality it is affecting him, whether by softening or hardening, but affecting him nonetheless.
Scrimshaw writes:
David was declaring the same thing as Paul. There is sufficient evidence, the heavens declare it, the skies proclaim it, day after day, night after night. Therefore, Zakath is believing a lie, the lie that he has not seen enough evidence to believe in God. He has seen sufficient evidence. He can't escape it. Offering him more evidence only perpetuates the myth, and by not having that myth confroned and dismantled, Zakath is left wiser in his own conceit.
Scrimshaw writes:
You're wrong. Bob's arguments are aimed at exposing the lie of atheism, which is the belief that there is no God. But there is no such thing as atheism. Bob is trying to discredit something that doesn't really exist. What Bob ought to be arguing against is the lie that Zakath doesn't believe in God, just as Paul argued with the Athenians. Paul rebuked them for having the "Unknown God" altar. Bob should rebuke Zakath for his "Unknown God" altar.
Hope this helps.
Jim
- Status