What the Religion of Atheism has to Offer

Life is a Vapor

The above photo is what was left after a guy ran a red light and took the life of David Mann, a fellow street evangelist and Facebook friend that was 26 years young.  Now, both David and the driver that ran the red light are in eternity.  That is how fast we can go from this life to the next, yet most of us live as if we will never die.  This is why Biblical evangelists do what they do.  Call us wide-eyed fanatics, misguided zealots, or specially gifted, but before you do, please consider the above picture.  Hell is real and Biblical evangelists are those who are convinced from the bottom of their hearts that the most loving thing they could do is to warn you of it and preach the gospel so that you may be saved from God's impending wrath.  We do so even if it gets a little loud, a little inconvenient, and even if it makes you (and us) pretty uncomfortable.  All we are trying to do is live out a God-entranced worldview in light of our specific gifting.  Because we love you enough to tell you the truth, we may seem a little weird to you.  However, I'd rather be interpreted as a loon by you than be ashamed to use my evangelistic gifts to glorify Jesus.   Please contemplate the following verses.  In light of David's death, I sure have:

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” ¹⁴ Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. ¹⁵ Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” ¹⁶ But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. ¹⁷ Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.  James 4:13-17

Outreach Report: Reason Rally 2012

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . ."

INTRODUCTION:  That's right folks, you're seeing the photo above correctly and no, its not Photoshopped; it really is an atheist wearing a "Jesus riding a T-rex" suit.  That's about as sophisticated (but not as blasphemous) as the inaugural 2012 "Reason Rally" was.  Here's what the Reason Rally website said about how things were going to go down:

Are we just going to use this opportunity to trash religion?
No. This will be a positive experience, focusing on all non-theists have achieved in the past several years (and beyond) and motivating those in attendance to become more active. While speakers have the right to say what they wish, the event is indeed a celebration of secular values.

This in fact was an opportunity to trash religion in general and Christianity specifically.  Yes, there was the occasional insult directed towards Islam, but for the most part, this was a highly organized rant against the God of the Bible. 

The turnout was pretty good, but not as good as I expected.

Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake?  That doesn't sound very reasonable to me!

Given the fact that most of the atheistic "pastors" and "worship leaders" had such a filthy mouth that I either had to immediately cover my 8 year old daughter's ears or they used so much blasphemy that it would make a sailor blush, I can tell you that this was indeed a flamboyant "trashing" of religion.  But again, that's about as intellectually sophisticated as it got.

ASSESSMENT

Here's a great example of the kind of nonsense I encountered this weekend (and no, I'm not interested in discussing controversies related to Kent Hovind, tax-protesting, or the like; this video serves only as one example of the type of irrationality I regularly encountered when interacting with its participants):




While that type of irrationality was plenteous, we had a great time of outreach:

Sye TenBruggencate of Sinner Ministries.

After being on the streets surrounding the Rally for one-on-one evangelism, tract distribution, and open-air preaching, we then went into the outskirts of the Rally itself and intermingled among the crowd of atheists that the street preachers gathered in order to attempt to have rational dialogue and discussion:

Some of the preachers holding signs were decent apologists whereas others were unprepared to interact intelligently with the unbelievers surrounding them.

Me interacting with a small group at first.

Thankfully, the guys with the big signs drew huge crowds of atheists around them and all you had to do to get your own crowd was to ask some of those on the outskirts of the already existing crowds, "Are you an atheist?" and when they said "Yes" then I asked "Why?"  This was a great way to profitably start a conversation with these folks, though not many of the conversations were profitable thereafter because atheists don't know the weaknesses in their own worldviews very well.

Some of the sign-holders agitated the atheists at times, but it made for a great way to start conversations.

Like many Christians, most young atheists only read the pop-level New Atheists and don't attempt to read and seriously grapple with the many robust criticisms of their own views nor are many of them even aware that there are serious, weighty philosophical criticisms of their views.  Many of them seemed to expect that most Christians are like those associated with the "Westboro Baptist Church" instead of having the ability to offer serious theological, philosophical, scientific, and historical arguments against their views.  Several of the atheists I interacted with said that we were like a breath of fresh air to them simply because we knew what we believed and could defend it adequately.  These types of atheists seemed to really enjoy conversations with us, even after we explicitly told them that they needed to repent. 

Me explaining to an atheist that he is taking Scripture out of context to justify his position.  This drew a huge crowd of people who were able to hear the gospel. 

Many listening to me reason with the unreasonable.

It was heartbreaking to see someone so Hell-bent against God that they had tattooed "unsaved" on their arm. 

I found that trying to video tape any of the interactions resulted in the unbeliever trying to "perform" for the video camera rather than actually grappling with the arguments I was presenting against their position, thus further promoting irrationality.  Therefore, I have no video footage to offer.

The crowds in the perimeter were growing just as steadily as the dialogues were.

OUR APPROACH

I attacked the four areas that skeptics pride themselves on by asking the following simple questions:

1.  Truth - I asked, "What is truth in your worldview?  What's your definition of 'truth'?"

2.  Logic - I asked, "If you believe that only matter exists, (a) how do you account for the immaterial, universal, propositional, immaterial laws of logic given your philosophical materialism apart from an appeal to God and (b) how to you make sense out of our obligation to be rational?"

3.  Science - "How do you answer the problem of induction from a secular perspective?"

4.  Morality - "How do you account for objective morality without God?"

Regarding truth, most atheists responded, "I don't have to give a definition or account of truth to know what's true."  I then responded usually with something like this, "If you don't know what truth is and can't account for it at all, how do you know that Christianity is false and atheism is true?"

Regarding logic, every atheist I interacted with in an in-depth way (which was probably 10-15 people) was completely unprepared to deal with this line of argumentation.  I essentially simplified and used Drs. Welty and Anderson's argument for God from logic.  Most of their rejoinders were of two kinds: (1) the laws of logic are just descriptions of the way humans have evolved to think, and (2) Nominalism - the laws of logic don’t really exist; claims about laws of logic are just convenient fictions.  I refuted both of these by pointing that (1) confuses a description of those laws with the laws themselves, and (2) if the laws of logic don't really exist then they do.  In other words, I pointed out that the laws of logic must exist in order to deny them; i.e., they exist necessarily.

Regarding science, we defined the problem of induction and then asked them if they knew how to answer the problem of induction apart from an appeal to the Judeo-Christian God.  Using arguments from this paper, we showed that they can't make sense out of their scientific investigation apart from an appeal to God.

Regarding morality, we defined what objective morality was, showed that it requires God to make sense out of it, and as expected, most atheists defended moral relativism.  When we showed the self-defeating nature of moral relativism, several atheists became emotional, inconsistent, and/or admitted that it would be okay to torture little girls for fun as long as society agreed to it.  Please read the italicized portion of that last sentence again, its not a typo.  

As expected, the atheists we interacted with were a philosophical and theological mess.  All of the ones we interacted with were clueless about the very worldview they were attempting to critique and every one of them had a "Christian" background.  We lovingly called every one of them to repentance and weaved Scripture in and out of our apologetic discussions.  Paul nailed their predicament 2,000 years ago,

So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, ¹⁸ being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; ¹⁹ and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. (Eph. 4:17-19)

FUN

Nevertheless, we had some fun by enjoying some sightseeing the day before, some fellowship the night before during the "training time" and when taking breaks from evangelism:

A decent high-definition photo of the Capitol Building.  It was a beautiful day for sight-seeing.

Elissa pondering the tulips as we overlook the National Mall.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution chiseled in stone on the side of this building.

Daddy and daughter enjoying some time together after evangelizing for almost 6 hours straight.

Mommy and daughter gettin' their grin on for the camry!

Bethel World Outreach Church - these were the only facilities we could procure for our training Friday night.

Chewing the fat with Eric Hovind and Mark Spence.

Photo opp with Pastors Jeff Durbin and Luke Pierson of Apologia Church.  Both of these men are ardent defenders of the faith and good friends.

Enjoying Pastor Luke Pierson's manly beard. 

IN CONCLUSION, atheism has nothing to offer and it was further confirmed this weekend.  However, I want to finish on a good note.  The last young man we spoke with was an early twenty-something who said he was as "former Christian".  From a strategic standpoint, we didn't immediately challenge this claim as we sensed that it would have caused him to shut down to further dialogue, but we first listened to him and then asked diagnostic questions in order to show the problems with his worldview using the four categories above.  When challenged, he then started "performing" in front of the other atheists standing around listening.  They then entered the conversation but when we shut them down too, they all became very irrational and this young man picked up on their inconsistencies and irrational behavior and by his body language, you could tell that it made him uncomfortable and embarrassed.  We then closed down those conversations since they were becoming unprofitable and then the young man said, "Hey, why don't we go over here and talk since I'd really like to listen to the next speaker."  This was a sign that he wanted to ask some sincere questions, so we walked over to the edge of the Rally's main crowd while the next speaker began, and the young man began to ask me, "How do you really know that Christianity is true, how do you really know the Bible is God's word?  Why do you believe that?" and as I began to "slice and dice" with apologetics and he said, "No, I don't want to challenge you or put you on the defensive, you see, I used to be a Christian, and I want to really know why you personally and sincerely believe these things."  I essentially gave him this answer,

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. [1689 LBCF 1:5]

I then explained that when you begin with the correct foundation for all your reasoning, you're not left to "the futility of [your] mind, being darkened in [your] understanding" (Eph. 4:17-18).  He then said, "But I really don't believe in God anymore."  I then said, "I believe you're being sincere as well, but there's a part of you that's agreeing with me right now and saying, 'What's this guy's saying makes a whole lot of sense' and there's another part of you that's saying, 'No, run from this nonsense!'  I know man, I've been there!"  I then explained per Romans 1:19-32, that all people with normally functioning mental faculties intuit God through their own consciences and through the external world.  However, because he went above and beyond in his truth suppression by drinking deeply from the sewage of secularism, those mental faculties that naturally intuit God were now damaged by sin.  I then explained to him that this is the downward spiral of reprobation that God describes in Romans 1:18-32.  At this point his hands began shaking and his jaws were clenching from what appeared to be some measure of conviction of sin.  I then told him, "Many of the people in this crowd in front of you are too far gone.  They have suppressed the truth for 30-40 years and as a result, they have been given over fully to a depraved mind."  I then pointed out that he too was on that path and that he needed to beg the God that he hated for the ability to love Him.  I gave him my ministry card and it was then that I was whisked away by one of the bearded pastors in the photos above.  May God get great glory to Himself in these outreach endeavors and may He move Christians to both support those who are going into the secular mission field and equip themselves to do the work of evangelism in their own little sphere of influence.

Can Mutations Create New Information?

What follows is an interesting article by biologist Dr. Robert Carter that goes beyond the usual "evolution can't happen because it requires novel genetic information" argument:  Can Mutations Create New Information?  In this article, Dr. Carter discusses genetic algorithims, determining a proper definition for "information" for biological systems, decompression of packed information, the five dimensions of biological information, and meta-information.

Scaling the ramparts

http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2011/10/atheist-debate-on-fundamentally-flawed.html

GTCC Outreach Report 9-7-2011

INTRODUCTION:  Today was a beautiful day for evangelism on the campus of Guilford Technical Community College.  I was thankful to have brother Steve from our church join me in this outreach.  To my knowledge, Steve had never really done anything like this before, but, because he knew his faith so well, he was able to immediately help out and have conversations with folks like he'd been doing it for years.  Praise the Lord for this brother, he is an answered prayer!

He and I had several enjoyable conversations with professing Christians and unbelievers.  We had the opportunity to present the gospel to many, but we had one conversation that stood out above them all.

Cultural Relativism gone to seed

Steve and I approached two young men who were hanging out at the edge of the Administration building sitting on a bench and listening to music and we handed them our Shepherd's Fellowship ministry cards, explained our purpose for being there, and asked them the $64 million dollar question:  What do you think it takes for a person to get to heaven?

They both said that you have to be a good person.  I asked them the usual questions ("Do you think you're a good person?) and that led into a discussion revealing their cultural relativism.  One of them asked "What do you mean by good?"  I said "Excellent question!"  Then I told them that my fundamental presupposition was that the Bible is the word of God and that God defines what good is.  I asked them how they determined what the difference between good and evil is and they said, "our parents, our society", etc.  Thus, they argued that morality is culturally relative.  We discussed this for about 15-20 minutes and Steve and I asked questions like this:

• If society determines what good is how can you condemn the actions of Nazi Germany?
• If society determines what good is what basis would you have to say that my punching you in the face is an unacceptable way to greet you if our society deemed it acceptable?
• If society determines what good is what basis would have to condemn torturing little girls for fun?  What about if it was your daughter?

As usual, their cultural relativism quickly imploded in on itself.  At this point one young man had to leave and we thanked him for his time and we then spent the next hour talking to his friend Chris.  I then took Chris through a modified form of the "good person test".  He admitted that if a righteous, holy, and just God was fair with him, he'd get what he deserved and go to Hell.  I then asked, "Do you know what God did so that people don't have to go to Hell?" he said, "No, I don't go to church."  I told him that going to church doesn't make someone a Christian anymore than going to MacDonald's makes someone a hamburger.  I then tried to explain the gospel to him with an emphasis on the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement and justification.  Both Chris and his friend that left earlier were courteous, patient, listened well, and asked great questions in light of what we already said.  Here's some great questions that Chris asked that we were able to answer and give follow-up literature about:

• What is faith?
• What about science and faith? (i.e., Chris assumed the false dichotomy of faith vs. reason).
• What about aliens and UFOs? (How does this fit in with the Christian worldview.  I was able to give him an excellent little booklet about this from Creation Ministries International).
• What about fossils and evolution?

We were not only prepared to answer these questions from the foundation of the Biblical worldview, but we also were ready to give Chris follow-up material from Creation Ministries International and our own church.  I recommend this outreach pack to provide follow-up material for questions regarding creation/evolution issues.  Chris was grateful for the time we spent with him and joyfully the materials.  I have noted that when I do three simple things, God provides plenty of opportunities for productive discussions like this: (1) pray, (2) know the Bible, (3) be nice. 

IN CONCLUSION, we will continue to pray that God will water this huge seed that we planted in Chris today.  We gave him much literature, explained the gospel to him, told him to read the gospel of John, and told him if he had any follow-up questions just to give me a call.  May the Lord present you with similar opportunities as you live your life day-to-day for the glory of God!

UNCG Outreach Report 8-31-2011

INTRODUCTION:  The campus was full of life and activity today at UNCG.  Students were everywhere and there were crowds of them just milling around and talking, enjoying the weather, etc., a perfect recipe for one-on-one evangelism and open-air preaching. 
I decided to do only one-on-one evangelism today since I had no one else with me to minister to those I would be preaching to.  I typically like to do open-air preaching when I have someone else with me who can go into the crowds and give people literature and/or reason with them from the Scriptures.  Before I highlight an interesting conversation I had with a headstrong young lady, let's consider what "the toxic trinity" is and the effects it has on students in particular.

The "Toxic Trinity"

Many students hold to what I call "the toxic trinity".  The "toxic trinity" has three essential components:

1.  Postmodernism.
2.  Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.
3.  Darwinism.

• Postmodernism has some good elements.  For instance, it recognizes that people can be very diverse and that diversity is not necessarily a bad thing because the beauty that is inherent in all cultures can enrich and enliven our culture.  That is certainly a praiseworthy thing (Rev. 21:24).  However, postmodernism also affirms that there's no ultimate transcendent purpose, meaning, or reason for existence since no objective, universal standards exist, or if they do, we can't know them.  For example, consider logical laws, the principles that we use to determine correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning.  Many postmoderns would argue that basic fundamental logical laws (Law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle, law of identity) are not universal (apply to all people, places, and times), invariant (can't be changed), and necessary (have to hold always) but are human constructs that can change from time to time, place to place, and from person to person.  To prove this they would appeal to the many competing and contradictory systems of logic and then assert that all can have equal truth value as long as they work to promote order and function in whatever society uses them.  Thus, logic wouldn't be universal and necessary; instead, it would be a culturally relative concoction of society.  The problem is that this is self-refuting, for to argue that there are competing and contradictory logical systems assumes that the law of non-contradiction necessarily holds when judging between those two competing systems.  Thus, to deny the universal necessity of this particular fundamental law of logic, you would have to use it in order to deny it.  Thus, the fundamental law of logic known as the law of non-contradiction necessarily and universally holds, even with examples of dialetheism or other such paradoxes; you will always have to utilize the law of non-contradiction to deny the universality of the law of non-contradiction.  But, I digress.

• For Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, see my treatment of that here under "1" of the heading "Types of Unbelieving College Students".

• Regarding Darwinism, I'm speaking of that well-known philosophical acid that has eaten through nearly everything since Darwin's Origin came out in 1859.  It is well known as the General Theory of Evolution. 

While I spoke with many professing Christians and out of the 10-12 or so I spoke to, I met only one that could articulate the gospel in any meaningful way (i.e., the problem = sin; the solution = faith and repentance in the cross work of Jesus).  As usual per my past outreach reports, most of them gave answers that related to the "toxic trinity" or simply were universalists or pantheists of some kind.  However, I do want to mention a noteworthy conversation I had with a female student.  

A sweet but hard-headed young lady

This young lady was the last detailed conversation I had of the day.  She attended a Moravian church, was very polite and willing to engage in a conversation about the things of God.  She noted early in the conversation that she had a problem telling people of other religions that they are wrong.  I asked her why she would say that, and she said that she didn't think it was her business to tell others that their religion was wrong.  I asked her why she would say this given the New Testament teaching about the exclusivity of Christ and then a conversation ensued about ultimate authorities.

A Battle of Ultimate Authorities 

She seemed to really struggle with the Scriptures and noted that different groups interpret those passages differently and I asked, "If a blind friend was about to walk off a cliff only to fall to a sure death below, wouldn't you do all in your power to stop him from walking over the edge of the cliff?  Wouldn't you be willing to tackle him if necessary to save him?"  She said, "I see where you're going, but its not the same."  I responded, "You're right, because not telling your unbelieving friends that they are wrong to not repent and believe in Jesus is worse than going over the edge of a cliff, because where they are going lasts forever."  She seemed frustrated at this point, and so I asked, "Why would you, a professing Christian disagree with me on this?" and she said, "I just don't feel like its my duty to go around telling people that their religion is wrong."  I responded, "I understand, but I'm not suggesting you necessarily go tell everyone, I'm talking about you speaking to your Buddhist friend about Jesus as God gives you opportunity.  After all, didn't Jesus say that there's no other way to get to God except through Him and that those who do not believe in the Son will perish?"  She admitted that the Bible said this, but didn't pursue that line of thought any further and I then changed subjects on her by stating, "The word of God calls us to submit to God's authority in His word whether we like it or not.  There are two ultimate authorities in the universe that you can bow down to; yourself or God.  It seems to me that you are essentially saying (though you have been careful to deny this in word) that you are the ultimate authority and that even if the Scriptures clearly say in context that believers are to lovingly share Jesus with others as God gives opportunity lest they perish forever in Hell, you are saying, 'No, I will not do that because I do not think it is right.'  In a nutshell, you are denying the sovereign authority that God has over you.  Why would a professing believer do that?"  She was stymied at this point.  I remained silent to attempt to give her a chance to respond and she finished with, "Well, that's just the way I see it.  Some people understand the Bible different than I do, and I'm okay with that."  I responded, "Even if your understanding contradicts the clear commands of Scripture, you're okay with that?"  She shrugged her shoulders, I thanked her for the conversation, and I was off to my car.  I hope that the Lord used my winsome attitude and Scriptural arguments to get her thinking in the right direction, for a denial such as this is indicative of a greater spiritual problem.

I need help!

Perhaps you live in the Piedmont-Triad area, are doctrinally like-minded, are in good standing with a local evangelical church, and you have a real heart for the lost.  If you have the time to come out and help evangelize for a few hours on a weekday I could sure use your help, for the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few (Luke 10:2). 

IN CONCLUSION, I praise the Lord for your prayers as I function as a missionary to the city of Greensboro.  My prayer is that God is glorified in our outreaches, the hearts of the lost are pricked by the work of the Spirit, and that God brings many souls to Himself. 

Quick, Get the Scissors and Kill that Baby!

What follows is a classic, unsophisticated example of how secular bioethics is the ultimate fail as seen in the combox of an article I published that I originally saw on Facebook:

ALEX PETROV said,

"What an incredible amount of fail."

What an incredible amount of sin.

"Those who make this argument do not understand the difference between an autonomous human child and an embryo whose very existence is tied to the mother."

So we can kill the unborn because it is dependent upon its mother? Given that your criteria for taking the life of the unborn is their degree of dependency, why not kill the 3 hour old born child as well since it is completely dependent upon another? Better yet, why not kill every adult in a coma since they are completely dependent upon others?

"A mother can choose to give up either child . . ."

So you admit that the unborn is a child?

". . . for an embryo this can only mean death, but for a child there's this little capability called adoption."

Why not allow the unborn child to be born and then adopt it out?

"Creating a human being goes far beyond conception, and saying that conception should force a person to go through the whole process without their consent is ridiculous."

So we kill people because they get in our way? This sounds like Third Reich logic.

I hope the Christians reading this have paid attention to what was said above; for this is where secular bioethics when you reject the idea that people are created in God's image and by virtue of that fact alone they are worthy of dignity and respect.

Let's Kill Your Child

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:

'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.

So the doctor said: 'OK and what do you want me to do?'

She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.'

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!

'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.'

The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.

UNCG Outreach Report 4-27-2011

INTRODUCTION:  We had a great day of discussion with several students over a period of about 3.5 hours.  I have prayed consistently that God would provide willing listeners and as you'll see below, He is doing just that in spite of the end-of-semester campus stress.  Today, I had the opportunity to speak in some detail to a well-listening young lady, an atheist, and a "new-born" Christian.  I didn't do any open-air preaching since there were only a few students milling around on campus today due to it being the last week of class.  

The Question of the Day Redavivus:

As I noted in our last outreach report, the type of "question of the day" that you use in evangelism is critical as it seems that some opening questions can almost immediately shut people down because they feel as if you are trying to trap them.  Thus, I enjoy asking "In your opinion, what do you think it takes for a person to get to heaven?" because it genuinely asks people to share their views about the afterlife.  We'll see below how this type of open-ended question promotes good conversation.

A Well-Listening Young Lady

This pleasant young lady had a sorority background and said she thought she was a good person.  I took her through a few of Christ's commands and she admitted that she had violated all of them and then she said, "You're making me feel guilty" to which I responded, "I'm not the one making you feel guilty, I'm exposing you to the light of God's law and you're realizing that you fall way short, just like the rest of us."  I then explained, "Look, I'm certainly not your judge, but you admitted that you have violated Christ's commands, and it's Him you'll have to answer to, not me.  If you stood before Him now, where would you be innocent or guilty?"  She admitted that she was concerned about what would happen to her when she died, and I was able to share the gospel with her and then we were both on our way.  I mention this young lady not because the witnessing counter was extraordinary, but for one simple reason to show that I have consistently prayed that God would provide people who are ready and willing to listen to the gospel, and this young lady certainly was.  

A Hindu

This gentleman was another person who was ready and willing to listen.  He was originally from India and claimed to be a Hindu who had never read the New Testament.  Hinduism originated from the ancient polytheistic religions of India, and as a more unified world religion, Hinduism teaches a form of pantheism; hence, the ancient gods (especially the triad of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) are commonly interpreted as representations of the various aspects of the one impersonal divine known as Brahman.  Thus, it is a monistic worldview.  The goal is to progress to the realization that we are one with Brahman (i.e., Nirvana) through reincarnation via following the law of karma.   I asked him how he determines "good" in Hinduism and he said that doing good things brings good karma whereas doing bad things brings bad karma.  I then asked if he really believed that all of reality was maya (illusion) and he said he wasn't sure.  He didn't seem to know much about his own religion, so I explained to him that it was my understanding that Hinduism essentially teaches that all of reality is one and that distinctions are illusory and the goal of Hinduism is to rid ourselves of these distinctions and do "good" to others whereby we achieve Nirvana.  I then asked him, "If reality is one and distinctions aren't real, isn't pointing out the difference between what's real and what's an illusion making a distinction too?  If so, wouldn't it be self-defeating because that too is illusory?  I mean, if Hinduism teaches that we have to believe that all of reality is one thing and that there really aren't distinctions between anything, then how do we know there's a distinction between what's real and what's illusory?  Moreover, if no distinctions really exist, how can we have a difference between good and bad karma?"  He didn't know how to respond (I wouldn't either if I was a Hindu), so I asked him if he thought he was a good person.  His answer was "Um, sometimes" to which I asked, "Why do you say only "sometimes" and he noted, "Well, I don't always do the right thing." to which I asked, "How to you tell the difference between right and wrong" and like most other people in America nowadays, he basically appealed to cultural relativism.  I then took him through a few of Christ's commands, showed how we all fall short of God's righteous standards, and then explained why Jesus had to die on the cross and that God raised Him from the dead as evidence that God accepted what Jesus did on the cross in place of sinners (Rom. 4:25).  He listened well, I gave him a Bible and told him to read the gospel of John, we shook hands, and we went our separate ways. 

An Atheist Anarchist

I attempted to witness to this young man last week while he was eating a burrito and he respectfully said that he wasn't interested in talking to me because he was already "pretty settled in his beliefs."  Today, I was walking back to the center of campus when I saw the same guy walking near me on the sidewalk and so I and attempted to hand him a card again and sure enough, he kindly said, "Um, I'm sorry, but I'm an atheist" to which I immediately responded "What would it take for you to believe that God exists?" to which he said, "I'd need some objective evidence."  I said, "How would you know it was evidence for God?" to which he essentially said something like ". . . it would be so obvious that you couldn't miss it."  I then said, "Well, God's already given you that in creation, then I quoted Romans 1:19-21 . . ." and he said, "Yeah, but that's not obvious now since we can explain it by evolution though I'm open-minded" and I said something like, "See my friend, you did exactly what I knew you would do.  You asked for evidence, I presented objective evidence, and you explained it away through your naturalistic presuppositions."  I then pointed out to him that even if Jesus appeared to him right now he would probably try to explain it away through a plethora of other naturalistic causes since his naturalism cannot admit the existence of the supernatural. 

Presuppositions, Worldviews, and Unargued Philosophical Biases

We then proceeded to have a 1.5 hour long conversation concerning philosophical presuppositions that form the platform for worldviews, the nature of evidence, the nature and reliability of the Bible, and how our preconceived ideas about the world affect our interpretation of any evidence and that there are no uninterpreted "brute" facts.  During this conversation, he appealed to logic, rationality, scientific procedures, ethics, etc., to make his case and by God's grace I showed him at every point that he was appealing to things to make his case that can't exist assuming naturalistic materialism and methodological naturalism.  I then discussed The Theistic Preconditions of Knowledge, preached him the gospel, and attempted to hand him a ministry card for Creation Ministries International.  We then talked about the creation-evolution controversy a bit and when he found out that CMI is a Young Earth Creationist (hereafter YEC) ministry, he handed the card back and said something like, "I'm sorry, but I can't accept this" to which I responded, "Open-minded huh?  So, you'll accept the idea that people came from pondscum, big lizards turned into birds over millions of years, and that you cannot provide any philosophical foundation whatsoever for your metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics and admitted that you don't try to, but you'll reject a YEC website run by credentialed, published, Ph.D. level scientists simply because they don't buy into the naturalistic party line?"  He didn't say yes, but said instead, "No university in the world accepts that framework for understanding the world" to which I responded, "So majority opinion equals truth?"  He then said, "No, there's just so much evidence that the earth is old and evolution is true" and I responded, "But you just admitted earlier that all facts are pre-interpreted.  Have you ever read one article by a credentialed YEC scientist?" and he admitted that he had not.  I then said, "So, you're not interested in subjecting your own presuppositions to scrutiny?" He then responded, "I can't believe you are a YEC!" and at that point, I knew that we had reached the limits of our conversation.  I then lovingly encouraged him to read the N.T., investigate the things I had discussed with him in spite of his seeming reluctance to do so, and that he needed to repent and believe on Christ.  Interestingly, he then asked me "Given the other atheists you've spoken with, how did I do?"  Suspecting some pride in his question, I responded, "Well, almost every atheist I've spoken with is different on the surface level.  You were very respectful and I appreciate that, but just like nearly every other atheist I've spoken with, when it came to going beyond surface-level argumentation, you didn't even begin to present a credible intellectual defense."  He seemed a little discouraged that I put it that way, but I gave him a warm handshake, thanked him for his time, patted him on the back and told him I'd love to talk to him again in the future and to please give me a call anytime if he wants to talk.  I hope he does call me, but I've said that same thing hundreds of times, and I think I've received two follow-up calls out of thousands of witnessing encounters, and none of them were from atheists.    

A "New-Born" Believer

This young lady was the last person I spoke to.  She was sitting by herself and enjoying a smoke, so I introduced myself, sat down near her, asked the question of the day and she demonstrated a good understanding of the gospel and said she was a brand new born-again believer.  She then told me that she feels so inadequate, that she's playing catch-up at church because she doesn't know much about the Bible yet, and that she wants to grow and learn more.  It was then that I realized that I don't really have anything for folks like this, and given the fact that many American people make major worldview decisions when in college, it would stand to reason that I carry some information for new believers.  Anyway, she said she was interested in going into Christian counseling and I explained how there were basically two different approaches, the integrationist route and the nouthetic route.  I then used this as an opportunity to discuss the sufficiency of Scripture and its application to all of one's life.  She appreciate the conversation, said she was interested in visiting our church, and we were on our way.  Again, God provided another willing ear, this time in the form of a newly converted sister in Christ and I'm thankful to see that He is still in the business of saving people from their sin, for it seems that witnessing a true conversion in America is hard to come by these days.  

IN CONCLUSION, the field are white unto harvest, but the laborers are few.  It is easy as a pastor-evangelist/apologist to grow weary in well-doing when you see broader evangelicalism going the way of the world while so few professing believers are actually sharing their faith while also living consistently with it.  It makes me hunger for heaven, reminds me that I'm just a stranger passing through this world, and that this world is not my home, for I'm a citizen of a heavenly country, and as I pass through this strange world, I desire to faithfully call others to come with me.  "He who has ears to hear, let him hear . . . " Matthew 11:15

Jesus is Jehovah

Introduction:  After engaging many Jehovah's Witnesses (hereafter JWs) over the last seventeen years, with the exception of one older JW, they always "cut and run" after I attempt to engage them beyond the surface level.  Yesterday, they arrived while I was talking to a friend on Skype just after I had been translating 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 from my Greek New Testament in preparation for teaching this Sunday.  I grabbed my Greek New Testament, headed to the front door, and asked them two questions (1) "Are you Jehovah's Witnesses?" and (2) "Can I read John 20:28 to you?"  After having received an answer to my first question and reading the verse in the second question, I then ask them, "Since Thomas clearly called Jesus "the God" (lit. translation) in John 20:28, why doesn't the Watchtower do the same?"(To see their official, non-response which implies that Thomas blasphemed go here).    
 

Stay Focused    
 

I've found that they usually try to get away from these types of discussions as quickly as possible since they are simply trying to leave some literature and a good last impression.  Thus, I allow them their red herring by giving their introductory schpiel.  After they have finished, I usually ask, "Is Jesus the God?" and they usually respond, "Well, he is a god!" and I say, "Yeah, but is He the God?" to which they always respond with something like, "Oh no, Jesus could never be called 'the God', meaning the Almighty God or One True God." to which I usually respond, "But Thomas called him ho theos, which is literally translated "the God."  I then immediately ask, "If Jesus is a god, is He a true God or a false god?" to which they almost always respond in a robotic fashion "He is a god!" and I ask again with a little robotic fashion of my own, "Is He a True God or a false god?" to which they usually say, "Well, 2 Cor. 4:4 defines Satan as "the God", and Psalm 82:6 calls the unjust judges "gods", so are you saying that Satan is the God too?"    
 

The Horns of a Dilemma    
 

At this point, it is crucial to keep them on track since this is a subtle red herring (i.e., a distraction away from the real issue).  I then say, "No, I'm using your own reasoning to point out that if Jesus is a god in some sense as you already admit, then there are only two senses in which He can be called 'god'; meaning that this type of language is used to describe Him as either a true God, of which you already admit that there's only One of those; or a false god.  Either way, your answer undermines your theology since Jesus can't be Almighty God and He can't be a false God, so your stuck on the horns of a dilemma."  At this point it is important to say something like, "This is a problem that the Biblical doctrine of God solves quite easily, and then attempt to discuss passages in the N.T. that use O.T. passages referring to Yahweh (Jehovah) to call Jesus Yawheh (see below for a few examples).

Often, once they will realize that you know what you're talking about, they will try to avoid the deeper details surrounding the core passages concerning Christ's deity (i.e., John 1, 5, 8, 20; Colossians 1; Hebrews 1, Revelation 1, 22; and scores of other OT background references that the NT quotes to demonstrate that Jesus is Jehovah).  It is at this point that I've found the following information from The Department of Christian Defense to be a great help in cutting to the chase with JWs:    
 

NT authors frequently used OT passages that referred to Jehovah in reference to the Son. 

• Isaiah 6:1 with John 12:37-41.
• Psalm 102:25-27 with Hebrews 1:10 (also:  Isa. 8:12-13 with 1 Peter 3:14-15; Isa. 45:23 with Phil. 2:10; Joel 2:32 with Rom. 10:13). 

John 1:1    
 

John 1:1a indicates that the Word was eternal: en arche en ho logos, In [the] beginning was the Word. . . .  The Greek verb en, (was) is an imperfect tense, which indicates that the Word was always existing (cf. Phil. 2:6: hos en morph theou huparchon, lit.,  "[Christ Jesus] who in nature God subsisting").

At John 1:1b (lit., "the Word was with the God"), the eternal Word is said to be distinct (pros, "with") from His Father. Then, at John 1:1c, John literally writes: "God was the Word" (theos en ho logos). Note that the Apostle John places theos ("God") in the *emphatic position* (i.e., at the beginning of the clause) and theos is anarthrous (i.e., without the article ["the"]).   
 

Thus, John clearly indicates here that (a) the eternal Word was "God" in the fullest sense (hence, he places theos ["God"] in emphatic position) and (b) John purposely presents theos as anarthrous, that is, he does not include the definite article ("the") before theos as in John 1:1b (speaking of the Father). Hence, theos is *qualitative* pointing to the Word's nature as fully God, not His identity. Qualitative nouns refer to description, not identification (cf. John 1:14; 4:24; 1 John 1:5). For if John had written: "The God was the Word" (ho theos en ho logos) he would have then indicated that the Word was the same God (same Person or identity) as "God" in John 1:1b--the Father!   
 

Thus, John precludes an indefinite rendering ("a god" as in the NWT) by places theos in the empathic position and safeguards against Modalism (Oneness theology) that asserts Jesus is the Father.  In conclusion: John 1:1 teaches that (a) the Word is eternal (1:1a: In [the] beginning was [en] the Word), (b) the Word is eternally distinct from the Father (1:1b: the Word was with [pros] God), and (c) as to the Word's essential nature, He is God in the fullest sense (1:1c: lit., "God [theos] was the Word").

For more details on John 1:1 and an analysis of the Watchtower's indefinite rendering of theos in John 1:1c ("a god" NWT), see  John 1:1.     
        

Jesus is called The God (ho theos):    
 

John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus (direct address): ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou, lit. "the Lord of me and the God of me" (see the WT's own Greek interlinear called: The Kingdom Interlinear Translation).

Titus 2:13:  The great God and Savior:  tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Christou Iesou, lit.  the great God and Savior of us Christ Jesus.  Note: in 2 Peter 1:1 is the same grammatical construction (i.e., article-noun-kai-noun): tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou, lit. "the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ" (cf. 2 Peter 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; 2 Thess. 1:12; see Gk.).  See here for more details on Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.  
 

Hebrews 1:8:  But of the Son He [the Father] says,  YOUR THRONE, O GOD IS FOREVER AND EVER. . . .  (ho thronos sou ho theos, lit.  the throne of you the God).
   

Jesus Absolute claim to BE the I Am  (ego eimi):    
 

These would be Mark 6:50; John 8:24; 8:28; 8:58; 13:19 (cf. Isa. 43:10; LXX); 18:5; 18:6; and 18:8.

*Why is it important to know and teach that Jesus IS God?: Besides that of John 4:24; 17:3 and 1 John 2:23, Jesus declares in John 8:24:  
   

Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I Am He [ego eimi], you will die in your sins [note:  "He" is not in the Gk.]. See Jesus Christ: The Eternal Ego Eimi, ego eimi, "I Am" for expanded details on the "I Am" affirmations made by Jesus.    
   

*See also: John 1:18; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 2:9 (theotetos); Heb. 1:3; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 5:13-14 [The Trinity: One God revealed in three distinct coequal, coeternal, coexistent Persons].    
 

Simpler But Just as Effective Arguments:    
 

The following is also something that I've used often from the back of our own Shepherd's Catechism.  The sections in bold and blue are relevant to discussions with JWs:    
 

God the Father - To Timothy, my beloved son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.  (2 Tim. 1:2)    Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1:2)    
 

God the Son - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  (John 1:1  The Word, Jesus Christ is called  God. )    Jesus said to them,  Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.    (John 8:58  Jesus identifies Himself as Yahweh of the Old Testament.)    For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.   (John 5:18  Jesus calling God His own Father identified Him as being divine and one in essence with God the Father.)    . . . of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.   (NKJ Romans 9:5  Paul is calling Jesus the eternally blessed God)    . . looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus . .   (Titus 2:13  Paul calling Jesus the Great God and Savior)    I am the Alpha and the Omega,  says the Lord God,  who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.    (Revelation 1:8  God is identified as the Alpha and Omega.)    When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying,  Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.  (Revelation 1:17-18  The  first and the last  was  dead, and behold,  He is  alive forevermore. )    I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.   (Revelation 22:13  The Alpha and Omega  identified here is the Lord God  according to Revelation 1:8, but here in 22:13 He is identified as being the same Person as  the first and the last,  which is Jesus according to Revelation 1:17.  **Therefore Jesus is one and the same being as  the Alpha and the Omega  and  the Lord God of 1:8, and the first and the last who was dead, and behold is alive forevermore.)  
 

God the Holy Spirit - But Peter said,  Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4  While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.   (Acts 5:3-4  You can only lie to persons and this person is called  God. )    Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.  (2 Corinthians 3:17  The Holy Spirit is referred to here as  Lord , indicating the deity of the Spirit.)    The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,  (Romans 8:16  Only persons testify or bear witness, thus indicating the personhood of the Holy Spirit).    In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.  (Romans 8:26-27  The Holy Spirit in this passage is referred to as interceding for us, and the Spirit also has a  mind.   Only persons can intercede for others and only persons can have a  mind  thus indicating the personhood of the Holy Spirit.)      

IN CONCLUSION, the above information is useful for both the advanced exegete who has knowledge of the original languages as well as the person who doesn't know a lick of Greek.  The problem is that learning the above information takes work.  However, we must be willing to do more for the truth than what most dedicated cultists like the JWs are willing to do for a lie.    

HT:  Alpha and Omega Ministries for the above illustration.

Outreach Report: Preaching Away in Margaritaville 4-21-2011

As expected, people were everywhere.

I had the pleasure to team up with Justin Edwards and other members of The Speak Truth Project in Charlotte, NC this past Thursday to evangelize the attendees at the Jimmy Buffet Concert at the Verizon Wireless Amphitheater.  We arrived at @ 4:45 p.m., prayed, and packed our backpacks full of give-away Bibles and tracts.  Nature was calling, so we found the Porta-johns and started to talk to the people we were waiting in line with about sin, righteousness, and judgment for about 45 minutes.

Thanks to a providential combination of alcohol consumption and urinary physiology, we had a ready-made crowd for preaching.

After visiting the Porta-johns, I did a little open-air preaching to the "captive audience":


I preached the first time for about 20 minutes or so.  As expected, we had many self-righteous people at this event.  Given the fact that many Jimmy Buffet fans are of middle to upper-middle-class status, most people thought they were good, moral, people who simply came to have a good time and kick back a few brewskis.  While I certainly don't have a problem with relaxing, having a good time, enjoying the weather, and listening to good music; I knew that for many in the Margaritaville crowd this translated to drunkenness, lust, fornication, etc.  Once the open-air preaching started, it didn't take long to hear from a few self-righteous young, female hecklers with mouths like sailors that were willing to boldly glory in their own sin in front of others yet still proclaim their own self-righteousness.  They simmered down after I compared their filthy menstrual rags of self-righteousness with Christ's righteous standards (Isaiah 64:6).

The girl facing me with a drink in her hand was one of the hecklers.

Then I used the self-righteousness of the hecklers as a stepping stone to preach to the crowd concerning the reality of their impending judgment should they die without repentance and faith toward Christ.  I focused on how their own self-proclaimed goodness is a faux morality as compared with God's righteous standards.  As usual, some ignored me since they were put off that I would come and upset their revelry, whereas others quietly stood by listening.  A few thanked us for being there.  The lady in the green t-shirt below genuinely thanked us for being there and told us that she was upset that I was was heckled.  I told her that I'm surprised I didn't get more heckling given the self-righteous nature of the crowd combined with the steady rise in blood alcohol levels. 

We then passed out tracts and had many fruitful conversations for over an hour.

Then, I decided to pass out tracts to the folks lining up to get into the gates of the amphitheater and then I open air preached to them for about 8-10 minutes.

After preaching about 30 seconds, someone about three rows over (whether male or female, I couldn't tell) started wildly yelling and screaming things like "Shut that guy up!  Hey you, shut the $*#& up!  I don't wanna hear that @#%*!"  This caused the crowd to really pay attention to what I was saying and the screaming/yelling continued on and off for about two minutes.  Then, providentially the gate attendants came out and this person quieted down long enough to allow me to finish my gospel presentation.

Many people listened attentively in spite of the general self-righteousness of the crowd.

We then did more one on one evangelism and enjoyed some great fellowship:

These two men and the one woman were with our evangelism team.  We had great fellowship!

After several hours outside the amphitheater, we headed back to our cars @ 7:20 p.m. to get some bottled water and meet up with the entire group.  As we walked back, it was clear that we had reached our "profitability" limit as much of the crowd was already drunk.  We then decided to leave and head over to the UNC-Charlotte campus for some one-on-one evangelism and open-air preaching.  We didn't do any open-air since there were too few students on campus given the fact that the school was closed the next day, but we had some great conversations with both true and false professors alike.  For more information about this outreach, see Justin Edward's account of it at The Speak Truth Project.  My dearest thanks goes to Justin Edwards and his crew for the invite, warm welcome, sweet fellowship, and most importantly, the opportunity to proclaim the Holy name of Christ to people who are in desperate need of His glorious grace.