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. 

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

UNCG Outreach Report 4-20-2011

INTRODUCTION:  Today was a great day of outreach.  I didn't do any open-air preaching as I was engaged in several evangelistic conversations as the crowd of passersby was growing quite large.  This is when a team of evangelists can be helpful, but until the Lord provides another evangelist, we will continue doing what we can by God's grace.

Questions of the Day:  "Does absolute truth exist?" and "In your opinion, what does it take for a person to go to heaven?"  

Rejection Question

I want to talk a little about the "question of the day" and rejection.  I've noticed that different questions lend themselves to more positive evangelistic encounters whereas others seem to cause people to cut you off.  For instance, I've had several people cut me off (usually done politely) and tell me that they don't really want to talk to me anymore once I have started asking more penetrating questions about absolute truth.  I've asked the above question of people hundreds of times, and each time the conversation goes South, it seems to almost always be with relativists who get caught affirming the very thing they just denied, and then because they end up making themselves look stupid in front of their friends, they get frustrated, and say, "I'm really not interested in talking anymore."  I had this happen today when I spoke with my first two people and one girl got herself somewhat in a dither when she contradicted herself a few times, realized what was happening, and then gave up on the conversation.  What's worse is that they think that you are trying to trap them even though you qualify with something like this, "I'm not trying to give you a hard time or trap you, I'm just interested in finding out how you answer this dilemma."  Also, I think that conversations about absolute truth are too abstract for some people, and so they simply shut down intellectually after they have made themselves look and feel stupid when they really didn't understand the real issues to begin with.   Given the fact that they have all of that working against them due to a combination of misunderstanding and nil philosophical self-reflection, I can't say that I blame them!  Thus, I think that crafting more basic, less abstract questions might be helpful in the future and if and when the conversation gets further than the 1 minute mark, popping off with questions about absolute truth might then be helpful.  In other words, my experience is teaching me that using a question to find out where a person is from a worldview perspective that gives them "permission" to express their opinion about issues of ultimacy seems to be more well received than other questions that almost immediately place them on the horns of a dilemma.  As a result, any advice from experienced evangelists and apologists is certainly welcomed.

Being Thankful for Praying Christians cum Professional Philosophers

I was witnessing to a group of pleasant young ladies, and two of them said they thought they were good people.  So I went through a modified form of the "Good Person Test" and one of them said "You can't go to heaven if you're gay" to which I admitted, "That's true, but God is an equal opportunity judge and will also condemn unrepentant liars, fornicators, adulterers, blasphemers, covetous people, and every other kind of sinner, including homosexuals."  While I explained the gospel to this young lady, unbeknownst to be, I had a Christian sitting a few feet away who was walking by and overheard the conversation and decided to come back and pray for me while I was witnessing to this young lady  The young lady listened attentively to what I said, thanked me for the conversation, and said she would call me to talk about these things later.  It was then that I turned around from where I was sitting, and an older student came up and told me that he had been praying for me and the young lady almost the entire time.  This was so encouraging.  We then proceeded to enjoy some fellowship for at least 30-45 minutes and we learned that we had so much in common both from the standpoint of religious backgrounds to virtually the same theological and philosophical views.  Thus, it was truly a pleasure to fellowship with this dear brother before he had to go to his mythology class.  I am so thankful for people like this more than words can express. 

An Existentialist turned Inquirer

Last semester I had a long conversation with a young, existentialist student named Adam.  Adam and I had a conversation that lasted well over an hour last fall in front of Yum Yum hot dogs at the edge of campus.  He listened well when I refuted his existentialism that day, and as I was leaving campus today walking back to my car, I recognized him walking toward me and I said, "Hey man, I spoke to you last semester in front of Yum Yums!"  He warmly shook my hand and then told me that that conversation last semester changed his life!  He said he was going to church with his girlfriend and investigating the truth claims of Jesus Christ.  I was so encouraged.  He then explained that after our conversation he saw the vacuous nature of his worldview and started looking into the claims of Christ.  I gave him some apologetic materials that I had in my backpack and then told him to call me anytime if he wanted to chat or if he had any questions.

IN CONCLUSION, it is so important to be open, willing, and ready to talk to people with compassion and concern for their souls.  Remember, Jesus too looked at the crowds who were distressed like sheep without a shepherd and had compassion on them.  We too, should be willing to consider our next door neighbors, our co-workers, and our own family as Jesus did, for you may be the only source of spiritual light they are ever exposed to, so "let your light so shine."

UNCG Outreach Report 4-13-2011

INTRODUCTION:  Yesterday's outreach lasted almost six hours and included dozens of conversations with a variety of unbelievers.  I encountered Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and Moralistic Therapeutic Deists.  I'll review a few of the interactions below.

Question of the Day:  "In your opinion, what do you believe it takes for a person to go to heaven?"

Though the above question is quite simple,  I like to use it because it allows the person being questioned to feel as though they can offer their thoughts freely without consequences.  For my benefit as the evangelist/apologist, it allows me to get an idea on what a person believes and then use follow-up questions to determine more information about their particular worldview.

"My friend recently committed suicide . . ."

My first notable conversation was with a pleasant and cordial young lady that seemed a little distracted at first because someone was texting her.  Once I got to issues of eternity she started listening intently.  After giving her a full gospel presentation, she asked what happens to people that commit suicide.  She seemed like she wanted to tear up a little bit while telling me that her best friend recently committed suicide.  She noted that she had contacted the UNCG associated campus ministry and I lovingly cautioned her about who she talks to in that building as I cannot guarantee that all of them can offer her hope in Christ since their building displays varieties of banners from denominations that are theologically liberal to non-Christian religions.  I wanted to hug her as if she was my own daughter and I grieved for her as she obviously was hurting and looking for comfort.  I told her that suicide is essentially self-murder and that those who commit suicide in their right mind give evidence that they have no hope in Christ; i.e., they are lost.  I explained that the taking of one's life is God's prerogative alone, and to arrogate that authority to oneself is to assume a right that only God has.  I also told her that my view is that it may be possible for a true believer to commit suicide if they aren't in their right minds due to the negative influences of medication, mental states caused by biological problems, etc., but that in general, Christians cherish life as a gift from God and that because of this, they don't take their own lives or the lives of others.  I then told her that genuine Christians have different views on the issue of what happens to professing believers who commit suicide and then focused on the fact that she is still alive, has just heard the gospel from me, and that she needs to repent and believe while there is still yet time.  

"We're atheists . . ."

These two young ladies weren't in the slightest bit interested in having a conversation after I introduced myself and asked the question of the day.  They responded to the question by saying ". . . we're atheists".  I then asked them if they believed in absolute truth and one of them stated, "no" and I immediately responded, "Is that true?"  Then I pointed out that she made a self-defeating statement and it was then that she seemed to get flustered.  I then asked, "So, you've realized that you have to affirm absolute truth in order to deny it; so where does it come from?"  At this point, they both looked very uncomfortable and their body language seemed to be saying, "Leave us alone, we think you're a crank, so take off."  After picking up on that I cut right to the chase by asking, "If the God of the Bible exists offers salvation through Jesus Christ, would you want to know how you could be reconciled to Him and have peace with Him?"  They both adamantly said "NO".  I then thanked them for their time, attempted a somewhat failed handshake since they reluctantly reciprocated, and was on my way.  The entire encounter took less than three minutes.  I spoke to another evangelist-apologist friend about this encounter and he suggested asking next time, "If I could prove to you that God exists, would you worship Him?"  That's a great question indeed, and I'm sure these young ladies would've given the same response.

An Interaction with an Atheistic Ehrmanite

The next notable conversation was with an atheistic young man that had a Catholic school background and had read Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus.  He was conversant enough with Ehrman's claims such that after I demonstrated the vacuous nature of his atheism, he essentially argued that I'm no better off since, according to Ehrman, they have been changed, copied, re-copied, changed, and re-copied so much that we can't know what the originals said.  It was at this point that I took the time to discuss the issue of textual criticism and gave some facts about the manuscript evidence for the New Testament.  He then noted that he had never heard this before, and I said, "I know, that's why I come out here every Wednesday."  I then told him, "Ehrman has given you some information about textual criticism that conservative, Bible-believing, evangelical scholars have known about for over a hundred years.  What he doesn't tell you, is that out of the near 400,000 variants in the manuscripts, the largest variant is what is known as a 'moveable nu' and of the remaining variants, none of them affects any cardinal doctrine of Christianity . . . none of them."  I then gave some of the following facts re: the textual integrity of the Bible in general:

• Scholars possess Dead Sea Scrolls with the earliest extant copies of O.T. books dating from 50-150 B.C. Two copies of the book of Isaiah were recovered from that find that read almost exactly word-for-word as the Hebrew Leningrad codex that was produced in the 9th-10 century A.D.

• Scholars use the Septuagint (OT Greek translation) with extant manuscripts dating from 50 B.C. to 150 A.D.

• Scholars work with 5700+ Greek NT manuscripts with near complete N.T. books dating from @ 180-200 A.D. and fragments from 115-125 A.D.

• The writings of the Early Church Fathers that have been translated quote the N.T. over a million times and the entire N.T. could be reproduced with the same accuracy as our current critical Greek texts from their quotations alone except about a half a dozen verses out of 3rd John.

• Thousands of copies of translations of N.T. manuscripts into other ancient languages exist dating from the 3rd to 7th centuries. Old Latin N.T. manuscripts number to 10,000+ copies. Hundreds of copies also exist in other ancient languages such as Coptic, Ethiopian, Georgian, Slavonic, and Armenian dating from the 2nd to the 5th centuries A.D.

Based upon the Greek manuscript evidence alone, unbelieving, secular scholars have concluded that the N.T. manuscript tradition is 99+% textually pure. In other words, what we have now, is what they wrote then. As noted NT scholar Craig Evans said in a June 20, 2010 radio discussion on the White Horse Inn, "out of the 20,000 lines of the NT, only 40 lines are in serious doubt. This equals about 400 words and none of them affects orthodoxy."  If you want more information, you can listen to this short presentation from N.T. Greek scholar and textual critic Dr. Daniel B. Wallace: http://www.cpcfc.org/audio/071111_Dan_Wallace.mp3  

I then noted that given his naturalistic materialism, he can't even account for his demand for reliable N.T. manuscript evidence in the first place, since the concept of evidence presuppposes the validity of the senses, the inductive principle, that the laws of logic necessarily hold, that I have a moral obligation to be rational, and that there is a general uniformity to experience.  I then explained that the reason he rejects the teaching of the New Testament isn't because he doesn't have enough evidence but its because he really doesn't want it to be true.  I discussed the gospel with him and though he was reticent to listen, I had earned enough respect during our conversation that he listened anyways.  We shook hands, parted company, and I was off to speak with the next person.


IN CONCLUSION, being ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within you requires more than quoting Scripture and having a canned response to every answer.  It requires patiently, respectfully, and genuinely listening to people so that you can intelligently and strategically interact with what they are saying and when you do that, most reasonable people are willing to listen even though they strongly disagree with you.

Debate Announcement: Does God Exist?

On Thursday, April 14th, from 7-9 p.m., the UNCG Ratio Christi club is co-hosting a debate with the Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics club. Dr. Richard Howe, a professor of philosophy from Southern Evangelical Seminary, will be debating Dr. John Shook, from the Center for Inquiry, regarding the question "Does God Exist?" The debate will be in the Elliott University Center Auditorium and it is free and open to the public.  We hope to see you there!

UNCG Outreach Report 4-6-2011

Yesterday's outreach at UNCG was very profitable as I had the opportunity to speak one-on-one to a wide variety of unbelievers over a 4.5 hour period.  I spoke with four Muslims, several skeptics, a few false converts, some hedonists, a couple of pluralists, a few Moralistic Therapeutic Deists, a few who were ready to listen, and at least two Christians.  I also had the opportunity to give out a few small ESV Bibles.  I spoke with nearly every variety of unbelieving college student yesterday and had the opportunity to engage them in pleasant and cordial discussion, even when we strongly disagreed.  Being a good listener and asking follow-up questions to understand the unbeliever's perspective was helpful in avoiding misrepresentation and to further productive conversation, but I'll touch on that a little later in this post.

Question of the day:  "Does absolute truth exist?"

After introducing myself and using that lead in question to start a conversation, I heard the following objections, questions, and statements:

1. I don't need anybody's forgiveness!
2. How do you know the Bible is really the word of God?
3. If God would appear right in front of me, then I'd believe in Him.
4. How can God send people to Hell who have never heard of Jesus?
5. How can Allah send people to Hell simply because they don't believe that Jesus is God?
6. What about the atrocities of the Crusades?
7. We can't know anything for certain.
8. I believe in absolute truth, but truth varies from person to person.
9. Why do I need to become a Christian when I believe in God and am just as happy as you are?
10. To each his own!
11. Why did Jesus have to die on the cross?
12. Why does God need people to worship Him?  That seems selfish.
13. I was born a Christian!
14. I'm a Christian, but I think God accepts everybody regardless of their religion.
15. Why do I have to presuppose the God of the Bible in order to make sense of my experience?
16. Which God?
17. These types of disagreements cause war, strife, and bloodshed!

Asking follow-up questions like "How do you know that?", "Why?", and "Why Not?" as well as stating "Let me review what I think I heard you say so that I can make sure I don't misunderstand or misrepresent you" were absolutely critical for furthering the conversation when strong disagreement became evident.  Consider the following examples from yesterday's outreach.

Statement # 1 above, "I don't need anybody's forgiveness!"  A  young man made this statement after I had explained the gospel to him and his other two friends.  His body language indicated that he was upset that God would be angry with him for his sins.  He was also obviously put off by the idea that he would have to ask God for mercy and put his sole trust in the cross-work of Jesus Christ in order to be forgiven.  His personality (from what I could glean in the fifteen minutes that I spoke with him) was that of a strong (physically and psychologically), proud, confident young man.  Thus, a God that demanded his submission and allegiance was naturally repulsive, offensive, and ludicrous to him (Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 1:18; 2:14; 2 Cor. 2:15-16).  I responded to his assertion with a simple "Why not?  Please explain why you think you don't need God's forgiveness."  He was stumped in a good way, but quickly shrugged his shoulders and confidently retorted, "I don't know and really don't care."  Though this was a negative response, I still was able to finish the conversation in a positive way after receiving his potentially conversation-ending retort simply because I asked him for clarifying questions and showed a genuine interest in listening to him even though he was somewhat difficult to interact with.  He and his friends shook my hand, thanked me for the conversation and I was off to the next person.

Question # 16, "Which God?"  I responded to this person by asking, "What do you mean by that?"  I then shut up and let them explain themselves.  Once they did, I then pointed out how all of the major world religions have competing and contradictory truth claims and so cannot be all true.  They agreed, and this allowed me to explain why the Biblical gospel is the truth.

Assertion # 7, "We can't know anything for certain."  The young man that said this was the hedonistic "class clown" type of unbeliever that was with a friend who was just like him.  I can't recall anything that he said that was in the least bit serious.  Not only that, he was clearly "performing" in front of his goof-off buddy, so he wasn't planning on being serious.  After he made the above assertion, I asked, "Are you certain about that?" and he responded, "Nope, I can't know anything for certain, including that.  Sh*t, I don't even know if I exist!"  Although I wanted to slap him to prove to him that he really existed, instead I responded, "If you don't know that you exist, then who is talking to me right now?", he responded, "H*ll man, I don't know."  I said, "You're not really interested in having a serious conversation are you?" and he said, "Naw man, I just want to have fun!"  I then said, "Well, have a nice day" and strangely enough, they both thanked me for the profitless conversation!  Go figure.  The above interaction probably lasted less than a minute.  I point that out to exhort you to avoid wasting time with people like this.  You may be tempted to continue to try to reason with them, but when you get the type of nonsense responses I just described, you are wasting your time, so move on and find someone who will intelligently converse with you.   

Assertion # 3, "If God would appear right in front of me, then I'd believe in Him."  My response to this young man was, "How would you know that it was really God?  How do you know you weren't hallucinating?  How would you know that it wasn't a demon or a space alien?"  He said, "Highly unlikely" but his friend answered, "No, it's not, you don't really know."  It was then that I began to deconstruct this young man's empiricism and then pointed out to him that there's all kinds of things that we believe in that we don't and can't experience through the five senses (i.e., the existence of other minds, logical laws, etc.).  Then he seemed more willing to listen to what I had to say.

IN CONCLUSION, it is important that we think about how to intelligently and courteously interact with the above questions and assertions while giving Biblical answers.  All of the above encounters (except the one with the hedonists), allowed for a profitable conversation that led to a full presentation of the gospel.  Some of these unbelievers (i.e., the Muslims) had never heard an explanation of why the cross of Christ is necessary for salvation.  This is extremely important since the very thing that Islam repudiates is the only thing that can save them from sin and provide the necessary grounds for forgiveness without making Allah unjust (Pro. 17:15; Rom. 3:26).  Examples like this could be multiplied from yesterday, but the important thing is to be ready to answer with gentleness and respect, thus earning an opportunity to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). 

Can There Be Good Without God? - A Friendly Yet Critical Review of the Debate

This past Thursday night (1-27-2011) Shepherd's Fellowship had its second "Worldview Night" by viewing a debate at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Theme: Ratio Christi of UNCG (represented by Adam Tucker and Bill Pratt, hereafter noted as "RC") and the UNCG Atheists Agnostics and Skeptics (represented by Joshua Deaton and Robert Eldredge, hereafter noted as "UNCG AAS") debated whether the Christian or an atheistic worldview better accounts for morality and which worldview offers a superior understanding of how morality works in the world.

Location & Time: The event was held in the Elliot University Center (EUC) in the EUC auditorium from @ 7-9 p.m.

Format: This was a debate structured as a panel discussion with each side giving a 16 minute opening statement, then each side lead a question and discussion session with the other for 17 minutes respectively. Both sides then offered 5 minute closing statements, followed by a 10 minute break and 30 minute Q&A period where the panelists answered written audience questions.

Critique

Accommodations

• The accommodations were comfortable, the panelists were easily heard, and the lighting was sufficient for the audience to take notes.
• We were pleasantly greeted upon entering the lobby of the auditorium by representatives from both sides and received literature from them as well as an explanation of how to use our note-cards and poll cards. The warm greeting and instructions was a nice touch!
• We had the opportunity to turn in a poll card at the end of the debate indicating whether we had changed our position regarding our general metaphysical orientation as well as our views concerning the thesis of the debate.
  

Debate Moderation

• At one point during RC's opening statement, there was so much scoffing going on behind us from a detractor(s), that I couldn't make out parts of what Mr. Tucker was saying. Of course this was a violation of audience conduct rules read by the moderator before the debate. The detractor(s) was several rows behind us and still loud enough to hear intelligibly. However, no one near the front of the audience turned around so I doubt the moderator could even hear it to correct it. Such is the case with a larger venue.
  
• In my opinion, the moderator seemed slightly biased towards the UNCG AAS. He allowed Joshua Deaton to take too long to ask his first question and make other off-hand comments that were not germane to certain portions of the discussion. Also, I'm not sure if I heard this correctly (I'll have to go back and examine the audio-video when it becomes available), but I thought that Robert Eldredge at one point blasphemed and said, "Oh Jesus!" I realize that emotions can run high in a debate, but a moderator should work hard to keep such emotional outbursts to a minimum and focus on maintaining socially acceptable behavior, which does not include blasphemy or off-hand comments that are not germane to the discussion at hand.
  

Panelists Critique: RC

CON:

• The RC panelists willingly ditched the Bible from the start. This is a typical strategy for those holding to the classical apologetic methodology. The classical apologist does this because he wants to show that you can ground moral realism by invoking a general theism since he believes that (1) it cannot be philosophically demonstrated that the Christian God alone is the necessary grounds for moral realism, and (2) so as to avoid alienating a secular audience and perhaps provoking interest in a general theism so as to provide a framework for later demonstrating the existence of the Christian God via various evidential and rational-philosophical arguments supporting both the reliability of the Bible and the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. However, giving up the Bible in a religious debate clearly contradicts 2 Corinthians 10:5, which states, "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:4-5 NAU). We are commanded to defend the faith once for all handed down to the saints, not a deistic god via philosophical argumentation that is detached from Scripture (Jude 3; Col. 2:3-8). Romans 1:19-21 tells the Christian that the unbeliever already knows that the Creator exists, regardless of their degree of truth suppression. None of the apostles ever defended the faith without appealing directly to Scripture or at least alluding to its teachings. My view is that for a professing Christian to give up the Bible in a debate involving God is sinful. It's like a soldier who willingly enters the battlefield and lays down his weapon and boastfully says to his opponent, "I don't need my sword, I can beat you without it even though I'm ordered by my commanding officer to use it at all times."
  
• RC asserted that you don't have to believe in God to be moral, but only to ground morality. I understand this argument, but Biblically speaking, it simply isn't true that one can be reckoned moral without faith in Christ. According to God, there are no good people regardless of how well you walk society's moral line (Romans 3:12). This is why we need an imputed righteousness from Christ (Romans 4:4-5; Philippians 3:9). Also, unbelief itself is sin, and final unbelief will land all unrepentant sinners in Hell (Revelation 21:8). Thus, the completely antithesis of what it means to be moral according to God's standards. Thus, no unbeliever can be good according to God. I realize that telling an unbeliever in an academic debate that he can't be moral whatsoever unless he repents and places his faith in Christ isn't the best way to earn respect with the academy, get more debate opportunities, or win the crowd, but it's better to be Biblically correct rather than politically correct regardless of the circumstances. To the wind with academic respectability!
• Mr. Pratt replied to one of Mr. Deaton's questions with this response: "Christians aren't any more morally certain than atheists." What? (!) You mean that believers can't be sure that adultery, fornication, murder, abortion, or pedophilia is wicked? Regardless of the context or the specific question that was asked of Mr. Pratt, this statement is wrong any way you slice it.
• In response to a question related to the six days of creation, Mr. Pratt affirmed old earth creationism and stated that it's not a matter of orthodoxy. I agree that a person can be saved and affirm old earth creationism, but Jesus said that the creation of Adam and Eve was from the beginning of the creation, not at the relative end of history, 3.5 billion years after the earth came into existence (Mark 10:6). Affirming old earth creationism also undermines the Adam-Christ parallels in the New Testament (Romans 5/1 Corinthians 15) by denying that animal death entered the world through the fall. It also denies not only the historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11 adopted by the majority of scholars throughout church history pre-19th century, but it also defies a consistent grammatico-historical hermeneutic so as to maintain consistency with secular paradigms regarding the age of the earth.
  

PRO:

• RC did an excellent job pressing the UNCG AAS panelists with the problem of the "Naturalistic Fallacy", i.e., getting an "ought" from an "is". This is one of the fundamental problems for atheism's attempt to justify moral realism and it is one of the major reasons why many philosophically astute atheists are moral relativists. For those not familiar with this classic philosophical problem as expounded by skeptic David Hume, the idea is that what is the case doesn't necessarily tell us what should be the case. In other words, just because people behave a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that they ought to behave that way. On atheism, all you ultimately have are statistical averages as it pertains to moral habits. But statistical averages don't tell us what should be happening, they only tell us what is happening. This is the problem of trying to derive any moral standards whatsoever from science, Sam Harris' views notwithstanding.
  
• RC revealed the hypocrisy of the UNCG AAS by showing that while they have no problem accusing the Christian God of being immoral by regulating slavery in the Old and New Testaments, yet they dogmatically affirmed that moral standards are determined by society, biology, and individual reason. But given the atheist's standards for determining ethics, perhaps Bronze age Hebrews lived in a society where slavery was a given, hadn't experienced as much "cultural evolution", and had "reasoned" that slavery was the best option for many who didn't have modern welfare-state conveniences like prison and refugee camps, Medicaid, HUD-housing, and food stamps. Thus, on the atheist's standards, slavery would have been morally obligatory in certain circumstances in ancient Hebrew or Greco-Roman culture.
  
• RC also did a good job showing the inconsistency of the UNCG AAS holding to both naturalistic materialism and moral culpability since naturalism implies biochemical predestination and moral culpability implies that people are free moral agents; ideas which are obviously incompatible with one another.
  
• RC did a fair job of explaining how Israelite slavery was the result of the effects of sin operating in a bronze age, warrior-class society. However, where they waffled a bit was on the subject of whether slavery was absolutely sinful under both Old and New Covenant eras and the question of why God couldn't have legislated against it in light of the fact that He easily created the universe in six days. I appreciated Mr. Pratt's brief explanation of Hebrew slavery being likened to indentured servitude, for this was indeed the case for Hebrew slaves (Ex. 21:2-11; Lev. 25:39-43); but this didn't apply for Gentile slaves acquired through conquest (Lev. 25:44-46) and both were still considered as "property" of their master, whether Hebrew or not (Ex. 21:20). The Biblical presentation is that if slavery was practiced in accordance with the laws associated with the particular covenant administration that a believer was under (i.e., Mosaic Law = O.T.; Law of Christ = N.T.), then slavery wasn't sinful in and of itself. What was sinful, was the abuse of the system that God regulated (cf. Ex. 21:1-10; 20-21; Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1). However, just as biblical divorce wasn't ideal but was permitted and regulated under both covenants (Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 19:1-12; 1 Cor. 7:15), neither was slavery ideal but was permitted and regulated. The Biblical ideal regarding slavery is found in 1 Corinthians 7:21 and Philemon 15-17. It would also have been helpful to point out that the existence of literal slavery in a fallen world points to the fact that everyone is a spiritual slave, whether to Satan or Christ.
  

Panelists Critique: UNCG AAS

• Mr. Deaton's first question during the discussion time was too long and convoluted. It seemed as though the question was purposefully convoluted so as to trip up the RC panelists, though I can't be sure of such. I panned the crowd after Mr. Deaton asked his first question, and while I initially understood the question, I observed many confused faces in the audience who obviously didn't.
  
• The UNCG AAS' explanation of how objective moral norms develop (social standards, biology, individual reason) was easily shown to be self-referentially incoherent when they tried to argue against the supposed immorality of the Bible (i.e., slavery, Midianite war-brides of Numbers 31:18ff).
• The UNCG AAS panelists denied moral relativism but then affirmed the same. Their rationale for moral norms was essentially based upon their own personal preference. Thus, they denied moral subjectivism with their mouths but ended up affirming it when pressed to give a non-subjective grounding for ethical standards.
  
• When pressed by the RC as to what constitutes the grounds for determining whether an action is moral or immoral, the UNCG AAS said "whatever promotes peace and happiness." But this is obviously wrong prima facie, for what makes one person happy may sadden or infuriate another. What brings pain may bring pleasure to another. Consider the worn out argument of Nazi Germany; what made the German people happy via the Third Reich's propaganda campaign was determined by social conditioning, reasoning, and supposed biological evolution (social Darwinism) and that amounted to the slaughter of 6 million Jews and 6 million non-Jews. It made the Nazi's happy, it angered, saddened, and infuriated much of the rest of Western culture. What brings peace, welfare, and happiness to some, may kill others.
  
• Eutyphro's Dilemma - This is an old, worn-out atheistic canard that refuses to die. As Mr. Pratt already answered in a blog article, what constitutes good for God proceeds from God's nature is not above it, under it, or external to it. God's standard is not external to Him (voluntarism), nor arbitrary (Divine command theory), but internal to Him. Morality is thus grounded in the internal, immutable character of God. So, while some of God's laws may change as He changes His dealings with men through various covenants and eras of redemptive history (Heb. 7:12), God's internal character does not change and cannot change (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8), thus guaranteeing an objective, transcendent grounding for many moral norms (Matt. 22:37-40, Rom. 13:8-10). The atheists' objection showed that they simply didn't understand the solution or didn't want to understand it.
  
• Numbers 31:18-20 - Mr. Deaton referred to this text in an attempt to argue that God commanded the rape of Midianite female captives. A few things need to be noted: (1) These were war-brides, not rape victims (Deut. 21:10-14). The word rape is found nowhere in Numbers 31. The punishment for raping a married or betrothed woman in the Old Testament was the death penalty (Deut. 22:25-27). Mr. Deaton made up the idea of Midianite women being raped and then imputed such wickedness to God in an effort to slander the word of God, discredit RC, and to justify his atheism. (2) War-brides were provided for with a home, food, shelter, clothing, etc., all fulfilling God's requirements for holy war when Israel took vengeance on His enemies (Deut. 20:14-15; 21:10-14). Carrying off virgin women from conquered lands as booty to provide war-brides was a much better alternative than leaving them in their conquered lands without a husband to provide for their needs. Again, this was the best option considering that these people lived in a warrior-class culture that didn't have our modern welfare-state conveniences like prison and refugee camps, Medicaid, HUD-housing, and food stamps.
• The UNCG AAS arguments boiled down to this: If our morality makes us and other people in our society happy, then it's good; if not, then it's evil. However, they fail to notice that while they rail against the Bible for slavery, war-brides, etc., the selfsame standards that they used to shroud their moral relativism actually justifies the very morality that they hate in the Bible.
  

IN CONCLUSION, though I have truly appreciated some of what my Christian friends said in this debate, and though I do not particularly enjoy writing a critical review of their apologetic efforts, it is a necessary and worthwhile task. I hope that other Christian men would do the same with me were I in the same situation. I also hope that I would have the keen mind and godly character needed to take to heart their constructive criticism in order to become a better servant of Christ. In regards to my critiques of the UNCG AAS panelists, I am sad to say that I have virtually nothing positive to say in regards to their argumentation, though I have appreciated the fact that several of them have been very kind to me in the past and I trust they will do so in the future. In all, our church members who attended were reminded of the absolute necessity of holding forth the word of God as the foundational starting point for all of their thinking, for without that, you do not have access to the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3-8).

UNCG Outreach Report 1-19-2011

INTRODUCTION: I had several profitable conversations with many students about the truth of God's grace yesterday. I handed out at least a hundred ministry cards with the gospel on it, and spoke with many, many unbelievers. Notable conversations were with one man of the Baha'i faith, two agnostics, and several people who claimed to be Christians but couldn't really explain anything about the gospel.

Question of the Day: In your personal opinion what does it take for a person to go to heaven?

Our Bahai friend

This man was the first person I spoke with face to face after handing out a few ministry cards. After handing him our ministry card he said, "What is this?" and I said, "I am a pastor of a local Christian church and this card has to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ; do you know what the gospel is sir?" He said, "Uh, no, why don't you tell me what it is?" So I started explaining the gospel to him and he interrupted me and explained that he held to the Baha'i faith. He then asked me if I knew anything about Baha'i and I said "very little". He then tried to turn the tables and proselytize me (which happens sometimes) and I he told me that the Baha'i believe the gospel of Jesus just like Christians. Then I said, "Let's see if that's true; please explain to me the main teachings of Baha'i." He then said that Baha'i had prophets and I said, "You mean Baha'u'llah, right?" He said, "Yes, but I thought you said you didn't know anything about Baha'i?" I said, "No, I said I knew very little about it, but I did know that." So he continued. He came to the point where he explained that Baha'u'llah was a prophet of God and I asked, "He's the second coming of Jesus Christ right?" He said yes and I said, "Well, there's the problem. Jesus warned us about false prophets and false Messiahs who would seek to mislead many saying that they were the Messiah (Matthew 24:4) and Jesus said that there were certain signs that would accompany His return, Baha'u'llah didn't meet those requirements, therefore Baha'u'llah was a false Messiah that preached a false gospel.

At this point he got a little hot and bothered that I would say such about his prophet and asked me, "Have you read Baha'i literature?" I said, "no", he said, "How can you say such things about Baha'u'llah and Baha'i when you've never read our literature?" to which I calmly responded, "I don't need to, if it contradicts the clear teaching of Christ regarding His second coming, Baha'u'llah didn't meet that criteria, then I know on the authority of Christ's teaching that Baha'u'llah is a false Messiah with a false gospel." Apparently some folks standing by didn't appreciate my Baha'i friend getting a little hot under the collar during our conversation and someone called the cops.

Here comes the heat!

The police officer arrived in his patrol car, walked up to us, and so I quickly but courteously ended my conversation with my Baha'i friend and then introduced myself to the officer with a warm handshake while identifying myself, told him my purpose for being there, and at his request I gave him my driver's license. This officer was one of the two that arrived on the scene in the Fall semester after an atheist came up and stood right in front of me laughing at me and blowing smoke on me when I was open-air preaching at UNCG on 8-24-2010. This officer kindly asked me to do all that I can to avoid upsetting people while distributing literature and talking to them. I assured him that I would, then I thanked him for his service to the community, and then gave him a parting handshake. As an aside, I want to remind my Christian readers that we must always show the utmost respect to the civil authorities as they are ordained by God for the general protection and welfare of society and for the punishment of evildoers (Rom. 13:1-5; 1 Peter 2:13-17). We must do this whether they are kind or cruel and we must obey them as long as they don't command us to do something that is sinful or prohibit us from doing something that is explicitly commanded in Scripture (Acts 4:19-20, 5:29). However, even when we disobey in those circumstances, we must still be polite and respectful and accept our punishment as the will of God (1 Peter 2:12, 15; 3:15; Philippians 1:29).

Talking to three day laborers

UNCG always has some kind of construction work going on, and I saw three men sitting outside on the brick patio of a nearly completed building having a smoke break, so I walked over to talk to them. After introducing myself, I asked them what it takes for a person to go to heaven? In a group of three, its almost always the case that one person is more talkative than the other two. So, the most talkative man of the group stated that you can worship whatever you want, as long as you are sincere about it. I then asked him that if I called the maple tree behind him "Jesus" and then bowed down and repented and believed on my maple-tree Jesus and feverishly worshiped it, would do me any good on the day of judgment? He said "Yes". All three men agreed that as long as I was sincere enough, it didn't matter what I worshiped, I would still go to heaven when I die. I then asked, "Since your criteria for whether a person goes to heaven or not is the degree of their sincerity, when the terrorists flew the planes into the World Trade Center on 9-11, they were sincere enough to die for their beliefs, so did they go to heaven?" Then the shuckin' and jivin' started and two of them slowly made their way back to the workplace.

One man was left finishing his cigarette and I sat down beside him, asked him his name, and he said "Omar". He said, "Preacher, I want to ask you one question, if what you believe is true, why is it that most people don't believe it." I said, "Omar, that's a great question, one that the writer of 2/3 of the New Testament had to deal with. The Apostle Paul gave God's answer to that question in Romans 9." Then I began reading and explaining God's sovereignty in salvation from Romans 9:6-23 and Ephesians 1 and he was transfixed on me. I explained to him that most people are created for destruction and that they will glorify God in said destruction; but that God has chosen some to receive mercy through faith in Jesus Christ and that that is one of the reasons I am out there today. I explained that the preaching of the gospel is the means that God uses to gather in His elect, and at that point, he seemed to get convicted. I then explained the good news to him in a way I thought he could understand it (i.e., sin problem > Jesus' active obedience throughout His life > Jesus' passive obedience on the cross > faith in what Jesus did on the cross = justification). We shook hands, he thanked me for my time, and I was off.

A happy agnostic

The next conversation I had worth reporting was with a young, agnostic student who listened to our debate with the UNCG Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics. I asked him why he was an an agnostic and the only really good reason he could give me was the problem of hypocrisy in the church. He said it drove him away from "organized religion". I asked him if he liked "disorganized religion" instead. He laughed and I agreed with him that hypocrisy in the church is a real problem and then I went on to explain that many people are religious but not converted and briefly explained the doctrine of regeneration and the problem of false conversions in evangelicalism. I told him that I used to be a skeptic and so he asked me why I became a believer, and I said, "Because the Holy Spirit did a work of regeneration in me as I just described to you." I then went on to explain, "It was only when I had the light of Christ that I was able to make sense out of things like moral realism, human nature, evil, and scientific and logical paradigms. He wanted to talk more and was a great guy, but he had to scoot.

An unhappy agnostic

After having several other conversations with people, I spoke with another agnostic student named Jessica. Based on Jessica's body language and eye-rolling, she wasn't interested in talking, but I persisted. I asked her if absolute truth existed, she rolled her eyes and said no. I then asked her if that proposition itself was absolutely true and she hesitated a little and said "uh, I don't know." I said, "How can you be sure that absolute truth doesn't exist if you can't know if that sentence itself is true?" I'm not convinced that she was following me, so I moved on to ask her what basis she has for grounding moral standards given naturalism. She hedged a little in her answer and I suggested "Do you believe society makes up moral standards?" and she said, "Who else, if not society?" and I said, "Well, I'd argue that morality is ultimately grounded in God, but that's not what we're talking about just yet, so I want to know how you can condemn another society's actions if each individual societies get to make up their own morality?" She said, we don't. I said, "Really? Do you really think what Nazi Germany did to 12 million people was okay?" She said, "Yeah, I guess" (eyes-rolling). I then said, "So, what you're telling me is that it would be okay for a society to legalize the torturing of little girls for fun?" She agreed that it would and I said, "Oh c'mon, you don't really mean that do you? What about if it was your little girl?" to which she responded, "Well, I wouldn't personally agree with it, but I'd have no choice since society said it was okay." I then said, "You've just given me a great example of why I am thankful for being a Christian. You see Jessica, you may think that what I believe is hooey, but if you begin with the Christian God, you can declare something to be wicked even though society says its okay because God has the final say-so in any matter. I then explained to her, that contrary to her intellectual beliefs, she actually lives in a way contradictory to said beliefs and expects moral order, uniformity in nature, and the absoluteness of logical laws. I then asked, "Do you care that you are being irrational by contradicting yourself like that?" and she rolled her eyes again and said, "Not really." I then said shook her hand, thanked her for her time. Please pray for Jessica, she had a very hard heart.

IN CONCLUSION, I've said it before and I'll say it again: more and more intelligent people I witness to don't care that they are irrational; that they hold to mutually exclusive and contradictory beliefs. As long as they are comfortable, they are quite content to ride the wave of irrationality. I think this is providential, for it is a call for Christians to focus on the gospel as the power of God unto salvation while not leaving the rest of the apologetic task undone.

ANNOUNCEMENT: Worldview Night 1-27-2011

Thursday night, 1-27-2011 Shepherd's Fellowship will have its second "Worldview Night" by viewing a debate at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. And no, Dusman will not be participating in this one. I'm too busy with ministry right now.

Theme: Ratio Christi of UNCG and the UNCG Atheists Agnostics and Skeptics will be offering a panel discussion exploring the different concepts for grounding morality. Does the Christian or Atheistic worldview better account for morality, and which offers a better understanding of how morality works in our world? What are the problems and benefits of the different worldviews? These just some of the areas to be explored.

Location: The event will be held in the Elliot University Center (EUC) in the EUC auditorium from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. The auditorium is on the middle floor of the EUC to the left of the information desk, if you are facing the information desk. Here is a map of the location and parking for those traveling onto campus for it.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=36.066281%2C-79.80841&spn=0.005099%2C0.011362&t=h&z=17&msid=204162322366761547245.0004997fd3da48e6bf263

Format: This is being called a panel discussion but will be structured like a debate, with each panelist giving an opening statement then each side having time to question and lead discussion with the other. After that there will be time available for each side to give a closing statement. Finally at the end there will be time for audience questions and answers.

Representing Ratio Christi will be:

Adam Tucker: Is the UNCG campus director of Ratio Christi and a student at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

Bill Pratt: Christian apologist who blogs at toughquestionsanswered.org and is working on his apologetics degree at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

Representing the UNCG Atheists Agnostics and Skeptics will be:

Joshua Deaton: Got his first degree in political science from UNCG and is currently working on a second degree in biology. He studied to be in the ministry and his studies lead him to be an atheist.

Robert Eldredge: Current President of the UNCG Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics Robert got undergraduate degrees in Philosophy and Political Science from Guilford College and is currently working on a Masters of Public Affairs degree from UNCG.

UNCG Outreach Report 12-2-2010

Introduction: Today's outreach lasted about 2.5 hours and consisted of both open-air preaching and one-on-one evangelism. During some of the one-on-one conversations I noticed a few people standing around to eavesdrop in on the conversations. These conversations focused on sin, righteousness, judgment, truth, the gospel, various worldviews, what is tolerance, etc. I tried to focus my open-air preaching on exalting Christ and proclaiming Him as the only solution for people's sin problem and intellectual problems. As expected, there was some mockery from some unbelievers walking by and yelling nonsensical things. However, I was surprised to have no hecklers given the fact that while it was a little chilly, the weather was pretty nice earlier in the afternoon. Nevertheless, many people stopped and stood around to listen to the open air preaching.

Our Question of the Day was:

What must a person do to be reconciled to God?

I was encouraged to hear several people answer this question correctly and as usual, it led to many great conversations having to do with the things of God and the gospel. However, as usual, we found that most people answered with a view of God akin to Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and/or they didn't care either way. I've found that some people simply try to avoid me after I've already done open-air preaching. I work on being especially loving and compassionate in my open-air preaching, but I never shy away from preaching the whole counsel of God, especially when it comes to sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come. After preaching, I had some friendly conversations with a few folks who were standing around in the area and only one of them refused to take a business-sized tract with our church contact information on it.

Two Agnostics

I saw two people with piercings, tattoos, and frankly, I couldn't tell whether one of them was a male or female (I'm not trying to be offensive whatsoever, just stating the facts). I hate it when I'm in that situation because I don't know whether to call them "sir" or "ma'am". I wonder if they care about that too? I've often wondered if they would get offended if I called them "sir" and they were a "ma'am" and I then asked, "Why are you offended at me calling you by the wrong gender when I can't tell what gender you are?" Oh well, I digress.

I courteously approached the one that I could discern was a man and asked him what he thought of my preaching and he said, "You're wasting your time on me, you can say whatever you want and you're not going to change my mind." I said, "You're right, I can't change your mind, and thankfully, that's not my job; but I would like to ask you one question: Why do you reject the gospel?"

He and his friend both responded that they were agnostic and that they thought its impossible to know which religion, if any, is true since all religions claim to have the truth but all their truth claims are mutually exclusive and contradictory. In light of that I then asked, "Given what you've said, do you believe that God could reveal some things to people in such that they could know them for certain?" His friend said yes, he said no. So I asked him, "Do you know that for certain?" He seemed to get confused, so I asked him this, "Do you believe that you are certain that you can't know any religious truth for certain?" He didn't seem to get it, so I asked it again, and the third time he seemed to understand what I was getting at as I could tell by his body language that he felt like he was being intellectually backed into a corner, so I then said, "Dude, I'm not trying to purposefully trip you up, but I'm demonstrating that if you don't believe in the God of Scripture and you reject the gospel, you really have no grounds for knowing anything at all because when you reject the gospel, you are left with futile thinking." I then gave other examples from logic, morality, science, etc. I then attempted to tactfully explain that he lives like he knows he's living in God's world (i.e., depends upon logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, absolute truth, etc.) yet takes all these good gifts that God has given him for granted, is ungrateful for all these good things that have been freely given to him and that this is another manifestation of his sin. It was then that he said, "Yeah, but didn't men write the Bible?" and I said, "Yes, but we believe in dual authorship, for the Bible says that men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). If you reject the Bible simply because it was written by men then you would have to reject any other writing produced by men and you'd have to reject your own arguments against the Bible because they were produced by you, a man. If the criteria for rejecting the Bible is that any religious document can't be true simply because it has been produced by men, then that's a self-defeating argument." I then briefly gave testimony of my conversion from atheism to Christ and he responded with "You're not changing my mind" and then he started calmly walking away. I then said, "I know, but I know the One who can, for He changed mine 15 years ago." I thanked him for his time and told him that I appreciated him listening to me even though he really didn't want to.

Namby-Pamby Preaching

When finishing up for the day, I was walking back to the car, I saw a guy who was standing around listening to my preaching and I asked him, "What did you think of my preaching today?"

He said that he was a Christian and attends a gospel-preaching church, but he was concerned that my preaching was driving the students away instead of reaching them. He said, "I would characterize you as a Hell-fire preacher." I said, "Thanks, John the Baptist and Jesus were too!" I then asked him, "Since you think the message is driving people away, what do you think I should say to get these people to think about the judgment that awaits them should they fail to repent?" He said, "Good question, I hadn't really thought about it like that." I then asked, "Where in the pages of the New Testament do you find Jesus or the Apostles telling people that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives?" He then admitted that he couldn't think of anywhere that Jesus or the Apostles told lost sinners that. I then said, "What was the basic message that Jesus and the Apostles preached to lost people?" He didn't really know what to say so I said, "Dude, the preaching in the New Testament was repent of your sins and turn to Christ or perish. That's the basic gospel message of the New Testament."

I then explained that many churches today are filled with preachers that tell the people what they want to hear instead of what they really need to hear and that this was prophesied by the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 4:3-4. I graciously explained to him that his statements to me are to some degree, a reflection of that. He appreciated my comments, and I encouraged him to re-read the book of Acts to get an idea of how the apostles preached to lost people.

IN CONCLUSION, I think that evangelical churches are confusing Biblical meekness with political correctness and removing the offense of the cross in the process. Woe to us. May we repent and return from our pandering to the philosophy of the age through our fear of man and preach the word, whether it's convenient or inconvenient, with great patience and instruction (2 Timothy 4:2).

The Dual Authorship of Scripture

One of my opponents claimed in the debate on 9-2-2010 that since the "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius presents a consistent message and style throughout thus proving singular authorship yet because the Bible differs from "Testament to Testament", this shows that it can't possibly be the work of a singular author, namely, God.

First, not only does this show how ignorant our critic is of the traditional orthodox view of inspiration and authorship (i.e., dual authorship), but this also demonstrates that our critic's standards for inspiration are higher than God's! Dual authorship teaches that both God and man are responsible for producing the original writings of the Bible. 2 Peter 1:19-21 sums it up quite well,

So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Second, the reason why the Scripture uses different stylistic elements, different language, and reflects different cultural understandings and time periods is because "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Those "men" were the product of a variety of cultures, times, and languages and they were the God-ordained secondary cause, or the earthly means that God used to produce Scripture. Thus, a human influence on Scripture is expected and appreciated.

Third, Notice that v. 21 tells us that "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will" meaning, that the first cause of Scripture doesn't originate from man's will but from God's mind. As noted above, the secondary cause is man; i.e., God carries the man along with his individual talents, abilities, and characteristics to put a pen to the page to write God's word; nevertheless, the end product is the God-breathed text. Dr. Robert Reymond explains this quite well when commenting on 2 Peter 1:20-21,

In this remarkable statement Peter first asserts two negatives about the production of prophecy: first, that no prophecy of Scripture originated in ("arose, came from," ginetai) the prophet's estimate of the current state of affairs or or in his prognosis about the future, that is, no prophecy of Scripture emerged from his own understanding, and second, that no prophecy of Scripture was motivated by man's will, that is, no prophecy of Scripture came from mere human impulse. By these negatives Peter totally excludes the human element as the ultimate originating cause of Scripture. [Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed., (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 38.]

Fourth, here's a few Scriptural examples:

So Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel. 10 Then Moses commanded them, saying, "At the end of every seven years, at the time of the year of remission of debts, at the Feast of Booths, 11 when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing. 12 "Assemble the people, the men and the women and children and the alien who is in your town, so that they may hear and learn and fear the LORD your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law. (Deut. 31:9-12 NAU)

Moses wrote God's law, but they weren't to fear Moses, they were to fear God if they failed to heed what Moses wrote down. This show that the authority for the writing didn't rest with Moses, but with God. Thus, God inspired Moses, Moses wrote what God wanted him to using Moses' own writing style and characteristics, but God gets the credit and the authority. This is what 2 Peter 1:21 is talking about.

God also commanded Isaiah,

And now, go, write it before them on a tablet and inscribe it in a book, that it may be for the time to come as a witness forever. (Isa 30:8 ESV)

God told Jeremiah,

"Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Write all the words which I have spoken to you in a book. (Jer 30:2 NAU)

Fifth, in the New Testament, Jesus promised His disciples that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance the teachings which Jesus Himself had spoken to them (John 14:26; cf. 16:12-13). These teachings could be expressed in different ways by the different gospel writers in such a way that the exact words Jesus spoke were not necessarily repeated verbatim in every context (esp. since He more than likely preached in Aramaic and the gospels were written in Greek), but that the essential content of Christ's teachings are transmitted without error in the original texts. Thus, there's room for the human writer to use his style, gifts, and characteristics while the Holy Spirit carries him along to put on the page what God wants on the page without making the human author an automaton. As Grudem is quick to note,

Once again it must be noted that these word are still considered to be God's own words, even though they are written down mostly by human beings and always in human language. Still, they are absolutely authoritative and absolutely true: to disobey them or disbelieve them is a serious sin and brings judgment from God (1 Cor. 14:37; Jer. 36:29-31). [Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 50.

In conclusion, we don't expect a consistent style throughout since the Bible doesn't expect it. However, contrary to the claims of our critic, we do see a consistent overall message throughout; at least those who have eyes to see and ears to hear can see it.