Does God Need Us to Defend Him?

sermonindex Mar 18, 2007

I recently read the discussion about C.S. Lewis which reminded me of a discussion I had with a few brethren over coffee.

As an unbeliever, I wresteled for over ten years trying to fit what scientists observed about the world with what I'd read in the Bible. A philosophy major, I had taken courses in Earth Sciences and had a basic understanding of geology.

On the one hand, I had a very hard time believing tens of thousands of geologists around the globe were all part of a mass conspiracy to undermine the Bible. On the other, I couldn't believe the God of Truth would lead us to believe the universe was only six thousand years old when the evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

Ditto for "evolution" and the changes that appear in the fossil record around the world. I've found trilobite fossils thousands of feet up in the Rockies. I've seen neanderthal and tyrannasaurus bones. Again, I doubted that tens of thousands of paleontologists were in on the same hoax.

I had read Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Thomas A Kempis and other "apologists", even visited some websites that claimed to solve the discrepancy that seemed to exist between science and religion (like ~~[url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/]~~Answers in Genesis[/url]) but I found them neither convincing nor truthful.

After intellectually wrangling with the scientific/religious problem for years, I listened to a sermon by A.W. Tozer late one night. I believe it was "The Holy Spirit and Why Some Can't Recieve Him" - I was convicted immediately and crying on the kitchen floor. Converted by a dead man. I believed.

I listened to a few more of his sermons and recall him saying during a sermon on Revelation (about the locusts, etc) that he refused to preach about things he couldn't identify. He simply said something along the line of "I don't know exactly what they are, but because the bible says they're coming, they're coming." I admired his sincerity and humility in admitting he didn't have answers for everything. I also believe him. They are coming.

Now, considering my attempts to syncronize science and religion failed and it took the humble words of an old preacher, now dead for some forty-odd years, to help me "knock" and recieve the Holy Spirit...

My questions, concerning apologists and apologetics, are...

~~[b]~~Does God need our arguments to defend Him?

Should we be scrambling to formulate worldly arguments to convict the world of spiritual issues?[/b]

T

Tears_of_joy Mar 18, 2007

Brother, this is good question.

My heart is rejoicing reading this testimony:

After intellectually wrangling with the scientific/religious problem for years, I listened to a sermon by A.W. Tozer late one night. I believe it was "The Holy Spirit and Why Some Can't Recieve Him" - I was convicted immediately and crying on the kitchen floor. Converted by a ~~[b]~~dead man.[/b] I believed.

I cannot ignore the science apologetics efforts through the years, and probably there are results from that.

But I believe with all my heart that it is about the heart, not the head. The lost men need divine touch from heaven. There is a sin in men's heart that must be dealt with. It is on a spiritual level, deeper in the soul. I believe there is a cry out there for a Savior though this cry it is with words, but deep cry from souls, undying souls.

I praise God for your testimony brother.

Greetings,
Kire

sermonindex Mar 18, 2007

But I believe with all my heart that it is about the heart, not the head. The lost men need divine touch from heaven. There is a sin in men's heart that must be dealt with. It is on a spiritual level, deeper in the soul. I believe there is a cry out there for a Savior though this cry it is with words, but deep cry from souls, undying souls.

Amen!

G

ginnyrose Mar 19, 2007

Corey,
I would like to ask you a question now that you have come to the LORD. What is your take on the theory of orgins?

Should we be scrambling to formulate worldly arguments to convict the world of spiritual issues?

Here is a quote from Ravi Zacharias which in my mind could be one answer to your question:
Is it possible that somewhere in the deepest recesses of the human heart we are not really battling intellectual ideas as much as fighting for the right of our sexual proclivities and our passionate indulgences? ~Ravi Zacharias, Lessons from the Battle of Ideas, 11-21

Your testimony blessed me...

ginnyrose

sermonindex Mar 19, 2007

ginnyrose said

I would like to ask you a question now that you have come to the LORD. What is your take on the theory of orgins?

In a nutshell?

I know the Holy Ghost, and thusly, Jesus, experientially. I no longer just hope or believe; I know.

I know there is a God beyond the sphere of direct observation, and that He created the universe. I am experientially aware of the presence of His Holy Spirit. And the Bible tells me He made the world in six days.

I know I've seen trilobites in the Rockies and Dinosaur bones in the badlands - I've seen photos of a neandertal family's bones. I've taken earth sciences courses, and known both geologists and paleontologists, and, like I said in my previous post, don't think the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of scientists are all lying about what they're collectively seeing in the observable universe.

To try to rectify, or syncronize, what the Bible tells me with what the scientists tell me, and what creationists tell me, has simply produced a kind of "cognitive dissonance" - and I've adopted Ezikiel's position when asked about the dry bones: "only thou knowest, my LORD".

I'm sticking to what I know when I say "I don't know".

Is it possible that somewhere in the deepest recesses of the human heart we are not really battling intellectual ideas as much as fighting for the right of our sexual proclivities and our passionate indulgences?

The Bible's replete with references to the human heart... and they're all not very kind. I'm not sure what you, or he, is driving at in that question. Please specify what you're asking me.

sermonindex Mar 19, 2007

From another thread. Posted by orchardkeeper:

A.W.Tozer is quoted in the Revival Hymn video as follows: "He that is from above is above all. I want to say dear Christians don't go around apologizing for Him. Don't go around worried because you can't make His doctrines fit in with what you learned in school. All you learned in school was one fallen head instructing another fallen head. And you don't have to apologize for Him.

P

PTywama3 Mar 19, 2007

Corey_H,

I just wanted to say I'm kind of in the very boat your recent post mentioned right now. I am studying initially for my undergraduate degree, and I am running into the problem that the academic realm by and large can be trusted.

One thing a professor of mine told me (having studied and then taught in Jerusalem for 6 years) is that there is a strong belief that Genesis 1 (and the first few verses of chapter 2) is a hymn. Hebrew poetry, evidently, focuses heavily on the front of a word (and then meter). Taken secondhand, it really does make sense.

All I can pull from that is that I haven't ever run into a horribly scientifically correct song, and I think that Genesis 1 might have been meant for a slightly different reason than the western church wants.

Maybe this was worthwhile, maybe not - but I thought you might like another bit of information.

Blessings,

G

ginnyrose Mar 21, 2007

Is it possible that somewhere in the deepest recesses of the human heart we are not really battling intellectual ideas as much as fighting for the right of our sexual proclivities and our passionate indulgences?
The Bible's replete with references to the human heart... and they're all not very kind. I'm not sure what you, or he, is driving at in that question. Please specify what you're asking me.
You asked for an explanation...Ravi is asking if the reason people work to discredit the Scriptures is because they do not want to repent of their immoral behavior/passions. So you see you have to destroy that authority so it will free you to indulge in whatever your favorite sin is at the moment and in this case Ravi is suggesting it is sexual. Make sense now?
I admire yur honesty in admitting "You do not know" about origins. Perhaps some day the LORD will impress upon your mind the reality of this issue...it will happen if you trust him in other areas of life. Brother, I am almost 60 YO and in my life the LORD did not give me the understanding all at once, it was gradual, done over a period of years, sometimes. So if you can be content to 'not know' at the moment and do not abandon the faith because you do not understand something now, God will come along and give you that understanding - in his time. And when that happens it will be a "WOW" experience.
Blessings,
ginnyrose

sermonindex Mar 21, 2007

Brother, I am almost 60 YO and in my life the LORD did not give me the understanding all at once, it was gradual, done over a period of years, sometimes. So if you can be content to 'not know' at the moment and do not abandon the faith because you do not understand something now, God will come along and give you that understanding - in his time. And when that happens it will be a "WOW" experience.

But...sniff...but I want to know NOW!!! (Sulking, hehe)

C

crsschk Mar 21, 2007

I'm sticking to what I know when I say "I don't know".

Ah, that is tremendous brother...

Amen and amen, ~~[i]~~Lord, Thou knowest[/i] is more than an axiomatic reply now. Wonderful to have some "cognitive dissonance", found it really helpful in many a denominational construct amongst a number of other items.

sermonindex Mar 21, 2007

Wonderful to have some "cognitive dissonance", found it really helpful in many a denominational construct amongst a number of other items.

Ugh. I'd almost say the dissonance was what kept me from the Holy Ghost for so long - excepting, of course, the fact that a world-locked sinner like me was incapable of my own salvation and that Jesus worked in me when it pleased Him...

...which makes me wonder if I'm a calvanistic arminian... thinking... computing... insufficient data...

sermonindex Mar 21, 2007

A few years ago it was fairly popular practice for Bible teachers to claim to find in the Scriptures confirmation of almost every new discovery made by science. Apparently no one noticed that the scientist had to find it before the Bible teacher could, and it never seemed to occur to anyone to wonder why, if it was there in the Bible in such plain sight, it took several thousand years and the help of science before anyone saw it.
Now, I believe that everything in the Bible is true, but to attempt to make it a textbook for science is to misunderstand it completely and tragically. The purpose of the Bible is to bring men to Christ, to make them holy and prepare them for heaven. In this it is unique among books, and it always fulfills its purpose when it is read in faith and obedience.
A.W. Tozer

C

Compton Mar 22, 2007

My questions, concerning apologists and apologetics, are...
~~[b]~~Does God need our arguments to defend Him?
Should we be scrambling to formulate worldly arguments to convict the world of spiritual issues?[/b]

Corey you've stated this delimma well. I did find it abit reactionary to describe AIG as not being truthful.

I would offer that we are talking about degrees here. We can't simply categorize our faith as a matter of the 'heart' as if what we believe is irrational, deferring to science at every feeling of 'cognitive dissonance'. Often our dissonance is simply a lack of available information or understanding...which I believe you are admitting.

Your question of "defending God' is perhaps a rheotrical statement, but there is still the question of budiling up the Christian. We simply cannot retreat to the spiritual world, giving scientists authority over the material world because the Bible deals with material reality. Moses really did split the Red Sea, Joshua really did bring down the walls of Jericho, Hezekiah really was inexplexibly saved from destruction from the Assyrian Army. Besides we are critiquing science, a method of thinking that should embrace critique or quickly becomes mere dogma and doctrine if it refuses to be challenged.

Scientists are not conspirasists, but they do curiously refuse to be questioned by theologians while simultaneously infringing in theology and cosmology with impunity.

Most professional archeologists will deny the bodily ressurection of Jesus. Do we leave this matter up to a choice of the heart and leave our cognitive recognition of this historic fact at the door...perhaps with a shrug of the shoulder we say "I don't know Lord, but you do..." Of course not!

Certainly Christians aren't to be burdened to write acedemic papers for every technical detail missing in the bible...How Noah's ark was engineered ect. Only recognize that Jesus and Paul regarded Noah not as a hero in a hymn but as a historic man.

Regarding dinosaur fossils, I'm not sure what their bones prove towards either evolution or creationism. I don't know of anyone who denies the existence of dinosaurs...they were a whole class of animals that were neither reptiles nor birds...they are deservedly classified as dinosauria, a whole order of animals that for some reason aren't around anymore....(unless you count birds.) The existance and extinction of these animals does not testify against scripture, so I'm not sure what dissonance you feel from them. A fossil, when viewed objectively at face value without any preconceptions, is really not a conclusive proof for any cosmology.

But we are living in a time where infant Darwinian orthodoxy has become the hegemony of our age. Bonhoeffer felt that in our scientific age, "man had come of age" and no longer needed God to explain the universe...and as a result the Church needed to become 'secular' in it's mission. In more recent years Carl Sagan blamed Christianity for holding back civilization 1000 years...he believed that if the Church had never been, mankind might have had the scientific knowledge to be colonizing planets in other solar systems by now. Yet I am finding that this caracaturization of faith as being 'irrational' is not completely unique to our modern age. The early church fathers also addressed evolution (not by name of course, but by it's philosophic denial of God in cosmology). The cosmopolitan Romans regarded Christians as a primitive superstitious people. So in this light, our modern secularism is perhaps just a return to greek philosophy. In any case I feel we must resist regarding faith and rationality as mutually exclusive domains incompatible with one another. The bible is not only spiritually relevant but the material record of scripture is utterly vital to everything we hold dear.

I'm not condraticing you brother. If anything I emphathize with your feelings on this matter...but I would clarify that our faith is more then a matter of the heart. The head is part of the new man as well.;-)

Blessings,

MC