Is Evangelizing the Unevangelized Pointless?

 

I encountered this meme in a Facebook group. Below was my quick response to the meme. On Facebook you have to be succinct. So, the response isn't as nuanced as it could be, but it suffices as an answer that rebuts the claim that evangelism is pointless.

My response:

These are ignorant objections.

//1. if god figured everything out already, evangelism is pointless since you can't change his mind.//

I'm a Calvinist so I do believe in high predestination. The problem with this statement is that under a strong/high view of predestination God ordains both the ends AND THE MEANS. Meaning, not only what will happen, but HOW they will happen. In which case, God ordains the salvation of the elect THROUGH the means of evangelism. Because God ordains the WHOLE causal nexus.

Regarding #2, not all Christians believe that God has made clear His existence to everyone. But even if He did, that doesn't mean that God has also given the knowledge of salvation through the same means. For example, most Christian theologians distinguish between General Revelation and Special Revelation. General Revelation is what we find in the external world we live in [i.e. the universe, earth, stars etc.] plus an internal sensus divinitatis and/or implanted innate knowledge. However, many of the same Christian theologians also believe that the knowledge of Salvation is only found in Special Revelation, not in General Revelation. Special Revelation is only found in places like the Bible [or when the Old Testament Prophets and New Testament Apostles were alive and preached]. Therefore, the Special Revelation still needs to get to the unevangelized by evangelizing them with the Gospel message.

Regarding #3, most Christians deny that those who never heard of God or of the message of salvation "get a free pass". And even those who think some do, don't think it's automatic. There may be other mitigating circumstances or simply the mere Sovereignty of God [etc.] that accounts for why some of those who never heard the message of salvation can sometimes be saved. In which case, all things being equal, it's better to evangelize the unevangelized than not to. Since, the probability goes up that the unevangelized will be saved. Given, for example, that God ordains both ends AND MEANS. Or because God's normative means of saving the lost is by having them heard and respond to the Gospel.

Where In the Old Testament Is Human Blood Taught to be Acceptable for Atonement?

 

On Facebook I encountered an atheist who said he was familiar with the disputes between non-Messianic Jews and believers in Jesus [i.e. Gentile Christians and Messianic Jews]. He thought the Jewish arguments against Christianity are better than the arguments for Christianity. At one point he asked the following.

 //can you point to one verse that God allows human blood for atonement?//

The following was my answer:

1. Jesus isn't a MERE human. Yes, Jesus was truly human, but He was (and is) also truly God. While only the human nature of Jesus died [NOT the Divine nature], the divine PERSON endured the sufferings of death and died substitutionarily for sinners on their behalf. As a Protestant I hold to penal substitutionary atonement [though, that's consistent with being coupled with other subsidiary theories of the atonement]. Being Divine, Jesus' sufferings and death are of more  value [infinite] than that of finite creatures and therefore could atone for an infinite amount of creatures if necessary.

2. This is also why it's natural to think that the animal sacrifices weren't the ultimate solution for atonement. How could inferior animals atone for superior humans who ARE moral agents? Whereas animals are not moral agents, and don't even rise to the level of human sentience. To use a poor analogy, that's like accidentally destroying a gold wedding ring and offering to make up for it with a beer can ring tab. The OT predicted the coming of the Messiah, and it makes sense for much of the Mosaic Covenant and its laws to be figurative or symbolic or emblematic of the future Messiah's work.

3a. When God was angry with the people of Israel, Moses offered himself to be punished in their place. So the concept of human substitution wasn't completely foreign to a Semitic mindset.

Exo. 32:32 Yet now, if You will forgive their sin --- BUT IF NOT, I pray, BLOT ME OUT OF YOUR BOOK WHICH YOU HAVE WRITTEN."

3b. Even Judah offered himself in the place of Benjamin when there was the threat to arrest Benjamin for allegedly stealing the silver cup. Unbeknownst to them it was their brother Joseph who was testing them. It's interesting that it's JUDAH that offers this exchange/substitution. The Davidic line is from the tribe of Judah. For us Christians, this is a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Jesus who is the heir to the Davidic throne.

4. We Christians believe Isaiah 53 clearly teaches the death of the Messiah as an atonement for sin. I understand that Non-Messianic Jews reject this. I've heard their arguments. I think the Christian arguments are better. See Michael Brown's responses, for an example.

5. Daniel 9:24-26 is another passage Christians believe predicts the atoning death of the Messiah. Of course, Jews reject this interpretation, and atheists think that the book of Daniel is riddled with false and failed prophecies. Atheists believe that the ones that were fulfilled were postdictions and that the book itself was written much later than is claimed [e.g. cf. the recent debate at Modern-Day Debate between 2 atheists and 2 theists].

6. In Numbers 25 when the Israelites committed harlotry and idolatry, God commanded the rebellious leaders of the people [who were HUMAN like Jesus] to be executed in order to turn away the anger of the LORD as a kind of atonement. Jesus is the Federal Head of His people similar to how these leaders were representatives of the people. Similar to how they were punished to save the people under them, so Jesus was punished in the place of His people [BTW, as a Calvinist my default position is Limited Atonement, but I'm open to other views as well].

 Num. 25:

1 Now Israel remained in Acacia Grove, and the people began to commit harlotry with the women of Moab.

2 They invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods.

3 So Israel was joined to Baal of Peor, and the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel.

4 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take all the LEADERS of the people and HANG THE OFFENDERS before the LORD, out in the sun, THAT the FIERCE ANGER of the LORD may TURN AWAY from Israel." 

That doesn't just sound like mere expiation [removal of sin or guilt], but surprisingly even the stronger idea of propitiation [i.e. turning away wrath].

7. We Christians believe that the command by God for Abraham to sacrifice of Isaac was emblematic of God's sacrificing His Son in our place. Right before Abraham was going to carry it out the Angel of the LORD [whom many  Christians think is the pre-incarnate Jesus] told Abraham to stop and not harm Isaac. Then a ram was found nearby which was evidently provided for by God to be the substitute for Isaac. God had many reasons for commanding the sacrifice of Abraham. Some include 

1. To show that Abraham's commitment to his God was no less than other pagans' devotion to their gods. 

2. To indicate for all time afterwards that God rejects human sacrifice [we can discuss Jephthah if you like]. 

3. As a figure of Christ' sacrifice, the unique Son of God, just as Isaac was the unique son of Abraham.

Notice the prophecy in Gen. 22:14

Gen. 22:14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, "In the Mount of the LORD it shall be provided."

That's the same area in which Jesus was crucified. For the Christian, the crucifixion of Jesus was the place and time when that prophecy was fulfilled and provision of final atonement was provided.

---

Some after thoughts:

Regarding #2, I found this quote from chapter 5 of A.W. Pink's Divine Covenants:

It is true that great relief was provided by the ceremonial law, for provision was there made for obtaining forgiveness. The means for effecting this was the sacrifices— "the life—blood of an irrational creature, itself unconscious of sin, being accepted by God in His character of Redeemer for the life of the sinner. A mode of satisfaction no doubt in itself unsatisfactory, since there was no just correspondence between the merely sensuous life of an unthinking animal and the higher life of a rational and responsible being; in the strict reckoning of justice the one could form no adequate compensation for the other. But in this respect it was not singular; it was part of a scheme of things which bore throughout the marks of relative imperfection" (P. Fairbairn).

A Quick Response to An Atheist on the Problem of Evil

 

I left a comment on the YouTube video debate between atheist Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) and Catholic Bishop Robert Barron on the topic, "Christianity or Atheism?"

Here's an excerpt of a conversation I had in the comments:

AP: Starting with evil and suffering is starting from ingratitude and lack of appreciation. Atheists like Alex need to not only see the evil and suffering in the world, but need to open their eyes more to the good and beauty in the world too. IF they start doing that, they will move in the direction of finding and trusting God without having to know all the intricacies of why God allows the evils and sufferings that He does.

black baron: You're wrong. We already know the answer to why a loving God would allow the evil and suffering we see in the world. He wouldn't. If you love someone you obviously don't want them to suffer GRATUITOUSLY. Good parents sometime let their children suffer, but only to teach them important lessons or make them better, stronger people. They have to do this though. They are not omnipent. They can't always teach the lesson while avoiding the pain. If there is no reason for our suffering it is incompatible with a loving God. Its not an issue of gratitude. It just doesnt make sense. Theists have given answers such as the instrumentality argument or claim that God gave people free will. But these answers don't add up. To start with theres no such thing as free will

AP: @black baron In the philosophical and theological literature on the Problem of Evil [PoE] the deductive forms of the PoE have pretty much been acknowledged by most philosophers as having been solved. That the deductive/logical form of the PoE against God's existence have all failed. That's why most attention nowadays is on the inductive [i.e. probabilistic] versions. 

- Agnostic Philosopher Paul Draper in his essay "Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists" wrote: "I agree with most philosophers of religion that theists face no serious logical problem of evil."

Atheist Philosopher William L. Rowe in his essay "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism" wrote:

//"Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is <i>logically inconsistent</i> with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim. Indeed, granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God."//

Deductive arguments aim for certainty. Inductive arguments don't. They can only rise to the level of probability. Such inductive arguments often appeal to gratuitous evil and the hiddenness of God [e.g. Shellenberg]. But whether there actually are gratuitous evils has yet to be proven by any anti-theistic arguments. As one online encyclopedia says, "Skeptical theism is the view that God exists but that we should be skeptical of our ability to discern God’s reasons for acting or refraining from acting in any particular instance.  In particular, says the skeptical theist, we should not grant that our inability to think of a good reason for doing or allowing something is indicative of whether or not God might have a good reason for doing or allowing something.  If there is a God, he knows much more than we do about the relevant facts, and thus it would not be surprising at all if he has reasons for doing or allowing something that we cannot fathom." 

Besides the Skeptical theism Defense and the Free Will Defense of theistic or agnostic positions, there are positive theodicies on behalf of theism. Like 1. the Soul and Character Building/Developing theodicy; 2. the Glory of God [Reformed] theodicy, 3. Heaven Theodicy, 4. Recompense/Reward Theodicy, 5. Felix Culpa Theodicy [et al.] which could explain why God would allow the evils in the world He has. Unless and until such theodicies are refuted, then the claim of gratuitous evils hasn't been proven.

Regarding omnipotence, some ask, why couldn't God just have created us in a heavenly state and bypass/skip this "vale of tears"? God's omnipotence does not enable Him to instantiate/actualize contradictions. God cannot violate the laws of logic because they are part of His nature. It's logically impossible to develop character virtues like courage, self-sacrifice, charity, perseverance (etc.) in an unfallen world where evil, sin, suffering and adversity hasn't entered. It's logically impossible for God to justly recompense moral agents with rewards and punishments if they didn't actually commit certain acts deserving them and if they only had false memories implanted within them. It's logically impossible for God to redeem, atone for, and save unfallen creatures. Et cetera regarding other theodicies.

I tend to reject the Free Will Argument myself since I'm a Calvinist who rejects libertarian free will and opt for compatibilistic free will. Though, I don't rule it out completely since maybe libertarian free will and some form of middle knowledge is true [either Arminian-like Molinism or Calvinistic-like Suarezian Congruism]. Regarding the omnibenevolence of God, I reject the idea by many that God must be as gracious to every creature equally and to the highest degree. As I understand it, God's omnibenevolence, when attenuated by the Biblical data, merely requires that 1. God is the standard and source of all goodness, and 2. God has some benevolence and love to all creatures. Not that He loves and is gracious to them all equally and to the highest degree. Couple that with various definitions of evil. For example privatio boni whereby evil is the privation/absence/negation/twisting/corruption of the good. God is also sovereign according to the Bible. He can love some more and others less in His sovereignty. Moreover, God is not obligated to be gracious to guilty sinners deserving only of condemnation. That God saves some is a matter of mercy and grace. Grace & mercy by definition are unobligated. If they were obligated, then it would be justice, not grace & mercy.

black baron: thoughtful response. It may be a day or 2 but looks well worth considering when I get a spare couple of hours to myself. thx

Does the God of the Bible "Have a Terribly Fragile Ego" As Some Non-Christians Claim?

 

It's common to hear non-Christians, especially atheists claim that the God of the Bible has a fragile ego. Does he?

Not at all. God's zeal for His glory is not merely a matter of ego or pride, but of holiness. In one sense, God, being as great and super-competent as He is, rightly ought to brag. Something that, in excess, is immodest and immoral in finite creatures.

However, additionally, it would be idolatrous for God to not love and magnify that which is worthy and deserving of all honor and devotion, namely Himself. It's an act not only of self love, but of love to the creature for God to promote His own glory. Since He is the source of all goodness. God giving Himself to creatures is the most loving thing He could do. It leads to their eternal blessedness, joy and fulfillment. John Piper explains that in his books 1. Desiring God, 2. The Pleasures of God, 3. Future Grace. Here's a quick 1 1/2 minute video where he introduces the subject:

https://youtu.be/hUmgThMr7Xg

See also:

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/is-god-for-us-or-for-himself [same as https://youtu.be/Ap0LSFb4Sx8]

https://www.crossway.org/articles/if-we-were-created-for-gods-glory-is-god-merely-using-us/

The Resurrection Stories Aren't Hopelessly Contradictory

 

The Resurrection Stories Aren't Hopelessly Contradictory

https://youtu.be/Qlx1ZULPwTI

Why Don't the Epistles Quote Jesus More Frequently?

 

Why Don't the Epistles Quote Jesus More Frequently?
by William Lane Craig

https://youtu.be/Q1MaAlfOibo

Move Videos on Archaeology and the Bible May 2021

 

How Archaeology Supports the Bible: A Conversation with Joel Kramer

https://youtu.be/A_k4noV95kk

Q&A: The Bible and Archaeology (Conversation with Joel Kramer)

https://youtu.be/ZqTjpCrsGFE

Atheist Dan Barker Defeated by Three Christian Theists

 

As a Christian one of my "favorite" atheists is Dan Barker. I kind of sympathize with him because I can relate to some of his past Christian experiences. By God's grace, I've remained a Christian. From a human perspective he seems to be a nice guy. From God's perspective, he's a sinner like any one of us. I've watched dozens of Dan Barker's debates. I'm guessing about 25 or more. I think he has won nearly all of them. But on three occasions I've seen Dan Barker clearly lose a debate. The first was against a fellow Calvinist (Paul Manata). The second was against a Roman Catholic (Trent Horn). The third was against a less than conservative [some would say "progressive"] Christian Christian (Randal Rauser). 

Here's the debate between Calvinist Paul Manata vs. Atheist Dan Barker

In 12 Parts

In 8 Parts

Or HERE

Here's the debate between Roman Catholic Trent Horn vs. Atheist Dan Barker

HERE

Here's the debate between "Progressive" Christian Randal Rauser vs. Atheist Dan Barker

HERE

 UPDATE:

Here's a fourth debate in which Dan Barker was defeated by a Christian theist. It's Barker versus Michael L. Brown

HERE

Bruce Gordon on Idealism and the Nature of Reality

 

In previous blogposts I've linked to Dr. Bruce Gordon's lectures on Idealism and it's relation to God [e.g. Here, Here].

Here's another resource:

Bruce Gordon on Idealism and the Nature of Reality

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Quick Refutation of a Meme [2021 05]

A meme I responded to on Facebook: 

Quick rebuttal. Regarding #2, it's an in-house debate among Christians whether human free will is libertarian or compatibilistic. As a Calvinist I think it's compatibilistic [as most knowledgeable Calvinists do].

Regarding #3, God didn't send the flood in judgment for man's use of free will, but for their SINFUL use of free will. God judges sinners for their sins and abuse of their God given free will. It's an in-house debate among Christians whether the flood was local or global. I think it was local and DID NOT encompass the entire Earth.

Regarding #4, God didn't randomly favor Abraham and his descendants. God, being omniscient [all-knowing] and omnisapient [all-wise] doesn't do anything randomly. Rather, God sovereignly choose Abraham's line in which to move forward His providential redemptive plan for history. To use his line to eventually bless the world [Gen. 18:18; 22:18; Gal. 3:8]. Because it would be through his line that the Messiah would come.

Regarding #5, it's an in-house debate in Christianity whether God still speaks outside of Scripture [i.e. the Bible]. I'm a continuationist and therefore believe that God does still speak and give revelations. But they are not on par with the authority of the Bible, nor can they be added to the already completed canon of Scripture. The Bible alone is the infallible Word of God, and is alone the universally binding public Revelation. All further revelations are private [rather than public] and not universally binding. They must be judged by the higher authority of Scripture, and rejected if they contradict Scripture. A good youtube channel with theologically responsible continuationists is The Remnant Radio YT channel.

Regarding #6, I'll address that in the next comment. [see below]

Regarding #7, JEsus didn't just "kill Himself". Jesus laid down His life as an atonement for sin to pay the penalty of sin on behalf of sinners so that they can be forgiven, justified, reconciled to God and adopted into God's family.

Regarding #8, it's just a variation on #5. So, read my response to #5 and then go do some research. I'd invite people to examine the evidence for modern miracles and the supernatural. Read:

Craig Keener's two volume Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, 

Keener will be coming out with a new book on miracles in Oct. with 70% new material.

Rex Gardner's Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates

Read the appendices in Robert Larmer's The Legitimacy of Miracle as well as his book Dialogues on Miracle.

Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland is coming out with a book on miracles in November.

Regarding the first part of #6 . American slave owners often were hesitant to teach their slaves to read because the Exodus story in the Bible would plant the seed in their minds of deliverance from slavery like the Israelites received from the Pharoah of Egypt. The Bible isn't pro-slavery, it permits it. Regulation is not advocation. Just as the laws of divorce in the Bible isn't an advocation of divorce. The Bible doesn't advocate slavery as the ideal. There were different kinds of slavery in the Mosaic covenant. All of which were different from 1st century Roman slavery or American slavery. 

As Steve Hays put it:

//2. Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?

i) The OT doesn’t endorse “slavery.” Lawmakers don’t endorse everything they regulate. Rather, the law sets boundaries. The law doesn’t prescribe an ideal.1

ii) “Slavery” is ambiguous. This can stand for very different arrangements. In the OT you have:

a) Indentured service for insolvency or property crimes. This is a form of financial restitution.

b) Enslavement for POWs or war captives. This is more humane than executing POWs. Repatriating enemy soldiers isn’t feasible inasmuch as they will simply regroup and resume hostilities.

c) Acquisition of foreigners. This is unenviable. However, living conditions in the ANE [[i.e. Ancient Near East]] were harsh. Poverty and famine were widespread. Better to be a slave in Israel, with the legal protections and provisions afforded you, than to starve to death. These laws don’t exist in a vacuum. They need to be understood in relation to the socioeconomic challenges of survival in the ANE.

G. Wenham, Story as Torah (Baker 2000), chap. 5.//

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/qa_steve_hays.html#slavery

Moreover, the seeds of abolishing slavery from advancing civilization are in the Bible. That's why the Abolition movement was started/headed by Christians. If the New Testament flat out condemned slavery, it would have been such a revolutionary teaching that it could have resulted in insurrection and the early Christians would have been immediately targeted and wiped out by the Romans. If instead of planting the SEEDS of abolition, the New Testament taught the idea of IMMEDIATE abolition, it would have spread too quickly in society that if slaves rebelled en mass both the owners and the slaves would have perished economically. Since, in such societies the slaves are almost as dependent on the owners, as the owners are on the slaves. It was almost a symbiotic relationship that benefited both.

However, with the seeds of the abolition of slavery in the New Testament's teaching, the acceptance and eventually the practice of slavery could be slowly phased out as it eventually did in Christian Europe and America.

Part of the Christian Gospel has strong themes of liberation.

2 Cor. 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom/liberty.

Jesus said in Luke 4 [quoting Isaiah 61]:

18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,

19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Regarding the 2nd part of #6. The Old Testament kosher dietary laws were a temporary injunction for the people of God because at the time redemption was only publicly limited to the Israelites. They are no longer binding. Since they no longer serve their purpose to be emblematic of the distinction between holy Hebrews and unholy Gentile Pagans, now that the Gospel has gone to the entire world. It's now being offered for all Gentile nations [i.e. the goyim]. There's nothing wrong with continuing to observe the kosher laws, but they are no longer binding. It would be wrong and legalistic to *require* people to observe them.

Debate: Was Jesus Buried In A Tomb? Jim Majors vs Michael Jones/Inspiring Philosophy

 

Debate: Was Jesus Buried In A Tomb? Jim Majors vs Michael Jones/Inspiring Philosophy

https://youtu.be/YgVMTMMON70

Does the Bible Make Pilate Too Nice?

 

Does the Bible Make Pilate Too Nice?
Interview withNew Testament Scholar Marc Turnage
https://youtu.be/4FBmog6tcGU

The 3 BIGGEST Mistakes Made By Atheists with agnostic Joe Schmid

 

The 3 BIGGEST Mistakes Made By Atheists with agnostic Joe Schmid
https://youtu.be/Ou6hi-r6GlM

Atheist Epistemology is a Mess (with Braxton Hunter & Tyler Vela)

 

Atheist Epistemology is a Mess (with Braxton Hunter & Tyler Vela)

https://youtu.be/0tdWMvp4TiI