ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

heusdens

New member
Re: Re: Re: Getting the point ...

Re: Re: Re: Getting the point ...

Originally posted by LightSon
The Christian worldview is the only right view of how we got here, what is best for us to be doing, how we should treat our neighbor, how we should view God, and where we will spend eternity. All competing views are false.

Yeah yeah. We know this sort of argument.
For the sake of debate, we should try to abstain from the "circular view" thing. The question which is in concern of course, is how do we know the things we think we know, and how do we discover truth.

Let us try to find out for ourselves the truth of things.

So, the only way we would have got here, is because God created us, and earth and the heavens, and all there is.

Let us suppose, just for the sake of the discussion, that would be the case. Let us futher, just for investigating that issue, suppose there would have been no God. Even if you can not imagine that.

Then, what would there have been, according to you?

A mere nothing?

There are no contradictions in scripture. There are no contradictions between scripture and science. You can't see this because you have bought into evolutionary theory as a support for your atheism.

So, you say there was no evolution? There were just at one time plants, who came from nowhere? And then there were animals?
And then humans. Just so? Just like that? They "popped" out of nothing, just because God blew his breath over the earth?

What is scientific about that explenation? It's the direct opposite!

Science tells us, that everything that exists, is evolving and changing. From the atom to the galaxies, and from microbes to humans. Everything that is, is always in the process of becoming, changing, transforming, etc. There is nothing that stands still absolutely. There is nothing that appears out of nothing, and nothing that disapears into nothing.
Things progress and change and transform. Always when a certain thing takes a new form, there was something(s) before, that changed into that new thing.

This is what we observe the world to be.
The first law of thermodynamics incorporates just that principle, that matter and energy are conserved quantities. You get nothing from nothing.

Biblical perspective is the only correct perspective; it is God's perspective. God's word is as inerrant as is His person. It is the atheistic perspective which is false.

The Biblical perspective is only correct if it's the correct interpretation of reality. How can we find out if the Bible is true?
By investigating reality itself of course!

If I state to you, that it's raining, and that you can take my word for it, and swear to God and curse you if you not believe me, is it then raining or not? Unless you go actually outside, you will never find out if it's raining or not!

Same for the word of God. How do you know if the word of God is correct or not, and if the Bible is correct or not?

What you deride as magic, we call the supernatural power of our God.

Where do the "supernatural powers of God" come from then?
And God itself?

You might use God as an explenation, but what then explains God? If we explain things in terms which we do not and can not explain, is that then an explenation at all?

If everything I do not know, is stated by me as caused by "unknown force X", then it can be used to explain everything. At the same time it doesn't explain us anything, since I have no clue as to what "unknown force X' in fact is.

I could then as well say: I don't know what caused this, and then later try to find out.

By declaring that something is caused by something, is not in itself knowledge. If I declare that the Big Bang was caused by a
"quantum hypersphere", then I only declare something.
But we have in fact not yet aquired any new knowledge, since we do not know what this "quantum hypersphere" in fact is, and neither we know, why that is the correct interpretation.

So, in fact, as you can probably understand, this is not so very easy to get in fact real knowledge. It is therefore evident that a lot of what we now know, we did not all of a sudden just invent or made up, but costs years and years of research work, and building theories, and proof them, etc. to actually arrive at knowledge. And even so, what we consider to be knowledge, is under permanent reconstruction and permanent reevalution.
Especially in new fields of knowledge, totally contradictionary ideas emerge, and sicentist battle over what is the right theory.

If you have time for this, perhaps you should look the history of science in some fields, for example the theory of gravity. Before Einstein, for more as hundred years people believed that the theory of Newton was right. Einstein however proved that the General Relativity theory was in some special circumstances, when we have to accomodate for relativistic effects, was the better theory.

In the field of science and theory and knowledge, there is no stand still, but change. Old theories are replaced with new theories. But that does not mean that the old theories were just plain wrong, without the old theory we would have never gotten the new theories. All our knowledge are just steps towards new and better knowledge.

As argued repeated, life is improbably and we should not even exist, were it not for God.

Life can not form and exist everywhere. That is true. For life to come into existence, the right conditions are necessary. Most like water, sun, and a lot of other chemical and physcial conditions.


The universe as a closed system would never have gotten us this far, given the first and second laws of thermodynamics. abiogenisis and macroevolution violate the 2nd law.

closed system:
What you mean with "closed" system. Can you draw a sphere (independ how large) around the universe that contains everything?

Second law of thermodynamics:
Do you know what this law states or not states?
It's applicable to "closed" systems only. Earth is not a closed system, since it gets energy from the sun. The sun is the major energy supplier that drives the eco system.

Life forms don't violate the second law of thermodynamics, cause lifeforms can arrange themselves. They can do that, because they take in new energy supplies. That is why all life forms have to "eat".

There is a missing factor, something which drives exceptions to both laws. This missing factor can only be explained by acts "above nature" or "supernatural".

But what does it help? Does it increase knowledge to say, that the "super natural" caused a certain phenomena?

(see also above)

Human knowledge has explained more and more facts, that previously were unexplained or were seen as "supernatural".
Now they have become part of nature itself.

LIfe is supernatural. It is a miracle. Christians in general are dumbfounded that atheists just can't see this. We believe sincerely that you have been blinded to truth, despite your great intelligence.

I think you misunderstand us. I think we have the same perceptions about the wonders of nature. I saw a deep sea film, just shortly, about the wonderlous life forms that exist in the deep sea. I we were not told this, one could have believed that they were about life forms in another galaxy or so.

Did you know there were life forms out there, deep beneath in the see (2 to 4 km deep) that don't need the sun, but use other energy sources like deep sea wells?

microevolution is an observable phenomenon, hence scientific.
Macroevolution is not observable; it is guess work; it is a lie. Believe it at your peril.

There is no difference between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution"! The only difference is the time scale. Mr Magic at work is: TIME!

Science it great. Science is cool.
This question is invalid as it assumes the Bible as myth. Macroevolution is the myth. God's word is true and will remain true forever.

We know about more mythology then just the Bible. Without showing disrespect, the stories of the Bible were human made stories and verses and ideas on the human perspective about life, our origin
Everyone wonders about where we come from, where we go to etc. Also the people in the ancient past. But unlike the present times, they did not yet have the tools to research the world, and to find truth.
They stated what they believed was true. There was nothing dishonest about that. They believed what they told us, and put that in writing.
But you know, knowledge is not instantanious. It's not that when you have a fully working and equipped brain, that you have knowledge, just like that. To find the truth, is hard work, costs time, and involves a lot of research and investigation.
Through science we can aquire new knowledge, which we did not have before. How can one know about the origin of life, when you don't have a microscope, and all that, to explore reality.
So, it's not surprising early manhood had no idea about that.
But what is intrinsically humanly is that we want to know. And even if we realy have no idea at all, and have nothing to base ourselves on, we will always form some idea, which can take the shape of a belief.

Let us assume you are in the middle of the desert. You can not stay there, you would die. So you have to go somewhere, in order to find water. But every direction looks the same, and you have no idea where you are. What will you do?

What will happen is, that you will at least believe something, to base yourself on. You will look for a clue, and if there is none, you will form yourself a belief, which directs you to some goal.

Interesting set of values. (We wonder where they came from). If there is no God, if there is no authority set above this accident you call man, then who's to say your vision of utopia is better than Hitler's or better than Manson's?

Hitler's and Manson's visions were intrinsically imhumane and anti-human.

How can we know if a certain value is good for us or not? We can. We are humans ourselves, and know what is good for us or not.

Humans are free. They have no obligation to anything above humanity itself. The only obligation we have, is our obligation to freedom itself.

As has been argued by atheists, the highest possible morals are those drawn from societal consensus. Nazi Germany was right, according to such an arbitrary humanistic standard.

In the human consciousness, the influence of the society is of course important.

And for the record, to the extent that Christians failed to stand up to Nazism, they were wrong.

With respect to the Christians that DID stand up, fought against the nazi's, and helped Jews and others that were prosecuted by the nazi's, and also peoples of other beliefs and conviction, the thing is then, if so many christians failed in preventing such events to take place.
Let us not forget that this all happened not in "some other countries", but happened in what was called "Christian" countries. Countries which were for centuries were under the infleunce of Christianity and Christian institutions.

So, if is is stated then that the Christian moral is Absolutely good, because it uses God for the standard, then it must be clear that if FAILED ABSOLUTELY!

That is why, at least to me, the vocation of Christians on their Absolute moral, to me makes no sense. Not that I think or know that Christians are no good, or have no moral, because I know of a lot of Christians who do, but because "calling oneself a Christian" and practicing good morals, are two different things.

A society is composed of humans. So in last instance it is the individual that must make a choice and judgement.

Life is not easy, and nobody ever said it was.
It might feel comfortable to be guided with "absolyte morals" coming from an "authority", but same as when you grow up, and go from childhood to youth to begin a full grown up adult, you can not always go back to your parents to ask for guidance. You need to be able to sustain yourself, also in the fields of morals.

That's why it is important that in your education, you develop moral guide lines for yourself, and are able to help yourself, even if your own moral guidelines, seem of no help.
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Strange bedfellows ...

Strange bedfellows ...

Hi Knight,

Knight writes:
Speaking of Mexican standoff's your debate RIGHT HERE with Aussie is about as standoff-ish as I have seen!
Knight, if you really think that (and I really hope you're just blowing smoke), then you're not as sharp as I once thought. There is no Mexican standoff when the opposing disputant cannot even justify the very tools he brings to the table. Rather than a standoff, it's more like a slaughter. The sad thing, however, is that the anti-theist usually is so defiant that even when he sees it, he still plugs his ears, clenches his eyelids shut, and chants to himself, "I know You don't exist. I know You don't exist. I know You don't exist." What's even sadder is a when a Christian, who has the mind of Christ, who can justify his use of logic, intelligence, and reason with certitude, still refuses to acknowledge the superiority of the argument based on biblical principles over arguments based on anti-theistic/anti-biblical ones.

Knight writes:
At least with BR VII we can delve into interesting tidbits of knowledge and read fascinating compositions.
Paul warned about these types of "interesting tidbits."

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

The Bible doesn't allow for this approach ("delving into interesting tidbits of knowledge"). The Bible calls for full surrender, casting down anti-theistic reasoning, and every lofty thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (2Co 10:5)

Knight writes:
Can you imagine if BR VII would have been Jim and an atheist??? Well.... if you cant imagine it just read this thread and I am sure you will see what I mean.
The fact that you make this conjecture really demonstrates how very little you understand of this discussion, let alone the biblical ramifications of it. It's pathetic.

Knight writes:
Do you really think BR VII is designed to convert Zakath?
No, I don't think that at all. But does that stipulated non-purpose open the doors for making anti-biblical arguments and violating biblical principles?

Knight writes:
Those reading can ponder both sides of the debate and ask themselves which arguments are the most logical, realistic and truthful.
This is the very thing I find so repugnant. How can the atheist's argument be logical, realistic or truthful given the fact that the atheist rejects God, the very Source of logic, reality and truth?

Knight writes:
Bob isn't directly evangelizing to Zakath as if they were at the airport waiting for their flight.
Oh, so you're saying Bob Enyart would be using a different method to evangelize Zakath if this weren't merely aimed at providing interesting tidbits, despite the fact that Bob Enyart evangelized you using this same method and the fact that he used the same method to evangelize novice and others? Are you making this up as you go along?

Knight writes:
Bob is simply deconstructing the fallacy of atheism in general and using Zakath as his springboard.
No he's not. He's an enabler. With every attempt to discredit the particular claims of atheism, rather than dismantling the entire underpinnings of his worldview, Bob inadvertently affirms the lies and the self-conceit of the atheistic argument.

Knight writes:
The debate is a battle of worldviews much more than a battle between two individuals which is what you are basing your argument on.
Read my first post. Then come back and talk about reality for a change.

I claim that the evidentialist method of argumentation is unbiblical and philosophically indefensible. Further, as the Bible indicates, arguing in this fashion is tantamount to affirming the atheistic worldview and to validating atheistic reasoning and argumentation. The fool has said in his heart there is no God. Answer a fool (properly, biblically) according to his folly, otherwise he will become wiser in his own conceit; Answer NOT a fool (properly, biblically) according to folly, otherwise you will become also like unto him. Notice what we see here. Knight and Aussie Thinker have collaborated against me, and on what basis? On the basis of their shared method of reasoning. Knight has tested and proven the claims of scripture quoted above.

Aussie says: Well summed up Knight ... Amazing that we can be on opposite side but agree that even though the other is wrong debate is valid !

Sadly, Aussie and Knight are not on opposite sides when it comes to apologetic methodology. They both argue atheistically. Both Aussie and Knight (despite Bob Enyart's public admission to the contrary) affirm the myth of atheism. Just as the Bible says, in so many words, evidentialism makes strange bedfellows. Knight has become also like unto him.

Jim
 

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
To Jim:
Since the debate took a few days off, so did I.
Your last response to me was illustrative. I must have made a couple of very good points because your only way to refute me was to say that 1 Cor 10 24 - 33 refers only to believers, or, our conduct toward believers. Verse 27, refers directly to unbelievers, and how we are to act when eating their food. Verse 32 says not to offend Jews or Gentiles. I assume these Gentiles are Pagan unbelievers. In either case verse 33 says to seek others profit, that they might be saved. Certainly the unsaved are by definition the unbelievers,.are they not? Please reread these verses and simply admit you were wrong, or come up with some creative interpretation of the words, unbelievers, Gentiles, unsaved.
Your other refutation was that the disciples were under a special "dispensation" and therefore the fact that I pointed out that the Lord told them to discontinue their preaching and dust their sandals off, can not be used by me or anyone else today, as a reason to not preach to an apostate former pastor. How convenient, these special dispensations are. However I do not believe in dispensations, I believe in Covenants and Commandments. If the Lord commanded people to not preach to those who have clearly rejected His message, then that same principle, at least, can be used by me, when I think it applies. I may be wrong, but at least I have a biblical basis for such a belief.
I reread Scrimshaws posts where he refuted your arguments, I suggest you do the same. They are posts 149 and 168. In fact I think that 1 Way, and Knight, and also myself have also succeeded in refuting your main points. You seem to be able to read disagreeable posts, in the worst possible light, and infuse meanings that were never intended by the writers, into their very own posts. I know you have done this to mine and I see it also when I reread other people's posts. You then dissect every sentence, and make them defend every word with the new slant that you have put on them. There is one poster on TOL who invented and perfected this method. You might want to E-mail Zakath and ask him how you are doing!
I do not need to E- mail Bob because I quote the Bible all the time, I make exceptions for APOSTATE former pastors who know the word better than I, and misuse it to their own destruction and grieve the heart of God.
BTW you can NEVER, ever again say that you NEVER thought you would see the day when a Christian would refuse to quote the Bible,{In extreme circumstances} because I just did, and told you why! SORRY.;)
I am responding to your post # 203.
 
Last edited:

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Please do me a favor ...

Please do me a favor ...

Hi Jeremiah,

You write:
verse 32 says not to offend Jews or Gentiles. I assume these gentiles are Pagan unbelievers.
It's a false assumption. It refers to the saved Gentiles of Israel's dispensation. There are three groups mentioned in the verse, each representing a distinctive household of God's elect.

Jeremiah writes:
In either case verse 33 says to seek others profit, that they might be saved. Certainly the unsaved are by definition the unbelievers are they not?
That's a hasty assumption. Paul speaks of the salvation of saved people quite often. Check the verb tenses of Eph 2:8-10 and 1Ti 2:15. In the case of 1Cor 10, however, Paul is urging believers to follow his example by seeking the salvation of the many via being careful not to give unnecessary offense. Remember, Paul made a careful distinction when he told believers to do good unto all kinds of men, but especially those of the household of the Faith.

Jeremiah writes:
Your other refutation was that the disciples were under a special "dispensation" and therefore the fact that I pointed out that the Lord told them to discontinue their preaching and dust their sandals off, can not be used by me or anyone else today, as a reason to not preach to an apostate former pastor. How convenient these special dispensations are.
Not necessarily convenient. But necessarily expedient. The so-called "Great Commission" doesn't apply to the Body of Christ at all. Jesus commanded His disciples to go out and baptize the nations (Mt. 28:19,20). Paul said Jesus did not send him to baptize (1Co 1:17) and that there is but ONE baptism for the Body of Christ (not water, Eph 4:4-6). But that's quite off-topic. If you wish to pursue in a new thread, I will gladly participate.

Jeremiah writes:
However I do not believe in dispensations, ...
Sorry to hear that. Do you know what they are?

Jeremiah writes:
... I believe in Covenants and Commandments.
So do I.

Jeremiah writes:
If the Lord commanded people to not preach to those who have clearly rejected His message, then that same principle, at least, can be used by me, when I think it applies. I may be wrong, ...
You are. Jesus taught lots of principles that no longer apply today. If you're going to be consistent, you better not take any money with you when you go out and preach.

Jeremiah writes:
... but at least I have a biblical basis for such a belief.
That's like justifying a non-pork diet based on Levitical prescriptions. Sure, there's a biblical basis, albeit an erroneous and misapplied one.

Jeremiah writes:
I reread Scrimshaws posts where he refuted your arguments, I suggest you do the same. They are posts 149 and 168.
I've read them quite carefully, and more than a few times. They're horrible. Scrimshaw begs crucial questions, and mishandles scripture in a horribly evil way. In fact, I shudder to think what he may face if he continues to deliberately mishandle God's Word like that.

Jeremiah writes:
In fact I think that 1 way and Knight and also myself have also succeeded in refuting your main points.
Please show me where. Be specific. Cut & paste. Please do me this favor, so I don't have to continue wondering what you're talking about.

Jeremiah writes:
You seem to be able to read disagreeable posts, in the worst possible light and infuse meanings that were never intended by the writers, into their very own posts.
Please show me.

Jeremiah writes:
You then dissect every sentence and make them defend every word with the new slant that you have put on them.
I've found it encourages people to be less sloppy. If they know they're going to be held accountable for their words, they begin to choose them more carefully.

Jeremiah writes:
There is one poster on TOL who invented and perfected this method. You might want to E-mail Zakath and ask him how you are doing!
How do you know Zakath didn't get it from me? He and I go way back. :)

Jeremiah writes:
I do not need to E- mail Bob because I quote the Bible all the time, ...
It doesn't bother you that Bob Enyart is sinning according to your theory? You really should warn him.

Jeremiah writes:
I make exceptions for APOSTATE former pastors who know the word better than I and misuse it to their own destruction and grieve the heart of God.
How do you know whether or not something you might say to Zakath, or a scripture that you quote to him might be the straw that breaks the camel's back and brings him to repentence? Sounds rather selfish to me.

Jeremiah writes:
BTW you can NEVER, ever again say that you NEVER thought you would see the day when a Christian would refuse to quote the Bible,{In extreme circumstances} because I just did and told you why!
It's sad. I'd hate to see others follow your example. You need to work on your own sentence dissecting, by the way. When I said, "I never thought I'd see the day when a Christian would discourage quoting the Word of God," that's called hyperbole. It's used for emphasis. Some people say, "Well I never!" It connotes disdain or repugnance toward something they find despicable.

There are some questions I asked that you missed. I remind you of them below:

You had written:
I reason that it is for Zakath's own good, not to sin, therefore I do not want to do anything that I KNOW will result in him sinning.
Even if that means compromising the truth?

Jeremiah writes:
Just as sensitive as this passage of scripture commands us to be, that is what I am trying to obey.
Was Paul, who wrote 1Co 10:24ff, being insensitive when he told the Athenians that they were worshipping the Unknown God in willful and deliberate ignorance? Was Jesus, who revealed the truths of 1Co 10:24ff to Paul, being insensitive when He provoked the scribes and pharisees to blaspheme?

Thanks for posting,
Jim
 

DEVO

Documenting mans devolution
This was asked early on but....

This was asked early on but....

Jim.... can you clarify for me....
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, - Romans 1:20
You claim that the "excuse" that is referenced in Rom 1:20 is an excuse to other men?

In other words... you think that "they are without excuse" means that men have no excuse to each other instead of that meaning they will have no excuse before God on judgment day?
 

LightSon

New member
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
The Christian worldview is OK and reasonably harmless.. but to say it is the only right view is the ultimate in arrogance.

I can understand how you would conclude that. Please know that I do not wish to be arrogant, nor do I want to come across that way.

If you asked me to derive the quadratic equation from general form, I would do so. If you quizzed me about the correctness of my approach and the validity of my answer, my certainty might be misinterpreted as arrogance. Is it necessarily arrogant to state the truth? My point is, being confident of the truth of a matter and arrogance often look the same to the casual observer.

There can be only one view which correctly reflects reality. Religious pluralism may have its appeal in the marketplace of ideas, but they cannot all be correct. The truth is specific. Not any ordered pair will solve 2 simultaneous equations.

Macroevolution is a guess. False religions are a lie. Humanism is false; it is the lonely imagination of ignorance and is destined for the dustbin with all falsehood. But if God comes down from his heaven and tells us how He created the world and how we ought to behave, then that view must prevail. This is my Father's world; He gets to dictate what is truth. The Christian worldview is correct because it is from the mind of God and hence conforms to reality. Just because you are blinded to this truth doesn't change the truth. The Christian worldview is not just OK, it is right because it conforms to what God has said. That which does not conform to God’s word is not right.
 
Last edited:

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Without a reasoned defense ... when?

Without a reasoned defense ... when?

Hi Devo,

Love your avatar and sig.

You ask:
Jim.... can you clarify for me....

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, - Romans 1:20

You claim that the "excuse" that is referenced in Rom 1:20 is an excuse to other men?
The word for "excuse" is anapologEtous (apologetos with the prefix of negation) meaning "without a reasoned defense, without a full accounting." The verb is in a present tense infinitive, "so to be without a reasoned defense." Whereas the judgment of God is described with future tense verbs (2:3 "And thinkest thou this, ... that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?). It doesn't say that the gainsayer "shall be without a reasoned defense." He currently is without a defense. Any defense is a reaction to an offense. If the gainsayer is (present-tense) without a defense, then it must refer to a present-tense offense, as well. On judgment day, knees will be bowing and mouths will be confessing Jesus is Lord. There will be no arguments, excuses or defenses coming from atheists. I maintain that the verse teaches that the atheist is ever and always without a reasoned defense, whatever offense may come at them, whether from other men, or God Himself.

Thanks for your question,
Jim
 

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
To Jim:
Quote, you said "It doesn't bother you that Bob Enyart is sinning according to your theory, you really should warn him."
Did I miss something? According to my theory Bob is doing what I would do if I had his knowledge of science and philosophy. He has not quoted Scripture or based his arguments on the Bible yet, as far as I can remember. In his fifth post he opened by saying that he will stick to Science and not be baited into discussing the Bible by Zakath. He is certainly reading this thread and the others and I am sure he is evaluating and praying about what he should post. I would only E - mail him if I thought he had sinned or he was about to. I certainly trust Bob to do what is right as the circumstances change. It is my general position, not to quote scripture to Zakath. But even I could certainly forsee the possibility. I do believe that we are also to be led by the Spirit of God.
You have clearly judged and warned Bob for the way he is debating Zakath. "Bob Enyart has already lost the debate." Good for you. Your conscience is clear. So is mine. Why would I warn someone when they are doing what I would do, only better.
I don't like back seat drivers, do you? :)
 

DEVO

Documenting mans devolution
Re: Without a reasoned defense ... when?

Re: Without a reasoned defense ... when?

Originally posted by Hilston
Hi Devo,

Love your avatar and sig.
Why thank you.
The word for "excuse" is anapologEtous (apologetos with the prefix of negation) meaning "without a reasoned defense, without a full accounting." The verb is in a present tense infinitive, "so to be without a reasoned defense." Whereas the judgment of God is described with future tense verbs (2:3 "And thinkest thou this, ... that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?). It doesn't say that the gainsayer "shall be without a reasoned defense." He currently is without a defense. Any defense is a reaction to an offense. If the gainsayer is (present-tense) without a defense, then it must refer to a present-tense offense, as well. On judgment day, knees will be bowing and mouths will be confessing Jesus is Lord. There will be no arguments, excuses or defenses coming from atheists. I maintain that the verse teaches that the atheist is ever and always without a reasoned defense, whatever offense may come at them, whether from other men, or God Himself.

Thanks for your question,
Jim
It seems to me you are missing the overall context of the verse.

After all, isn't it self evident that the unbeliever has an "excuse" for other men?

Even if that excuse is in error its still an excuse is it not? Isn't the entire point of the verse showing that the unbelievers exchanged the truth for the lie? And furthermore... who cares if the unbeliever has or doesn't have an excuse for other men? The point is that because God has given man sufficient evidence for His existence man will have no defense for his unbelief on judgment day.

God (through Paul) is defending the justice of eternal damnation not the rules of evangelism or debate.

It just seems to me your making a leap in reason that just isn't there, nor makes any sense in a practical way. IMHO.
 

Bob Enyart

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
"Faith is... the evidence" Hebrews 11:1

"Faith is... the evidence" Hebrews 11:1

Hey "you can call me Jim" Hilston,

A couple weeks ago, Jefferson relayed an on-air request for you to post the email I sent you two years ago or so. I saw that you posted only my initial brief note, but not my message responding to your many points. You do have that don't you? Can you post it. Thanks, -Bob Enyart
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Earnest questions ...

Earnest questions ...

Hi Jeremiah,

You wrote:
Did I miss something? According to my theory Bob is doing what I would do if I had his knowledge of science and philosophy.
I'm sorry. You're right. I wasn't being careful here. But a question remains: Does the Bible need to be quoted to Zakath in order for him to blaspheme God?

Jeremiah wrote:
He has not quoted Scripture or based his arguments on the Bible yet, as far as I can remember.
It's sickening to me. And it is an anti-biblical way to argue.

Jeremiah writes:
Did I miss something?
Yes, about a half-dozen questions that I really would like for you to answer, as well as providing the alleged refutations to which you refer. Please don't skip this. Others make similar claims and have yet to provide proof. Please don't be like them.

Jim
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Ack! I totally forgot!

Ack! I totally forgot!

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the reminder. I think that bunch of atheists jumped into the fray at about the time that I started searching for those e-mails. I will submit them posthaste.

Jim "please call me Jim" Hilston.
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
The context ...

The context ...

Hi Devo,

Devo writes:
After all, isn't it self evident that the unbeliever has an "excuse" for other men?
He doesn't have a reasoned (i.e. intelligible, coherent, consistent) defense. Look at Aussie Thinker's attempts in this and the other thread. He tries to come up with fanciful explanations and excuses, but none of them cohere. His worldview is riddled with contradictions and it is exposed as folly.

Devo writes:
Even if that excuse is in error its still an excuse is it not?
No, and that's the point. Paul isn't referring to just any old "excuse" or fatuous explanation that a child might give his father for his disobedience. That is why Paul describes them as becoming "vain in their reasoning" (v. 21).

Devo writes:
Isn't the entire point of the verse showing that the unbelievers exchanged the truth for the lie?
Yes, but this point cannot be separated from the fact that they do so foolishly and indefensibly.

Devo writes:
And furthermore... who cares if the unbeliever has or doesn't have an excuse for other men?
The believer ought to care. The believer ought to be a soldier and defender of the Faith, casting down false reasonings, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ (2Co 10:5).

Devo writes:
The point is that because God has given man sufficient evidence for His existence man will have no defense for his unbelief on judgment day.
The verb is present tense. He has no defense right now. They are fools, and we are instructed in how we are to answer them (Prov. 26:4,5).

Devo writes:
God (through Paul) is defending the justice of eternal damnation not the rules of evangelism or debate.
Show me. I see no explicit defense of God's justice, although it is implied. Rather, it is a condemnation of the gainsayer, a full description of their folly and the consequences thereof. And while it says they became vain in their imaginations when they knew God, it concludes by saying that even the worst of them (those given over to a reprobate mind) are God-haters (v. 30; not God-concept haters -- it's Personal) and specifically stating that they indeed know the judgment of God (v. 32).

Devo writes:
It just seems to me your making a leap in reason that just isn't there, nor makes any sense in a practical way. IMHO.
Let's talk about it. Maybe you're right. Convince me. So far the text doesn't seem to support your conjecture.

Thanks for your questions and suggestions,
Jim
 
Last edited:

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Jim to Bob, 2002, part II

Jim to Bob, 2002, part II

The following is a rejoinder to Bob's response from sometime in early 2002 (see posts #93 and #94 on page 7 of this thread).

--------Begin Jim's reply----------

Hi Bob,

Thanks for replying. Please forgive my delayed reply. My responses to your comments & questions are below. This is a bit long, but an important enough topic that I really want to make myself clear. I think your admitted misconceptions about presuppositional apologetics has warranted a thorough reply. I hope you find it useful and that it will help you to see why some of your methods of defending the Faith are excellent, and others fall short (I know, I know -- that's the arguable point. But I think you'll see what I mean below).

You write:
More than a decade ago, I read a book by Van Til (was it?) suggested by some of his fans. ...

Do you recall the title?

You write:
I recall (or I think I recall, perhaps you can correct me), that they were trying to convince me that I should not debate evolution or science with unbelievers, as that approach could not even theoretically work.

I would disagree with his "fans", and I surmise that Van Til would have disagreed also. It's not a question of whether or not one debates evolution or science with unbelievers, but rather a question of whether one does so biblically or not (details below). In other words, do we engage the gainsayer according to what seems to US to be a good way to convince someone of the verity of God's Word, or do we show respect for the Creator Himself, and see what He has to say about defending the faith by studying the examples and methods presented by God in the scripture? I've heard you make this type of statement about models of government and criminal justice. It applies here, as well (in every sphere of life, in fact).

You write:
But, can you please answer this question: Is it a worthwhile effort, and one that can move a man closer to conversion, to scientifically debate the existence of God with unbelievers, apart from quoting Scripture?

Bob, there are times that you are an excellent debater, but other times, I get discouraged because you'll have a clear shot at the basket, but instead of taking the shot, you pass the ball and it gets intercepted. Biblically, there are two fronts to our engagement with the enemy, whoever he may be: Defense/offense. Prov. 26:4 gives us the offensive strategy. Prov. 26:5, the defensive. Bob, whenever you consistenly use the scriptures to shut down the gainsayer, you are superb and your offense is terrific. I can say the same about your defense. There are times in your debates where you allow the opponent to make his argument (his offense), and then for the moment, you grant that position in order to expose their foolishness. This is the proper biblical defense. You've recently done this with Mormons, for example. You basically said: OK if, as you Mormons say, the indigenous people of this continent are descendents of Jews, let's just settle it with some DNA comparisons. This is type of argument is in accordance with Prov. 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceit." You've made a fool out of him on his own worldview. You've shown his offense to be logically incoherent.

To answer your question, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to give a defense for God's existence, His attributes and the verity of His Word, the Bible. But we should not give up any real estate to the gainsayer when we do this. That is to say, I'm not going to grant or concede a point that simply isn't true just because the opponent wants me to. I'm referring to the notions of neutrality and atheism. It seems to me that your debates turn sour (in content, that is) when you adopt or concede these false premises.

First, there is no such thing as a neutral or objective consideration of evidence. One's pre-set worldview determines how one looks at evidence. What you and I see as undeniable design in nature, the gainsayer views as properties of matter and random processes in nature. Second, we must be ever aware of the fact that there are no true atheists. According to Romans 1, all men inescapably know God because He has revealed Himself to them, yet despite His unmistakable revelation of Himself, they choose to suppress (hold down) this Truth by means of unrighteousness. This is why they are "anapologetos" -- without a defense; they have no excuse. So we ought not treat them as if they have any excuse. They are fools. They know they're wrong, but they delude themselves to think that by screaming louder and longer that they can excuse themselves from any accountability to a wrathful and white-hot angry God. The point is, the Bible does not ever tell us to prove God's existence (NOTE: Defending His existence & the Truth is not the same as proving it). That would be like trying to prove to someone that torturing babies for enjoyment is wrong. We don't have to prove that. It is innate knowledge; we all know this and I think you've affirmed this on your broadcasts. Those who deny it are fools. So it is with God's existence. He has seen to it that all men know him: "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." The fool has said in his heart there is no God.

I would like to quote a couple wonderful things you recently said to make this more clear. I don't recall who you were discussing this with, but here is one thing you said:
We really want to get our act together and not be declaring every major news headline a fulfillment of prophecy. Because when we do we might cut ourselves a lot of slack, but unbelievers may not. And if they're going to stumble, let them stumble at the cross; let them stumble at the rock of offense, Jesus Christ. But DON'T let them stumble at our own rash declarations. Don't let them stumble because we are forever declaring fulfillments of prophecy when it's just news as usual.
This is fantastic. Bob, you and I will disagree on quite a lot of topics, but on this we are in full agreement. My complaint is that you're not consistent. If Christians would apply this principle you so expertly articulated to ALL topics, I daresay we would not be in the mess in which we find ourselves in this present culture war. We not only should avoid making rash claims about alleged "prophecy" in the news (like Jack Van Impe), but also rash claims about alleged "proofs" in science (like "Intelligent Design/Wedge" proponents, many of whom are "old-earthers"), alleged "universality" in ethics (like the re-Publicans), alleged "testimony" from history (like history-based resurrection "proofs"), alleged "neutrality" and "amorality" in government (like the "Liberal-tarians"), each of which puts fallible human testimony and experience above the inerrant Scriptures.

Here's another quote (from your discussion with "Richard" about "Evil Eva the Lesbian"):
Richard (re: Eva): "That's obviously a godless woman. She does not know God. Hitting her with the Bible is not going to help."

[By the way, Bob, this is the typical objection I get from Christians regarding my method of debating atheists and God-haters. Your answer to Richard, which immediately follows, is EXCELLENT and spot-on]:

Enyart: "Well what did the prophets do in the Old Testament? Did they hit people with the Koran? Or with the Word of God? ... The prophets in the Old Testament; Did they hit the people with the Word of God, or did they try some different approach?"
Bob, you nailed it! (Albeit in a rhetorical fashion) But again, my complaint is that you're not consistent. I listened to your debates with Michael Shermer and Douglas Kreuger. In both cases you seemed to follow Richard's method instead of the one you yourself chided Richard about. You had opportunities to expose and mock them as fools, but instead you proceeded to argue evidence as if you were both looking at it from some "neutral" worldview. Now I'm not saying you did not at times expose their foolishness, but I AM saying that every time you DID score in that regard was when you critiqued them with the scriptures, and not with your own tendentious evaluation of evidence.

After Michael Shermer hung up on you, you said, "As a scientist he should have ripped me apart." I realize you may have been speaking ironically, especially since he didn't do so well in the discussion, even on the evidence. But a scientist is not necessarily a philosopher and doesn't necessarily trouble himself with First Causes and stuff. In fact, a sharp scientist will not to allow us to question him beyond his field of expertise, in which case he will indeed rip us apart on evidential arguments. This is why we need to focus the discussion on our field of expertise, namely the Bible. We do not have to be experts in order to debate the experts. From what I've heard on your show, you demonstrate this especially well when you are confronted with a topic or argument that is apparently new to you. Knowing our Bibles will suffice to dismantle ANY argument, be they scientific, political, ethical, logical, or behavioral -- and I think you know this. Scientists, despite their boasts about being "objective" and "above reproach," do NOT have a corner on objectivity, reason and knowledge. It's quite the opposite; they are even more deluded than the garden variety apologist because their learning and prestigious self-importance further solidifies their false concepts about reality. To say, "The scientist should have ripped me apart" perpetuates the false notion that scientists are somehow profoundly superior to the rest of us and that their elite knowledge and expertise should be given special regard in this debate.

To conclude, it is crucial (because it is biblical) to acknowledge in these debates that each person has already decided in advance what is acceptable or unacceptable evidence. They simply reject evidence contrary to their worldview. Even what you and I might call compelling, they will not regard it as such, and would rather focus more upon discrediting it, or its source, or its premises, or its implications. This is why we must attack the root of the problem, which is an internal critique their worldview itself, coupled with a contrasting positive presentation of the Biblical worldview. I'm not averse to using evidence to make my case. I AM opposed to allowing the gainsayer to view my evidence through their own faulty lenses, which is why I critique the "lenses." If we show that their worldview is incoherent and that the biblical view ALONE is coherent and makes sense out of life, then they can choose to accept the Gospel and be saved, or reject the Gospel and be fools. After all, that is the bottom line, isn't it?

If you got this far, thanks for reading this tome. I know you're busy -- but any thoughts or reactions you're inclined to share will help me to know if I'm being clear or not.

Yours,
Jim Hilston

---------End of e-mail--------
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Bob to Jim, 2002, Part IIb

Bob to Jim, 2002, Part IIb

The following is Bob's reply to my previous e-mail:

--------Bob's reply--------

[Jim wrote:]
Do you recall the title?

No, but a guess, was it: presuppositionalism?

[Jim wrote:]
... and see what He has to say about defending the faith by studying the examples and methods presented by God in the scripture?

Studying, yes; limiting ourselves to those examples, no. God has created us to be creative also, and with minds, so that we ourselves can devise strategies that can win others. Various strategies win different kinds of people, and even horrendous, and non-strategies, win many people to the Lord. Cultic literature and movies have played a huge role in bringing many to salvation. I wouldn't approve of cultic literature, even if it accidentally had a good response, just like Paul doesn't approve of those who preach Christ out of envy or strife and selfish ambition, yet, he rejoices that Christ is preached. Of course, the self-serving ministers cause many to stumble, but so too, they bring many in (like the faith healer). So, if someone has an approach different than mine, I might encourage them to improve it, but, unless they were sinning by their presentation, I would not tell them that it was wrong for them to present that way. And people have greatly different intellectual capacities, and many can just barely hang on to an apologetic argument. Still, they can win their neighbor by their sincere attempt.

[Jim wrote:]
I've heard you make this type of statement about models of government and criminal justice. It applies here, as well (in every sphere of life, in fact).

I have always distinguished tactics and strategy from underlying principles. I might prefer a different tactic, but am satisfied if another ministry has the principle correct (many don't even have that, however). Righteous government involves absolute principles, whereas, what approach to take in a discussion leaves enormous room for creativity and empathy.

[Jim wrote:]
... it is certainly a worthwhile effort to give a defense for God's existence, His attributes and the verity of His Word, the Bible. But we should not give up any real estate to the gainsayer when we do this. That is to say, I'm not going to grant or concede a point that simply isn't true just because the opponent wants me to.

I agree this is a great tactic. But if a friend was debating a fool, who argued it should be legal to abort the child of a rape, if my friend said, "For the sake of the argument, let's assume that is so..." and then goes on to show that almost all abortions have nothing to do with rape, and that rape is used as a smokescreen to hide the truth, that men's hearts are hardened against innocent children. I might do it differently, but I wouldn't say his way was wrong.

[Jim wrote:]
I'm referring to the notions of neutrality and atheism. It seems to me that your debates turn sour (in content, that is) when you adopt or concede these false premises.

My wife and I haven't kept track over the years, but so many, so very many people have told us that the debates (I think) you are referring to led them to the Lord. One atheist, Gordon Carroll, has gone on to use the same technique to bring many in his family to the Lord, and many co-workers and friends. Etc., etc.

[Jim wrote:]
First, there is no such thing as a neutral or objective consideration of evidence. One's pre-set worldview determines how one looks at evidence.

Of course, but so what? Isn't that obvious. And still, when I debate an unbeliever, I can hammer him with scientific observations, that honestly and truly point to the Creator, and then I argue that he resists the obvious because he hates God.

[Jim wrote:]
Second, we must be ever aware of the fact that there are no true atheists. According to Romans 1, all men inescapably know God.

Did you intentionally quote this as a present tense verb, when my Bible uses a past tense? Are you suggesting some translators got this wrong, if so, I'd like to look into it. But, this reads, "although they knew God," past tense. Now, let me try and turn the tables somewhat. I assume this is a crucial part of your entire position, and Rom. 1:21 is probably one of your most important proof texts. So, where in the Bible do you see a principle laid out, that, in an important part of your argument, you can change the verb tense of a key passage so that it better makes your point? Is there a Proverb on that? "They knew God" but "became fools" and we know that "The fool says IN HIS HEART, "There is no God." So, yes, you might argue, that really, they do believe in God. And I argue this with some, when I think it is true. But you don't have the Scripture to prove it so, and I think you're attempting to force a philosophical system upon others, as though, if they don't follow it, they are in the wrong. You've confused tactics with principles.

[Jim wrote:]
The point is, the Bible does not ever tell us to prove God's existence (NOTE: Defending His existence & the Truth is not the same as proving it).

I think you strain at a gnat (but I don't also assume that you swallow the camel.) I have proved God's existence to many people, who have thereby been persuaded and to this day rejoice in Christ their savior. I truly think your objection is petty.

[Jim wrote:]
Those who deny it are fools.

Of course, but we need not give up on fools. Debate tactics to reach them? Yes. Tell me I'm wrong to attempt to prove God's existence to them, and I tell you, you've come under the influence of a control obsession, masquerading as an apologetic absolute.

[Jim wrote, quoting Bob Enyart:]
... if they're going to stumble, let them stumble at the cross; let them stumble at the rock of offense, Jesus Christ. But DON'T let them stumble at our own rash declarations. Don't let them stumble because we are forever declaring fulfillments of prophecy when it's just news as usual."

Right, don't let people stumble over our "wrong" interpretations, and erroneous observations, and our controlling inclinations

[Jim wrote:]
This is fantastic. Bob, you and I will disagree on quite a lot of topics, but on this we are in full agreement. My complaint is that you're not consistent. If Christians would apply this principle you so expertly articulated to ALL topics, I daresay we would not be in the mess in which we find ourselves in this present culture war.

But of course, as Christians, we have not yet "arrived" and our flesh still clings, and we are filled with misconceptions ... so, until the Lord comes, we are stuck with being less than perfect. And this next point is where I utterly reject your argument, and truly believe if absurd:

[Jim wrote:]
We should avoid ... rash claims about alleged "proofs" in science (like "Intelligent Design..."

I think you have accepted foolishness in your own worldview to object to this. Again, countless people have been saved, being launched into their spirituality by such arguments...

[Jim wrote:]
... alleged "universality" in ethics (like the re-Publicans)

God wrote his law on all men's hearts, their conscience, and that is a great starting point for winning certain types to the Lord. I know, I've done it repeatedly...

[Jim wrote:]
... alleged "testimony" from history (like history-based resurrection "proofs") Have you seen my Mt. Moriah video? We reference history, archaeology, and geology, along with Scripture, and many have come to the Lord through that video. Is that OK, as long as we mixed in some verses? Or do we need to cleanse the video of extra-biblical evidence?

[Jim wrote:]
... each of which puts fallible human testimony and experience above the inerrant Scriptures.

Of course I would not put other evidence ABOVE Scripture, but God filled the world with evidence, and I would never limit myself to only Scripture. We know that countless people lived prior to the Bible being written, and myriads have lived since, for example in Israel and Europe, but without their own copies of the Scripture, and yet, even with extremely poor priests, ministers, prophets, etc., thousands came to a saving relationship with the Lord (1 Ki. 19:18).

[Jim wrote, quoting and commenting on a BEL caller:]
Richard (re: Eva): "That's obviously a godless woman. She does not know God. Hitting her with the Bible is not going to help." Your answer to Richard, which immediately follows, is EXCELLENT and spot-on:

Enyart: "Well what did the prophets do in the Old Testament? Did they hit people with the Koran? Or with the Word of God? ... The prophets in the Old Testament; Did they hit the people with the Word of God, or did they try some different approach?"

Bob, you nailed it!

Sorry, the flattery is not working. Do you think that the prophets ONLY quoted Scripture to the wicked? Do you think that EVERYTHING they uttered was written in the Bible. You would criticize them if you found out that said anything outside of your own narrow rules of engagement. Not everything in the Bible, of course, was uttered as the Word of God (as Job's wife: Curse God and die), but, when it was recorded in Scripture, it becomes a part of God's Word, as one ply of a dialogue meant to instruct us. Similarly, not every word uttered by a prophet was the Word of God, when uttered. And even their words which have made it into Scripture, God took the words and actions of men, and worked them into His Inspired, Inerrant record. But the prophets and apostles were not constrained with your control mechanisms. I imagine if Van Til were on the Areopagus, he would have criticized Paul. And yes, Paul's technique failed to produce fruit, but so did Christ's on countless occasions. That does not mean that the technique was inherently wrong.

[Jim wrote:]
I listened to your debates with Michael Shermer and Douglas Kreuger. In both cases you seemed to follow *Richard's* method instead of the one you yourself chided Richard about.

I only chided Richard because he would leave me with only ONE approach, just as you are doing, only from the reverse position.

[Jim wrote:]
You had opportunities to expose and mock them as fools, but instead you proceeded to argue evidence as if you were both looking at it from some "neutral" worldview.

Though I do not want to lose you as a friend, I am compelled to say it stronger this time: You are petty. And I am embarrased for you.

[Jim wrote:]
Now I'm not saying you did not *at times* expose their foolishness, but I AM saying that every time you DID score in that regard was when you critiqued them with the scriptures

I imagine the earliest believers were all but tongue-tied when trying to evangelize, since they would have had hardly a written word to quote. I call this foolishness.

[Jim wrote:]
After Michael Shermer hung up on you, you said, "As a scientist he should have ripped me apart." I realize you may have been speaking ironically.

The point was, if you didn't intuit it, that: If Shermer and I debate science, and he is right and I am wrong, then, he being a scientist should be able to exploit my ignorance. But, because he fell so short, I was illustrating to people in the audience, that when you know the truth, you can defeat "experts" who deny that truth, especially since he didn't do so well in the discussion, even on the evidence.

[Jim wrote:]
But a scientist is not necessarily a philosopher and doesn't necessarily trouble himself with First Causes and stuff.

And stuff? I find it funny that you are defending him in this way? What drives you to do that?

[Jim wrote:]
In fact, a sharp scientist will not to allow us to question him beyond his field of expertise, in which case he *will* indeed rip us apart on evidential arguments.

I utterly disagree with you on this. I've debated many science teachers, science majors, scientists, and recently, at a Golden United Methodist Church, a professor of physics from the School of Mines. And, you can ask those in attendence, he could not even score a single point. He was a fool (though he claimed faith in the God of the Bible, yet he seemed like an unbeliever to our group). Of course, I don't have all knowledge, and might get tripped up in a detail during a debate (just as might happen to you, if you and I debate Scripture), but human beings can be persuaded even by an imperfect evangelist, even one who admits his own short-comings.

I've long noticed in others that they will reject certain intellectual pursuits (like learning the Old Testament), and they give a highfalutin reason, but in reality, they're just looking to feel good about ignoring a huge and difficult topic. I'm afraid, that could easily be the motive of some in this presuppostional movement.

I wrote this previous paragraph before I read your next words:

[Jim wrote:]
This is why we need to focus the discussion on *our* field of expertise, namely the Bible. We do not have to be experts in order to debate the experts.

Of course we don't need to do that, but you easily move from that liberating truth, to a stifling one: You shouldn't become expert to debate them in their fields ...

[Jim wrote:]
Scientists, despite their boasts about being "objective"... do NOT have a corner on objectivity, reason and knowledge. It's quite the opposite

Of course, but in a discussion between you and I, so what? No kidding! Earlier, you expressed how silly it would be to try to prove that it is wrong to torture a child. You said that knowledge would be innate. Well, so is this. So then, why did you bother to point it out? Was it wrong of you to argue this point that we both innately know? I might describe it as verbose, but not as wrong.

[Jim wrote:]
... they [the unbelieving scientists] are even more deluded than the garden variety apologist because their learning and prestigious self-importance further solidifies their false concepts about reality.

To a large extent, I think your criticism of them applies directly to your own movement. I think your insult toward the average apologist will be one that will embarass you at the Judgment Seat of Christ. I think you are majoring in the minors, becoming an expert yourself, in an absurd discipline which elevates the religous "control freak" to his own sphere.

[Jim wrote:]
To say, "The scientist should have ripped me apart" perpetuates the false notion that scientists are somehow profoundly superior to the rest of us and that their elite knowledge and expertise should be given special regard in this debate.

Either, you were not intuitive to understand my point (as explained above), or you are desperate to find something to criticize. (I imagine it's both.) Jim, I utterly disagree with you and am disappointed that you and I have just wasted so much time. If you had wanted to talk the pros and cons of evangelistic styles, fine, but you want to make your way right, and others wrong. I call that legalism, and oppresive, and what's worse, it will leave many souls in the field who otherwise could have been harvested. When people don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, I show them scientific, geographic, historical, and archaeological evidence to the contrary. And yes, by you, I might be sinning, but by many of them, they have praised God that someone took the time to show them evidence as to why the Bible is trustworthy. The last time I led someone to the Lord, that I know of, was three weeks ago, and I'm feeling rusty. I wonder if you and I had used our time differently, rather than in this debte, if between the two of us, we couldn't have brought someone else to the Lord?

I know some of what I've said is harsh, but I have no doubt you can take it. When people commit themselves to a wrong and unpopular idea, it is extraordinarily difficult for them to reconsider. So, please, take that challenge, and reconsider.

In Christ,
-Bob Enyart

---------End of Bob's e-mail--------
 
Last edited:

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
To Jim:
Thanks for posting your correspondance with Bob from a couple of years ago. It was very illuminating. I have not answered all your questions to me, but I can not help but ask you one more question in respect to what I have just read.
Do you rejoice over the many that have been saved through Bob's "unbiblical" methods {according to you, and your understanding of Biblical evangelism} and its ripple effects through others? Or are you like the pharisees who could not rejoice that the blind man could now see, IF it was done on the Sabbath, or by Jesus?
Jim, faith blind, and Jesus- less people, now see and believe and are saved thanks to someone answering them in the areas where they kept themselves from believing, and where they were sure no believer in God had any answer for them. Rejoice, with the angels, don't criticise how, or by whom, or when it happened!!!
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Jeremiah,

I'm glad you took the time to read the exchange between Bob and me. It's too bad he continued to betray a huge misunderstanding of our disagreement, as I spend so much of my reply agreeing with him. Telling, no? (I'll be posting a reply later today).

To answer your question, I rejoice in spite of these false methods. For example, I rejoice for the salvation that God is able to bring about in people's lives despite the televangelist hell-bound charlatans who rob the elderly of their life savings and deceive the masses by their false healings. Joseph could rejoice knowing that God brought about good despite the bad intentions of his 10 brothers. I rejoice that God used Mormonism to expose me to the scriptures and to bring me to Himself. That doesn't justify Mormonism, but I'm no less thankful.

Did you anticipate this answer at all, or did you just automatically assume I would be as evil as your mind could conceive?

Jim
 

DEVO

Documenting mans devolution
Jim thanks for posting that e-mail discussion. (if thats what it was).

I want to discuss this more with you but I must say Bob pretty much said everything I would say.
 

DEVO

Documenting mans devolution
Re: The context ...

Re: The context ...

Originally posted by Hilston
He doesn't have a reasoned (i.e. intelligible, coherent, consistent) defense. Look at Aussie Thinker's attempts in this and the other thread. He tries to come up with fanciful explanations and excuses, but none of them cohere. His worldview is riddled with contradictions and it is exposed as folly.
And how (in your opinion) is his worldview exposed as folly?

Yes, but this point cannot be separated from the fact that they do so foolishly and indefensibly.
And isn't this what evidentialists are doing?

The believer ought to care. The believer ought to be a soldier and defender of the Faith, casting down false reasonings, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ (2Co 10:5).
I am sorry but you missed my point. I wasn't making the claim that a believer doesn't care about a non-believer. My point was in the context of Romans 1, nonbelievers having excuses for other men seems a tad silly - it just isn't the point. The powerful context of Romans 1 is that a non-believer will not have an excuse on judgment day. They wont be able to say... "Gee God I didn't know that". Yet here on earth they are fully capable of making those claims.

And THAT is what is powerful about Romans 1. Isn't Romans 1 the most powerful case that on judgment day ultimately the most fair judgment is made? A sinful man without Christ's blood as a covering will have no excuse for not recognizing his sin and asking God for forgiveness.

The verb is present tense. He has no defense right now. They are fools, and we are instructed in how we are to answer them (Prov. 26:4,5).
Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.

I don't buy that arguing scientific facts is answering a fool according to his folly. Why do you think it is?

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,


When a person exchanges the truth (His attributes being clearly visible) for the lie (that there is no God) how on earth is pointing out these visible attributes answering a fool with his folly? It seems the opposite to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top