"Common ground" with unbelievers?

[wturri78]

I was just reading through an article at the Answers in Genesis website designed to help college students to handle "tolerance" when they're attacked by "tolerant" people because Christians are "intolerant." Overall, a well-written article: Responding to Tolerance - Answers in Genesis

I was wondering how people on this board would view the following quotation from the article. Does this go against a presuppositional apologetic? The author isn't saying that the Bible can't be cited, but more pointing out that building a case on chapters and verses from a book that your opponent rejects will not be convincing (I see the point...if a Mormon started slinging quotes from the Book of Mormon in my direction, I would not be convinced because I already reject the authority of the source). Yet if taken too far, it can lead to yielding all authority to the nebulous realm of natural law or "basic right and wrong." Is there a happy medium to be found?

5. Limit the Bible thumping.
One Saturday morning I attended part of an ordination service for two new pastors at our church. A council of pastors and elders asked them questions about doctrine and theology to test their worthiness for ordination. It was a wonderful process of Q and A as the candidates for ordination responded to questions about the problem of evil, the make-up of the trinity, and many other theological issues. Naturally, they built their answers based on scripture. It struck me that that kind of dialogue doesn’t work in the college classroom. What works in the church does not work in the culture. A secular group isn’t going to respect the Bible, so it’s a mistake to start throwing out chapter and verse. Although we may not quote chapter and verse, the truth of scripture must be present.

The key is to find a common denominator. When Paul spoke to the pagans on Mars Hill, he didn’t quote Old Testament scripture. Paul was an Old Testament scholar, but that’s not the reference point he used on Mars Hill. He considered the audience, pagans fond of the poets, and he himself quoted the pagan poets. He found their reference point of his peers and worked from there.

Apollos was “mighty in the scriptures” (Acts 18:24) and powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. Apollos knew his audience and knew what they respected—the Scriptures—so that became his common denominator. Two very different audiences, two very different approaches. Know your audience and speak their language.

What’s the common denominator for most people? Basic right and wrong. People may deny that they believe in the absolutes that determine right and wrong, but, deep down, almost everybody does believe in absolutes that determine right and wrong. Every culture in the world intrinsically knows it’s wrong to murder. It is important to appeal to that sense of right and wrong deep within individuals. Romans says that God has written the basics of right and wrong on every man’s heart (Romans 1:19,20). Appeal to a base of right and wrong and work from there.

 

[BobVigneault]

The believer stands on the foundation of God's Word and the presup that there is a God and He's revealed himself in His Word, the Bible.

The unbeliever doesn't share that first principle and has not really considered how knowledge is justified. Any argument can be taken to establishing a justification of knowledge. Morality is a great place to begin because it's easy to point out evil and because God has written his law on our (all mankind) hearts we share a sense of conscience.

Evil is a great argument for God's existence that I have used many times:

Evil exists
If evil exists then there must be a law which determines evil from good.
If a law exists then there must be a transcendent law giver who stands outside of the human condition.
The transcendent lawgiver is God.

It not a silver bullet but it gets a person thinking in a logical way. I always ask, "How do you know what you know?".

We cannot begin with Scripture because we must first justify knowledge. It is easy to show that everyone has assumed knowledge and interprets evidence through their particular filter (worldview). It is then a matter of demonstrating who has a more consistent worldview.

 

[Theognome]

There's a huge web forum specifically for pagans (mystic wicks) that I used to post on. Most of the Christian Apologetics found there were the, "You're all gonna burn in Hell and here's why..." variety, which generally wound up with the apologist being ridiculed heavily before being banned.

In my own dealing with these pagans, I found that the first step was to find something biblical that we agreed upon- whether they knew it was biblical or not. There's nothing un-presuppositional about this, as it's assumed that agreement will be found- for ultimately, the truth is obvious and can't be denied with honesty by any human being.

For me, the key was bring in Biblical references once they had hung themselves by revealing their agreement with God's word before they knew it was. From there, I could guide the logical conclusions of the truth from God's word without the typical 'shutting down' that pagans often revert to.

Theognome

 

[Dearly Bought]

From Van Til's My Credo:

To look for a point of contact with the unbeliever in the unbeliever's notions of himself and his world is to encourage him in his wicked rebellion and to establish him in his sell- frustration. We have already seen that the natural man is under the self-imposed delusion that he is "free," i.e., independent of the control and counsel of God, and that the "facts" about him are also "free" in this way. He may pretend to be "open- minded" and ready to consider whether God exists. But in being so "neutral" he commits the same sin as Adam and Eve.

Why seek truth where only a lie is to be found? Can the non- Christian tell us and therefore the Christ himself what the facts are and how they are related to each other, in what way they cohere, while yet excluding creation and providence? If he can, and if he can tell us truly, then the Christian story simply is not true! Because the natural man cannot do this, because the Christian message is true, I have sought and still seek to reap the benefit of a theology in which the triune God of Scripture has the initiative in salvation.

The Calvinist's idea of an actual as opposed to an imagined point of contact is not just some useless notion. It is the only intelligible point of contact possible. The non-Christian holds that pure chance and absolute fate are equally ultimate and mutually correlative limiting concepts or heuristic principles which man uses to explain the fact that we have learned much about the world, that there is order in the world, a uniformity, while there is also continual change and development. But the non-Christian's "explanation" is no explanation at all. To say "it just happens" as an explanation of an event is really to say, "There is no explanation that I know of."

The Calvinist, therefore, using his point of contact, observes to the non-Christian that if the world were not what Scripture says it is, if the natural man's knowledge were not actually rooted in the creation and providence of God, then there could be no knowledge whatsoever. The Christian claims that non-Christians have made and now make many discoveries about the true state of affairs of the universe simply because the universe is what Christ says it is. The unbelieving scientist borrows or steals the Christian principles of creation and providence every time he says that an "explanation" is possible, for he knows he cannot account for "explanation" on his own. As the image-bearer of God, operating in a universe controlled by God, the unbeliever contributes indirectly and adventitiously to the development of human knowledge and culture.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I'd also recommend the following article by Van Til:
The Believer Meets the Unbeliever (courtesy of The Outlook)

In this essay, Van Til describes the perspective of the Biblical apologist:

He does not appeal to "experience" or to "reason" or to "history" or to anything else as his source of information in the way that he appeals to the Bible. He may appeal to experience, but his appeal will be to experience as seen in the light of the Bible. So he may appeal to reason or to history, but, again, only as they are to be seen in the light of the Bible. He does not even look for corroboration for the teachings of Scripture from experience, reason or history except insofar as these are themselves first seen in the light of the Bible. For him the Bible, and therefore the God of the Bible, is like the sun from which the light that is given by oil lamps, gas lamps and electrical light is derived.

 

[MMasztal]

I frequently use the Answers in Genesis material in my classes. From what I've heard from this material, Ken Ham is in the reformed camp. I believe his opinion on modern day witnessing is correct.

I'm 53 years old and in my childhood, pretty much everyone knew there was a Holy God, sin, and Divine judgment. Much like the crowd Peter spoke to in Acts 2. But today, the society is more like the pagan Greeks with most folks growing up with a post-modern mindset and an ability to rationalize nearly every aspect of their thought. This latter crowd won't be responsive to a "Jesus is our Savior" reaching as they don't comprehend what they need saving from and why Jesus is the way. Hence Paul's approach in Acts 17 might be more effective.

A good AiG book on this is Ham's "Creation Evangelism"
Amazon.com: Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium: Ken Ham: Books

 

[ReformedWretch]

All the scientific proofs, evidential proofs, and philosophical truths will fail to convince him because of his hatred for the truth. Apologetically speaking, he may be shown to be foolish, inconsistent, etc., but this will not convince Him of becoming a Christian.

AMEN!! Have I ever found this out in my career as a childcare worker (with children and adults). I've long ago stopped trying to convince anyone of anything outside of scripture. I'll not try and prove God's word is true through science or even reason very often unless I feel strongly that doing so will indeed help. Often people demanding proof through hours of discussion on reason and science are looking for excuses for their rejection of God.

I am thankful that I needn't depend on my apologetic prowess, scientific knowledge, or philosophical reserves in order to convince men. Instead, I can always be ready "to give an answer for the hope that have," and let the perceived foolishness of the Gospel do its work ... whether it be in redemption or condemnation. Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Awesome!

 

[Matthias]

The author isn't saying that the Bible can't be cited, but more pointing out that building a case on chapters and verses from a book that your opponent rejects will not be convincing ...

Well only the Holy Spirit will be "convincing," and He works via the Gospel, the "power of God unto salvation." The Holy Spirit, via the Scriptures, is always effective in His work. Some He regenerates, while others He hardens. As for convincing goes, all the finely tuned arguments, proofs, etc. will not turn the wicked from his way. Why? Because he "hold the truth," but he does so "in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1).

As a pastor once explained to me, he "counts on" God's laws to make sense of the world (when he squeezes something in a tube, he expects it to come out, when it rains outside, he counts on it being wet, etc.), but he does so with all aversion to God's righteous demands, even to the point of denying that He is real. All the scientific proofs, evidential proofs, and philosophical truths will fail to convince him because of his hatred for the truth. Apologetically speaking, he may be shown to be foolish, inconsistent, etc., but this will not convince Him of becoming a Christian.

So while Apologetics is important for the defense of the faith, and Creationism is important for the defense of the faith, only the Scriptures (via the work of the Spirit) are essential for the conversion/convincing of souls. I am thankful that I needn't depend on my apologetic prowess, scientific knowledge, or philosophical reserves in order to convince men. Instead, I can always be ready "to give an answer for the hope that have," and let the perceived foolishness of the Gospel do its work ... whether it be in redemption or condemnation. Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Well said!

 

[OPC'n]

Keeping in mind that it isn't mankind who saves....

A good defense of the Gospel is a mighty weapon. We proclaim the Gospel BECAUSE God has commanded us to do so and for His glory. However, there is nothing wrong with being educated in all sorts of categories. I find Sproul well versed in his knowledge and can answer the skeptic with intelligence. In this way too, Sproul glorifies God.

 

[JohnGill]

Here's an article by Bahnsen dealing with the common ground we have and don't have with the unbeliever: PA196

Here's the link to the main article index:

Free Articles