Sometimes I think that Christians who are vehemently opposed to the Bible's direct teaching about creation are motiviated by two arrogancies, or maybe, one of the two.
The first, I think, is the arrogant presumption that people other then Christians don't have a religious belief. I use 'religous' here as Clouser uses it in his book "The Myth of Religious Neutrality". That is, a basic belief in something which is independently real. Today, I would suggest that the dominant belief is that the only independent reality is material. That is, basic reality is nothing more than the material, and everything is circumscribed materially.
The second arrogance is related. It is that the Christian/biblical world view is really accepted by all and sundry, and that their beliefs are embedded in a commitment to that world view. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course.
Both these mistakes hobble evangelism and deny the Scriptures.
When you speak to a person about matters of Christian faith at some (early) stage you have to know their world view and introduce them to yours. If you say to a materialist that Christ saves you from your sin, etc., they hear that in terms of reality being finally material, and chance interactions being all that we have: nothing is really significant. Of course, no one lives this way, but that's a typical belief, or its logical conclusion.
The end is the materialist is philosophically locked out of the biblical world view and is not typicaly in a position to embrace its elements, including Christ's salvationm, until that world view is undone (I know that all response to Christ do not follow this paradigm, but it is a helpful framework, I find).
However, if you are able to meet and expose the person's world view (in a conversational engagement, of course) then move them to understand the supernatural world view of the Bible, and its congruence with both history (including the Creation) and our existential circumstances, then the road to Christ is more direct (with other factors aside).
Not only did Paul set out this agenda in Acts 17 (blithly ignored by the Church in recent times, if not all times, and certainly the Sydney Anglicans now!), but the Spirit has provided us with the knowledge to take people to the 'land of the love of God, and the God of love' in the Creation wrought by God and only accounted for in Genesis 1.
So if the world really came supernaturally from God's hand, this is the great undoing of materialism, and examination of the world should be consistent with this and we can use such evangelically. On the other hand if the world really came about by chance processes (contrary to Hebrews 11:3), a view espoused on the axiomatic basis that there is no God, or if there is, he has not spoken or acted in our time-space, then the world should look like that (what ever that looks like: and how would we know?).
Paul thinks that the Creation 'looks like' it came from the hand of God (Roms 1:20 and 4:17c read together) and that this is a sufficient sign to us of God's hand and love!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I know just what you mean Eric (does that stand for Education Research and Information Centre?). I've heard the 'clear presentations of the gospel' which apparently win points for clergy in the diocese, but really fail to address the audience, to acknowledge that they have any thoughts about their lives, or even obey the gospel: Jesus always engaged, even if only on the basis of shared Jewish belief, and Paul certainly did, as you said. I like the book Bridge Building by McGrath, which talks about this stuff.
Eric reading through your post I was reminded of the time when I spoke at a church in the Sutherland area some years ago. Afterwards a young woman approached me & told me that she had become a Christian because of a personal crisis but because of her upbringing where evolution was considered fact she had problems.
She wanted the forgiveness that Christ offers & the security of eternity with Him but found it inmpossible to be confident that these things were real, because of her Evolutionary indoctrination. If the Bible was so wrong about Genesis how can we be sure of heaven etc.
Someone had given her an AiG (now CMI) book then she attended my talk & said excitedly that these two parts had released her to live by faith totally confident now that the whole of the Bible & all its promises were true.
The truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth, taking God at His Word rather than the slalom that T/E's and others do through Scripture- this bit is true but this bit has been proven wrong by science. But surely human resurrection has been proven wrong by this same 'science' as has virgin birth.
Thank you for your post.
Your hitting it, man. You can start a conversation any time with anyone if you start with creation, or evolution (and get to creation) or anything to do with God's creation . . . its sooo easy! Just try that with the four spiritual laws: no can do!
I suggest you be a bit cautious with Alistair McGrath because if not a Theistic Evolutionist he is a 'long ager' so is going to be inconsistent in his application of Scripture.
Eric, many Moore College graduates will say you can't know who the God who created is from looking at the creation. This means they know Moore more than they know the Lord's anointed - Paul.
Sam Drucker
True enough Sam. There was a good review of Alister McGrath's book Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life in the Journal of Creation last year (see PDF).
Post a Comment