Continued from yesterday. Observations concerning witnessing to atheists based on the debate between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs Atheists Brian Sapient and "Kelly" as screened on ABC Nightline. Ray and Kirk were widely criticized by many Christians for not pulling out the heavy apologetic artillery in fighting the cause of the existence of God. But is that criticism biblically informed. In the following days I will be publishing five observations concerning the debate and how we should evangelize atheists. Here is my fourth observation:
The atheist already has knowledge of God and his conscience bears witness that he is alienated from Him.
The atheist can deny all he wants and try to argue from an intellectual standpoint. It is both foolish and futile to war on this front because knowledge is not the issue and some atheists are a lot smarter than I am. But try as he may, the atheist cannot explain why his conscience opposes his human nature. But we know why because God's Word tells us that God's law is written on everybodies heart and our knowledge of right and wrong testifies both to God's existence, and man's alienation from this God.
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.
By explaining God's moral law via the ten commandments prior to explaining the Gospel message Ray and Kirk actually gave the necessary point of reference in order to understand the Gospel and in so doing avoided futile reasoning on the intellectual level. I do not mean to discount the use of the intellect but rather to use it only when an individual is humbled before God. Brian Sapient and Kelly may have mocked and laughed but they have the knowledge of God and suppress it in unrighteousness, this I know for the Bible tells me so.
It seems ironic that in a land with so many "seeker sensitive" mega churches built on a catch cry of "relevance" that they have neglected to fully explain the universal guilt of mankind. I can't think of anything more relevant than the fact that "all have sinned". Sure it might get mentioned from time to time, but rarely is it explained. Sin by definition is transgression of God's law (I John 3:4) and I fail to see how an individual could fathom their sinfulness without an understanding of God's law.
Concludes Tomorrow - Observation 5
Go On To Part 6
Go Back To Part 4
Go Back To Part 1
John MacArthur's Inerrancy Summit Begins Today
5 hours ago