Commenting on Acts 17:24-31, Michael Horton writes:
As a datable event in our own history, the resurrection cannot be shoved into a closet of personal piety. Everyone has to deal with it. This isn’t just another religion story. It’s the international headline.
From The Gospel-Driven Life: Being Good News People in a Bad News World, 33.
**************************************************************************
As I have been sharing the Gospel with different people lately I have been trying to land the plane right there: the resurrection of Jesus. Either it happened or it didn't. If it did, this has radical implications on our lives, if it didn't, Christianity is the biggest joke in history (see 1 Cor. 15:17). What we do with this issue in some ways is, THE issue. Don't relegate your witness to personal experience, deal with the facts of history.
3 comments:
Zach, if a nonbeliever was open to the supernatural, then I agree with you. And, I’m sort of playing devil’s advocate here, but I just recently read The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection, by Greg Bahnsen, and I’m wrestling through his point. I’d be curious what you think about his argument against arguing for the resurrection.
He concludes “Although evidence has a part in the Christian apologetic, it is not the pivotal and foundational part. While we may momentarily silence the belligerent claim of the skeptic by showing that even on his tacit assumptions the resurrection is not a sheer impossibility (as evidence would indicate), our central defense of the faith had better be made of stronger stuff. As Paul at Athens, we must demand a complete, change of world-outlook and presupposition (based on the authority of God's word) and not just a mere addition of a few facts.”
Presuppositionalist! Yes!
I am with you and I think I agree to an extent. Jesus said in Luke 16:33 that "even if a man rises from the dead they will still not believe". It's not a knowledge issue, it's a heart and affection issue. All people know there is a God (Rom. 1), but the issue is, do they love him or hate him?
So I think I am with you, but I still think there is a place for speaking about the events of history as fact as opposed to simply speaking of "Jesus in my heart" experience that no one can really argue with anyway.
In some ways I kind of wan to "put a rock in people's shoe" as Greg Koukl says and make then probably think about something that they have never considered before. I would agree that is we only deal with the resurrection our presentation will probably be a bit anemic.
I have not thought a ton about these matters, but just trying to move away from the realm of personal experience only and more more toward historicity.
z
yea, i'm with you there. and since you mentioned Koukl, his material is, by far, the best for one on one conversation. I use Koukl’s columbo tactic almost *daily*.
Right now i'm just really trying to work through *where* to take a conversation. Do i take it to worldview (ultimate commitment) and show theirs does not work, or do I only respond to what the person gives me? Do I attempt to *prove* my case? Every conversation is different.
I do agree with Van Til on this point: it’s in error to think that we can step into a neutral “middle ground” whereby a “rational” discussion and evaluation of the facts can be had. The unbeliever suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, and won’t believe even if someone rises from the dead, as you pointed out.
Post a Comment