Thoughts from Mark "Hat" Rackley

Then Bildad the Shuhite replied:
“Dominion and awe belong to God;
    he establishes order in the heights of heaven.
Can his forces be numbered?
    On whom does his light not rise?

• Job 25:1-3

The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

• Psalm 19:1

“It is an astounding fact that no canonical writer has ever made use of nature to prove God. They all strive to make us believe in Him. David, Solomon, & c., have never said, ‘There is no void, therefore there is a God.’ They must have had more knowledge than the most learned people who came after them, and who have all made use of this argument. This is worthy of attention.”

• Blaise Pascal, Thoughts (thought 243)

These thoughts of Pascal are along the same lines as when I write a post on “A Thought on …”  He makes a statement, Pascal hopes that his thought will make others think.

Basically, he states that since David and Solomon and company, meaning other authors of books in the Bible, do not argue the existence of God, why should our first arrow from the quiver be the complexity of the universe?  His premise is flawed in that David starts Psalm 19 with the statement that the heavens declare the glory of God, which should include God’s existence.

But one verse out of many psalms that are attributed to King David?  Even with Pascal’s premise being flawed by only one verse, making the vastness, complexity, and even things Pascal might not have understood as much of modern science was discovered in Pascal’s day and the centuries after him.  The concept of the goldilocks zone, meaning the earth is in the perfect position, not too hot, not too cold. The moon is in the goldilocks position with respect to earth also.  There is a lot more than can be offered in favor of God’s creation, yet there are more agnostics and atheists than ever before.  Many were taught the millions of years and evolution have been proven.  Those are just theories that can either be proven false or simply not provable, yet they point to non-existent proof.

I watched one television show that stated, as Pascal suggests, that if you are not a scientist or you have not studied these issues in great detail, the best thing to do is ask them for their proof.  They will either ignore your request, name a book that has references to references to theories that have not been proven or, finally, state evidence that has been misinterpreted or proven to be a hoax.  As evidence supporting Creation is discovered, they have gotten good at hiding proof that contradicts them.

But on another television show, the advice for the novice is to avoid the evidentiary argument altogether unless you have a PhD and are fully read on the findings.  These people quoting non-existent evidence could run rings around you.  And they are just as passionate about their belief in a non-belief system as you are in believing in God.  Both parties would go away angry or confused, but even more entrenched that they are right.

Apologetics is the study of argument that breaks down their walls of defense and lets the Truth in.  Blind argumentation can fortify the wall with emotion.

SlimJim, from the Domain of Truth, is a presuppositional apologist.  About twice each month, it seems, he has a post on links to other sites discussing presuppositional apologetics, more information than you can absorb with a little casual reading, but that is the point.  The other person will be well prepared with their argument, even when based upon a lie, and they could be passionate.  Preparation means you do not get upset by their anger.  SlimJim argues from the Bible, the existence of God using reasoning, rational thought.  This does not preclude the use of evidence, but that is not the main focus.  We as Christians should be able to rationally know that God exists and that He is working in our lives.

Yet, in using evidence alone, can we do so without getting emotional when someone calls us an idiot or a liar?  Then maybe be need some foundation in another method of apologetics.  It is getting to the point, according to Os Guinness, that we will not be able to reach the fallen people with simple evangelism.  We will have to use one form of apologetics or another before they will reason that there must be a God. When I was on the streets, in the college campuses, and even in churches, most people accepted the existence of God, but that was 50 years ago.  People have strayed from a belief in some kind of God to a belief in nothingness, a void, a belief that we are a cosmic accident made from pond scum.  No purpose.  No truth.  Just an accident in a nasty world filled with other accidents.

Maybe our approach is to argue against that.  God loves them, so show some love.

Pascal may have started with an ever so slight error in his basic premise, and having that complex universe (well-practiced, tons of provable references) as one arrow.  But cracking through the shell of the meaninglessness of life might be a different approach.

In the end, whether as an apologist on the front lines or an evangelist, we are the vessels that God uses.  It is God who touches their heart.  We save no one.  Jesus saved all who call upon His name and have Him in their hearts, but when that spark inside us turns into a flame, it is the Holy Spirit that lights the torch.  I have said in many discussions that when the Holy Spirit has done enough work, you might say the most inane thing (not a good approach, but even then God can use it) and the person whom the Holy Spirit has convicted of their sins will drop to their knees and ask what does it take to be saved.

We should study.  We should prepare.  Everyone is called to the task.  But God does the work, before we say anything, and then with us being willing vessels, He speaks through us.

Soli Deo Gloria.  Only to God be the Glory.