Re: BIBLE:first humans
Murphy (gmurphy@imperium.net)
Fri, 20 Sep 1996 21:29:13 -0400Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> Daniel J. Berger wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately, in dealing with engineers and scientific people, I
> >have had difficulty occasionally in getting them to see their
> >sinfulness due to the "problems" with Genesis.
>
> Bill Hamilton wrote:
>
> > If you are involved in evangelism (I hope
> >you are) you probably don't begin your witnessing to a nonbeliever by
> >relating Genesis 1-3 to him. More likely you tell him that men are
> >separated from God by sin, that the only remedy is Jesus' death on the
> >cross, and that this remedy is a free gift you can have simply by
> >confessing your sins and accepting it. This approach depends on the fact
> >that most people know they are sinful.
>
> and Geoffrey Horton wrote:
>
> >I recently read a book called _How to Reach Secular People_ (terrible
> >title, good book). One of the authors' chief points was that this approach
> >to evangelism is no longer as useful or effective as it was. We live in an
> >era where guilt is no longer the chief psychogical need that people need
> >addressed. They are simply totally adrift and are in need of a fixed point
> >of reference. Jesus as the Rock is more important, _in the beginning_,
> >than Jesus the Reedemer.
>
> Let me suggest something about the role of apologetics in Christianity. I do
> not believe that apologetics is an evangelistic tool in spite of the fact that
> lots of people think it is. Having an explanation for how the Bible and
> Science/History interact is more of a discipleship tool. I have never seen
> anyone brought to the Lord by origins discussions. This view may seem
> surprising to those who know how much effort I put into the origins question.
>
> What apologetics, is about is to prevent Christians from LEAVING the faith. I
> have known lots and lots of Christians who are no longer believers because no
> one could tell them how early Genesis and Science fit together. While lots of
> people on the ASA list are satisfied to have no concordance between Science
> and Scripture, lots of believers, like me, are not satisfied with that
> approach.
>
> The interesting thing is that many of the most vocal atheists on Talk.Origins
> are former believers who feel that they were duped and betrayed by
> Christianity because no one could explain how evolution and a historical
> scripture could go together.
>
> Those who do not like concordism should realize that it does indeed have a
> role to play (as long as the concordism can actually match the scientific
> facts). It's role is the prevention of apostasy.
>
> glenn
> Foundation,Fall and Flood
> http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm
Apologetics certainly does have a role in keeping Christians
from abandoning the faith. But the classical apologists - I think of
Justin Martyr first of all - wrote first to defend Christianity
and to remove misunderstandings about the faith among pagans. How one
can do apologetics with that intention in an adequate way in our culture
is another question.
SHALOM,
George Murphy