Churchwork
01-28-2009, 02:58 AM
Antony Flew, the leading atheist of the 20th century, renounced atheism around 2004 because of Aristotle's cosmological argument and gave into Plato by following the evidence where it leads. Basically, nothing in nature happens all by itself, so the universe can't cause itself and therefore, was caused by that which is uncaused. Furthermore, the uncreated Creator intelligently designed. One example Antony uses is to place the letters of a novel in a scrambled order, then to run a simulation, those letters will never realign themselves into that novel. Even on a very small scale, a few letters that could generate a word or sentence never do so.
But Antony has not accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior. This is the approach Gary R. Habermas should use with Antony and soon before he passes away. The question ought to be what evidence would suffice for what could be better proof than the resurrection?
Whatever answer Antony gives, it should be compared to the proof of the resurrection. You will discover the resurrection becomes the best possible proof. Anything else lacks in some fashion. Antony must be brought to this point of accepting that God would accept nothing less. If Antony can resolve himself to accepting the resurrection would trump all other proofs of God then it is just a matter of determining whether the resurrection was amply proven or not.
Does all the evidence given in antiquity prove the resurrection of Jesus adequately? Each point should be addressed and answered to, leaving Antony with nothing left but to accept Christ. If Antony can accept there can only be one claim on God, then different claims on God would be wrong. As Antony said: "Christianity is the only game in town." Then again, it is just a matter of determining whether the resurrection was amply proven or not. If not, then what would you add to the proof? Is adding such additional data warranted or realistic or even necessary? You will find it is not. God provides just enough obscurity to reject Him if you want, but also provides enough evidence to accept Him if you have an honest heart. So free-will is preserved. And if all God needed to give you was one more piece of evidence, He surely would have done so.
Lastly, some talk of the problem of our sin problem needs be discussed, consequence or punishment for sin, how sin can separate us from the eternal God, and if God so loves us in His intelligent design, would He provide the means of redeeming us back to Him whosoever is willing to accept? Thus, the necessity for Hell, for a loving God would never let the sinner be with the saved, for the sake of the saved and His just righteousness. And since we have awareness of His existence, would it be right to annihilate a soul with that kind of awareness? Therefore, we are not merely instrumental value, a means to an end, but we are intrinsic value to God who wants to walk with those who love Him. Whereas Hell will be devoid of His presence and grace.
This may seem like a tall order, but not really. You would be surprised what you can accomplish following the leading of the Holy Spirit and taking the conversation to its natural conclusion.
But Antony still will not give his life to Christ for the simple reason that even though this full proof has been supplied in personal discussion, it is his own free-will and God can't force him into Heaven, so if he still refuses the cross of salvation, God respects that decision and let's Antony go to Hell. Antony has nothing to hold onto to deny God's proof, yet he still goes against the evidence and does not accept Christ. But Gary must at least try this approach and plead with Antony to give up control of himself which is a much scarier thing to do at Antony's age than someone say 13 years old.
I would suspect a heart to heart talk with Antony of perhaps 5 hours a day for no more than 2 weeks should bring Antony into the body of Christ. Who would dare try this? Would Antony even be willing to give up his time to do this? It is an honest heart that is willing to do this; if you search God out with all your heart and soul, you shall surely find Him.
But Antony has not accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior. This is the approach Gary R. Habermas should use with Antony and soon before he passes away. The question ought to be what evidence would suffice for what could be better proof than the resurrection?
Whatever answer Antony gives, it should be compared to the proof of the resurrection. You will discover the resurrection becomes the best possible proof. Anything else lacks in some fashion. Antony must be brought to this point of accepting that God would accept nothing less. If Antony can resolve himself to accepting the resurrection would trump all other proofs of God then it is just a matter of determining whether the resurrection was amply proven or not.
Does all the evidence given in antiquity prove the resurrection of Jesus adequately? Each point should be addressed and answered to, leaving Antony with nothing left but to accept Christ. If Antony can accept there can only be one claim on God, then different claims on God would be wrong. As Antony said: "Christianity is the only game in town." Then again, it is just a matter of determining whether the resurrection was amply proven or not. If not, then what would you add to the proof? Is adding such additional data warranted or realistic or even necessary? You will find it is not. God provides just enough obscurity to reject Him if you want, but also provides enough evidence to accept Him if you have an honest heart. So free-will is preserved. And if all God needed to give you was one more piece of evidence, He surely would have done so.
Lastly, some talk of the problem of our sin problem needs be discussed, consequence or punishment for sin, how sin can separate us from the eternal God, and if God so loves us in His intelligent design, would He provide the means of redeeming us back to Him whosoever is willing to accept? Thus, the necessity for Hell, for a loving God would never let the sinner be with the saved, for the sake of the saved and His just righteousness. And since we have awareness of His existence, would it be right to annihilate a soul with that kind of awareness? Therefore, we are not merely instrumental value, a means to an end, but we are intrinsic value to God who wants to walk with those who love Him. Whereas Hell will be devoid of His presence and grace.
This may seem like a tall order, but not really. You would be surprised what you can accomplish following the leading of the Holy Spirit and taking the conversation to its natural conclusion.
But Antony still will not give his life to Christ for the simple reason that even though this full proof has been supplied in personal discussion, it is his own free-will and God can't force him into Heaven, so if he still refuses the cross of salvation, God respects that decision and let's Antony go to Hell. Antony has nothing to hold onto to deny God's proof, yet he still goes against the evidence and does not accept Christ. But Gary must at least try this approach and plead with Antony to give up control of himself which is a much scarier thing to do at Antony's age than someone say 13 years old.
I would suspect a heart to heart talk with Antony of perhaps 5 hours a day for no more than 2 weeks should bring Antony into the body of Christ. Who would dare try this? Would Antony even be willing to give up his time to do this? It is an honest heart that is willing to do this; if you search God out with all your heart and soul, you shall surely find Him.