God's Not Dead

"There seems to me to have been twice as much done in some ages in defending the Bible as in expounding it, but if the whole of our strength shall henceforth go to the exposition and spreading of it, we may leave it pretty much to defend itself. I do not know whether you see that lion—it is very distinctly before my eyes; a number of persons advance to attack him, while a host of us would defend the grand old monarch, the British Lion, with all our strength. Many suggestions are made and much advice is offered. This weapon is recommended, and the other. Pardon me if I offer a quiet suggestion. Open the door and let the lion out; he will take care of himself. Why, they are gone! He no sooner goes forth in his strength than his assailants flee. The way to meet infidelity is to spread the Bible. The answer to every objection against the Bible is the Bible."

Charles Spurgeon

Use the bible, it will defend itself.

 

There's nothing wrong using commentaries when preparing a sermon for the congregation of believers.

But an atheist is not a believer, so using an outside source to witness would be an enormous faux pas, imo.

God quickens the dead to life via His word, His gospel, not commentaries.

Hit atheists with the word of God, and nothing else needs added.

 

The Christ is mentioned in the Quran and in Josephus' writings. Two outside sources witness to His existence as a man. So you can use that. But always start and stop with the word of God.

 

Correct; and that faith that the Holy Spirit works comes by hearing the Gospel.

Not by hearing man's thoughts about the Gospel.

 

Nope. You don't get to pretend that those of us who are pushing you to prioritize the scriptures as being against books.

Why do you ignore that the atheism is a position founded on a choice, not on evidence or lack of evidence?

You are trying to make atheist encounters a battle of wits and arguments instead of encounters with God. Listen, in the earliest years of coming to faith - shortly after I came out of agnosticism and before I gained wisdom - I would debate atheist acquaintances since I was quite familiar with the latest apologetics arguments, as well as the classic ones. I actually won a lot of debates, but did not win anyone to Christ. It appealed to my ego and made me feel powerful and important, but it did nothing for anyone else. But I began to get quite frustrated because I didn't see any converts. Certainly my debate opponents would see that God was real through my ability to win the arguments! Right? Wrong.

Then I thought about how I made my journey from agnosticism to faith in Christ. While I spent a lot of time on apologetic arguments and reading books like Evidence that Demands a Verdict, I actually came to faith by reading and studying the scripture - not through arguments. As I read, I began to understand the broader themes of scripture and thinking profound thoughts that did not originate with me. I knew I had some mental gifts, but the understanding I was gaining was well beyond my capabilities. I was thinking about this experience late one night and realized I was being taught by Someone much greater than me. I consciously yielded to the Teacher and asked for His continued help, and He took me completely through the scriptures over the course of months, and I became a believer before we finished.

Apologetics has its place when you are dealing with certain issues, but it is NOT evangelism and will NOT being anyone to faith.

 

Brother, I have a similar story, but it took me 12 years to get past arguments and have faith.

I must mention that you just used something that is utterly nonsensical. How can you come to faith, the conviction of things not seen and the assurance of things hoped for (Hebrews 11:1), through a clever argument? It is impossible to have unseen certainty and future assurance through clever arguments.

 

Name one person who has claimed that there is no value in reading books... Just one.

Otherwise, stop being childish and purposely misrepresenting what people are saying here.

 

So did Thomas Jefferson who said, “I cannot live without books.”

However, Jefferson took a penknife to the Bible to remove Scriptures He thought inaccurate, excessive, didn’t like, or met some other definition he thought appropriate.

There is a single difference between the assembly reading a book on some mater of the faith and practice compared to using a book on one not in the assembly.

It is called - belief.

Until one believes, the only book that matters is the Bible.

 

That's the press the book gets. Compared to the scripture, it is a very small amount. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that most people who credit that book an an influential part of their journey to God put all of the credit on the book.

Listen, no one is saying that books cannot be helpful, but that shouldn't be your focus. You keep wanting to de-personalize (de-incarnate) the gospel message. Why?

 

I must have miscommunicated or perhaps you misunderstand what you have quoted. I was making the case AGAINST clever arguments as a means to faith.

 

In the context of that statement, you are insinuating that those of us who don't agree with your approach do not. If you are truly that clueless about what you write and communicate, you should not be trying to speak for Jesus to those who are biased against Him. You will only confirm their worst opinions.