Christian Apologetics: Knowing Our Enemy Called the Scientific Worldview

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Post #24 gives away what I'm looking for now.
I will be posting my own response to secular humanism, but for now I would love to hear your response. I define secular humanism in post #1, mis-labeling it the scientific worldview.
I also agree somewhat on atheists. The question would be then "are scoffers best witnessed to by apologetics," which is what many Christians believe.

How refreshing that you can admit the possibility of another interpretation, instead of expressing the all too typical dogmatism. How much better it would be if others could do the same.

No, I don’t see it as helpful to argue for appearance of age, a young earth, a global flood, geocentricity, or a flat earth with scientifically-minded people. It can be downright harmful. Science is not an enemy of the truth. Scientists are not enemies of the truth. But given your sort of representations, they may have very good reason to scoff, and think your other ideas on the Bible must be equally worthy of scorn. Everyone needs the Gospel. Find a way to share that.

 

[Alcott]

Those who believed that that Earth is not flat but is spherical also were declared to be heretics.

When was this, and who? Maybe peasants who did nothing but work the fields or menial tasks to serve their masters thought thus, as there was no reason to think otherwise and it wouldn't help them. But thinking people considered how a ship disappeared over the horizon before its tallest sails did, how the Pole Star had no visible 'movement' and the other stars revolved around it, and how the earth's shadow was seen on the moon occasionally, but then only on the night of a Full Moon... and came to the obvious conclusion(s). It's hardly the most difficult thing in the world, including in ancient times, to see the earth is spherical.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

No, I don’t see it as helpful to argue for appearance of age, a young earth, a global flood, geocentricity, or a flat earth with scientifically-minded people. It can be downright harmful. Science is not an enemy of the truth. Scientists are not enemies of the truth. But given your sort of representations, they may have very good reason to scoff, and think your other ideas on the Bible must be equally worthy of scorn. Everyone needs the Gospel. Find a way to share that.

First of all, that felt harmful. You say sin that damns people to hell (scoffing) is justified just because the messenger with the Gospel believes in a (too) literal interpretation of the bible.

Second, your post leads me to believe you do not believe in a global flood, which I find shocking. Do you believe in Adam and Eve and Eden?

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Christian Apologetics: Knowing Our Enemy Called the Scientific Worldview

Is there a scriptural reference to support that statement?

The discipline of science does not condemn the soul of man, nor can it redeem it.

Jas 4:4 KJV Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Christian Apologetics: Knowing Our Enemy Called the Scientific Worldview

Is there a scriptural reference to support that statement?

The discipline of science does not condemn the soul of man, nor can it redeem it.

Jas 4:4 KJV Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

I should have called it Secular Humanism, not the Scientific Worldview. I am sorry. I have already been corrected. Between post #24 and post #1 you should have all you need to contribute more.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

First of all, that felt harmful. You say sin that damns people to hell (scoffing) is justified just because the messenger with the Gospel believes in a (too) literal interpretation of the bible.

No, I did not say what you say I said, but let me try to be clearer. I pointed out some problems with the way you presented some ideas. You even admitted that your interpretation may turn out to be wrong. The way you have presented some of your beliefs can be harmful if you try to present them to scientifically minded people as a way to share the Gospel. They may very well feel justified in not listening to anything else from the Bible, if you start out that way. It is best to avoid doing so. As one person here has wisely suggested, find common ground and go from there. Don’t antagonize.

Second, your post leads me to believe you do not believe in a global flood, which I find shocking. Do you believe in Adam and Eve and Eden?

Your expressed shock and resultant question make me suspect you are not very familiar with other interpretations that square with the Bible’s historical accounts of the Noahic Flood and the Garden of Eden. Sometimes people have seen only caricatures of other interpretations, with attendant accusations of this or that. Perhaps that’s why you were shocked and left wondering?

 

[Steven Yeadon]

You even admitted that your interpretation may turn out to be wrong. The way you have presented some of your beliefs can be harmful if you try to present them to scientifically minded people as a way to share the Gospel. They may very well feel justified in not listening to anything else from the Bible, if you start out that way. It is best to avoid doing so. As one person here has wisely suggested, find common ground and go from there. Don’t antagonize.

That is a good point, best to make the Gospel attractive like Paul did. The full weight of Christian beliefs can come over time. That does call into question modern Christian apologetics to atheists, though.

Your expressed shock and resultant question make me suspect you are not very familiar with other interpretations that square with the Bible’s historical accounts of the Noahic Flood and the Garden of Eden. Sometimes people have seen only caricatures of other interpretations, with attendant accusations of this or that. Perhaps that’s why you were shocked and left wondering?

The shock is because until this point in my life, only liberal Christians from Mainline denominations have used those interpretations. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.

 

[Aaron]

I disagree with your entire premise and think it is damaging to faith and science.

You are not describing "the scientific worldview", "a scientific worldview", or even "a scientific worldview." You are describing naturalistic/empirical rationalist worldview, not science.

If you are describing science, then no Christian (or person of any religious faith) can be a scientist, and that's simply not true. Moreover, you are setting up a lot of people for a crisis in faith by claiming that those who have interesting in pursuing a career in the sciences must jettison their faith to do so -- that's not hyperbole, I personally know several people who went through that, including an astrophysicist and an organic chemist. The astrophysicist has somewhat reconciled her "six-day creation" upbringing and what she plainly knows is true in her studies of the cosmos, but the organic chemist jettisoned his faith and is not open to considering the Christian gospel partially because of Christians who have clearly told him that he has to reject science to be a man of faith.

Some definitions:

Naturalism - The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural and/or physical properties and causes.

Empirical Rationalism - A devotion to science and reason as the primary authorities for determining what we know, or what can be known at all, about our world.

All well and good, except for the fact that the distinctions you demarcate are ignored by the scientists themselves.

 

[FollowTheWay]

What you are referring to is called Non-Overlapping Magisteria in Theology. The problem I have goes back to my former atheism. If I cannot trust Genesis 1-11, then why should I trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? If the early parts of Genesis are not to be taken at face value, then why take the Jesus of the bible at face value?

While I agree we should be open minded, I mean, I may find out Day-Age theories are correct, and that the earth was formed over a long time. I allow that to be possible. I do not allow for Non-Overlapping Magisetra.

Because, the bible is a better guide to reality than science books, which reject Adam and Eve and Eden wholesale. They even reject Noah, his family, and the Flood. Until and unless science catches up to the reality of Eden and the Flood, I see no reason to ever teach the bible is not a science book. It is as much a science book as a history book. How else do we keep children from being confused by two very different interpretations of our own past?

That said, I believe that the bible is literally true and accurate. The stars, moons, planets, etc. were created by God after the earth. This means that He made it with what seems to be age, but isn't. Thus, apparent age. I'm using a literal reading of the bible, and interpreting the creation in light of that.

Many scientists hate this viewpoint calling it antithetical to the purpose and mission of science. I think they love science more than the Word. I bet this is true for almost all of them since they reject Adam, Eve, Eden, Noah and his family, the Flood, and usually reject angels, demons, and a God active in history outright.

Many scientists are devout Christians. like myself. When I look at the night sky with its unbelievable billions of stars farrther than the strongest telescope ever invented I am fill with the wonder and glory of God. The works of His creation are simply too astounding to even consider that they happened by chance. This is in line with the Biblical statement that those who have not yet heard the gospel have some idea of the Eternal due to their witness of His creation. Einstein believed in a greater force outside our time/space but not the personal God of Christians. His famous statement in speaking out against Quantum Mechanics was: "God (small g) does not play dice with the universe" He, sadly, had only of part of the truth.

 

[Baptist Believer]

If I cannot trust Genesis 1-11, then why should I trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

Trusting Genesis 1-11 does not necessarily mean interpreting those passages literally.

If I was trying to attack the integrity of the Bible and claimed that the biblical writers didn't know anything about locusts, citing Revelation 9:7-10:

The appearance of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle; and on their heads appeared to be crowns like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. They had hair like the hair of women, and their teeth were like the teeth of lions. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was like the sound of chariots, of many horses rushing to battle. They have tails like scorpions, and stings; and in their tails is their power to hurt men for five months.​

And then I said, "If I cannot trust Revelation, then why should I trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?"

You would point out that not all parts of the Bible are supposed to be taken literally. That there are a number of places that are symbolic or are intended to be interpreted another way. And you would be correct.

In your graduate training, have you had a class on biblical interpretation? This should have been covered in any legitimate program...

If the early parts of Genesis are not to be taken at face value, then why take the Jesus of the bible at face value?

Picking a verse at random:

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst."​

I was hungry and thirsty last night before dinner, and I woke up this morning hungry and thirsty. What about you? Does that mean that we have not come to Jesus?

Obviously, we don't take Jesus at "face value" because that is clearly NOT what is intended.

 

[Baptist Believer]

All well and good, except for the fact that the distinctions you demarcate are ignored by the scientists themselves.

You are making a blanket statement. You need to get to know some scientists. There are plenty of scientists who are people who subscribe to a faith tradition, as well as many Christians.

One of the big obstacles to scientists breaking free of naturalism and empirical rationalism is that Christians stupidly claim that a person has to make a choice between believing science or believing the Bible. So some scientists, knowing that science is quite reliable in making predictions, reject the Bible and the anti-intellectual Christianity that they have seen demonstrated.

 

[Aaron]

You are making a blanket statement. You need to get to know some scientists. There are plenty of scientists who are people who subscribe to a faith tradition, as well as many Christians.

You want to be pedantic, fine. The scientists that control the microphone. That run the institutions of education, write the textbooks, that do the hiring and firing, that do the publishing, that lobby congress, that are telling the rest of us what science is . . .

. . . ignore your distinctions.

Which iota of Hawkings' imaginations of late were anywhere near your definitions?

One of the big obstacles to scientists breaking free of naturalism and empirical rationalism is that Christians stupidly claim that a person has to make a choice between believing science or believing the Bible. So some scientists, knowing that science is quite reliable in making predictions, reject the Bible and the anti-intellectual Christianity that they have seen demonstrated.

Hogwash. It's not the fault of God's little children that atheists want to leave God out of science.

 

[Aaron]

I have compiled the scientific worldview according to my knowledge of it as a former atheist.

The Scientific Worldview

The scientific worldview believes that we should imagine that the universe is simply physical phenomena, which have been proceeding from when time began, and which have been predetermined by scientific laws. All of this existing at many levels of perspective from a galaxy on down to our daily lives on down to a subatomic particle. Thus, our universe is simply a vast, vast number of physical interactions that have made the universe into one long, predetermined chain of cause and effect since time began. A chain of cause and effect that predetermines galaxies, our own day to day lives, and subatomic particles.

As human beings, we must understand our smallness and insignificance to all the universe, but we must also understand and cherish the large impact we have on others who we know and love. However, as human beings we must also understand our frailty, and how easy it is for us to die and then possibly cease to exist.

As such we should live lives that fulfill us and give us meaning in this universe. Lives filled with comfort and ease to take advantage of every moment we exist.

Thus, human existence is about personal meaning, personal fulfillment, comfort, and ease. It is simply put dangerous to your well being to believe that you make a huge difference to the universe or beyond with your life.

Another hard truth to understand is that there are most likely many people on other worlds like us all throughout the universe, who have their own struggles. These people are called aliens by our society at this point in time.

Furthermore, while a Creator is certainly very possible and even plausible given the Big Bang, for an active God to exist that entity’s existence must be apparent in the chains of cause and effect within the universe, by at least being apparent in history, a notion which is highly debatable.

In addition, all religions and holy books must be judged by whether they fit the evidence we currently have from scientific disciplines and history. If they make claims science can test, then science and the religion or holy book’s claim must coincide. If they make historical claims then history and the religion or holy book’s claim must coincide. That said, no holy books conform to the truths about the universe currently at our disposal, even the Bible.

Also, while difficult to explain physical phenomena exist, these phenomena will one day be explained through new scientific laws.

The secular worldview is also about maximizing the pleasure people have in their lives in any of its forms such as happiness, comfort, peace, visual pleasure from architecture or artwork, aural pleasure from music, pleasurable scents, exotic experiences, ease of work. and much, much more. People are given the ability to pursue pleasure in any of a myriad of ways. Now, because of all of this, the hope of each person is to live in pleasure, especially to live with happiness and peace, from the day they are born until the day they die a death that is not attributed to violence or an accident. This also means that at its core the secular worldview is about establishing a paradise on earth in the future, where it is often imagined mankind also lives in outer space.

However, the secular worldview has not yet defeated the problems of crime, absolute poverty, relative poverty, natural disasters, or the necessity for warfare.

Because of the many chains of cause and effect working on us free will as we know it is very constrained, and many argue it doesn't exist at all. Missing here of course is the notion of a God Who answers prayer or Who works miracles that upset the chains of cause and effect in the universe. That is unless that God is apparent to history, which is debatable.​

I open up for discussion whether I describe the scientific worldview correctly? Have I represented the skepticism of this worldview well? Also, how we are to respond to this belief system?

As for my own response, I am writing an essay where I show that the bible already talks of people like those who embrace the scientific worldview. This is just another in a long line of lies of the Adversary and it has the exact same fruit as before. I use Romans 1:16-2:11 to show the biblical response to the scientific worldview. From this passage it is clear that the scientific worldview is just another attempt to suppress the truth by those who have rejected God, and the curse upon those who do so is the same as before. I will post my essay later, as I don't want to bog down readers and responders with text.

I will say that to say that the scientific worldview is unbiblical is to understate the situation entirely. The bible at every turn seems to disagree with the scientific worldview’s premises about the nature of life, humanity, meaning, purpose, how to live, and the world’s history.

Put simply, the prevailing world view in the institutions of science is atheistic. The reasons for that are moral, not empirical.

There are scientists who have a Christian world view. They are typically shunned and ridiculed, even by professed Christians who wish to be considered educated.

 

[HankD]

Secular Humanism is the 21st century world "religion".

Secular humanism - Wikipedia

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Trusting Genesis 1-11 does not necessarily mean interpreting those passages literally.

If I was trying to attack the integrity of the Bible and claimed that the biblical writers didn't know anything about locusts, citing Revelation 9:7-10:

The appearance of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle; and on their heads appeared to be crowns like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. They had hair like the hair of women, and their teeth were like the teeth of lions. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was like the sound of chariots, of many horses rushing to battle. They have tails like scorpions, and stings; and in their tails is their power to hurt men for five months.
And then I said, "If I cannot trust Revelation, then why should I trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?"

You would point out that not all parts of the Bible are supposed to be taken literally. That there are a number of places that are symbolic or are intended to be interpreted another way. And you would be correct.

In your graduate training, have you had a class on biblical interpretation? This should have been covered in any legitimate program...

Unfortunately my program did not have a class on hermeneutics. It was the single biggest flaw in the program. Instead they tried to cover hermeneutics in the OT and NT courses, which concentrated on how to read the bible in light of higher criticism.

I see your point on not taking things on face value, but I must simply say I disagree when it comes to the subject of Genesis 1-11.

So far, we have only discussed the first Creation Narrative. The Second Creation Narrative in Genesis 2 is also problematic to science. So is Genesis 3 on the Fall, and the notion of a global Flood. Nimrod and his empire are also problematic to science. Even the Exodus is problematic to science.

The thing is Genesis 1-11 seem like narratives every bit as real as the rest of Genesis and the Exodus

The problem I have found is that if the narratives of Genesis 1-11 are read as symbolic or mythological, then it does harm to the mind of a skeptic. It also does harm to later parts of the bible, as Jesus believed in Noah and a global Flood (Matthew 24:37-39) and in a literal Eden (Mark 10:6-9).

The reason I say it does harm to skeptical minds, is that as a former atheist, I know that it is a struggle to keep your mind from getting comfortably doubting again. By doing what I did by saying there is apprarent age, I have put to death most of my skepticism. The bible is thus the book that defines reality regardless of what my senses tell me. Since then I have grown comfortable with my faith, and I allow for less literal explanations, as long as the bible has final say.

Now, you might disagree with this method, but as a former atheist, it has worked for me. Admittedly this might not be for everyone, but it remains true that science opposes things Jesus took for granted in a global Flood and a literal Eden with Adam and Eve.

As I said to someone else, until and unless science starts lining up with some semblance of reality in the fact of a global Flood and the beginning of what we call humanity, then I see no daylight between them and believers on historical questions.

The problem is this will scare off people who are rooted in what science says about history. But I must stress that they already believe a competing narrative to the Christian one. It is incumbent upon us to defeat that competing narrative and replace it with one that is true.

As long as sciences conclude that everything before 1 and 2 Kings is myth, I see no reason to regard science as anything but a competing understanding of history.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

That is a good point, best to make the Gospel attractive like Paul did. The full weight of Christian beliefs can come over time. That does call into question modern Christian apologetics to atheists, though.

Yes, Paul is a great example of how to reach people via common ground, even saying, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some,” (1 Cor 9:22b). The term apologetics has its roots in 1 Pet 3:15b: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

An atheist can have any number of issues other than science. A great many of them feel hurt by religious people. How many of them have real hope? My hope is not in the fall, or even in the creation, but in the risen Lord.

The shock is because until this point in my life, only liberal Christians from Mainline denominations have used those interpretations. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.

Yes, personal experience necessarily colors one’s perspective; it cannot be helped, except by more varied experiences, which can be aided via the shared experiences of others, including the study of history.

You are right that liberal is not my label. What’s the label for the following? “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ,” (2 Cor 10:4-5).

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Yes, Paul is a great example of how to reach people via common ground, even saying, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some,” (1 Cor 9:22b). The term apologetics has its roots in 1 Pet 3:15b: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

An atheist can have any number of issues other than science. A great many of them feel hurt by religious people. How many of them have real hope? My hope is not in the fall, or even in the creation, but in the risen Lord.
Yes, personal experience necessarily colors one’s perspective; it cannot be helped, except by more varied experiences, which can be aided via the shared experiences of others, including the study of history.

You are right that liberal is not my label. What’s the label for the following? “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ,” (2 Cor 10:4-5).

Thank you, we will just have to agree to disagree, but I have learned quite a bit from this thread.

Hopefully, my conversation with Baptist Believer will be formative.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Thank you, we will just have to agree to disagree, but I have learned quite a bit from this thread. Hopefully, my conversation with Baptist Believer will be formative.

Thank you, too. I thought it a good exchange, and think we agree far more than disagree. The way I see it, you are seeking to reconcile your reading of the Bible with the reality you observe, and vice versa, so that truth is maintained. I’m not sure I worded that properly, but I think R.C. Sproul related this to “saving the phenomena.” Here’s an excerpt from this link: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/saving-phenomena/

“When we see an apparent conflict between the Bible and science, either our understanding of the Bible is wrong, our understanding of science is wrong, or our understanding of both is wrong. As Christians we can confidently pursue all of the sciences knowing that when we apprehend them correctly, we will understand God even better.”

Again, I encourage you to keep in mind that science and scientism are not at all the same, and that using them interchangeably will only muddy the waters, something Baptist Believer also emphasized.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Again, I encourage you to keep in mind that science and scientism are not at all the same, and that using them interchangeably will only muddy the waters, something Baptist Believer also emphasized.

I think the problem here, now that I know the distinction between empirical knowledge and scientism, is that I am having such a hard time separating the two concepts in the minds of atheists.

Having been an atheist, and knowing Hollywood culture, I must say that the scientific knowledge and scientism are presented as effectively the same thing by unbelievers of a secular bent. That is a chink in their armor though. Empirical knowledge need not turn into Materialism or Empiricism or Rationalism. Something many secularists do not seem to understand.

Then again, this appeal to wisdom must be tempered by 1 Corinthians 1:17-31, which shows the need to explain the Gospel is foolishness to those who will only commit to a wise course of action, using the wisdom of this world. We live by faith, which is the evidence of what we do not see and confidence in our hope. A concept completely foreign to secular humanism.

To be honest, the biggest problem I have with secular humanism is not its overemphasis of scientific knowledge, but its extreme hatred of the very idea of suffering in this world. I say that because I know that many times it takes suffering to do the right thing over the wrong thing. That has been like the number one lesson of the last two years since I became a born-again Christian.

As an example from the bible, the wisdom of the world, including of secular humanism, would call the example of apostle Paul a tragedy beyond all words. For he suffered so much for no good reason to them, as have all the Christian martyrs. By thinking we are pleasure machines to keep happy, we have robbed the Gospel of an important message: That we follow Christ, becoming like him in his sufferings (Philippians 3:10).

Righteousness is hard and so is generosity to the needy, two things I am sure people will compromise on if it requires them to be less than fully happy. However, we have the Spirit and life and fruit by that Spirit that allows us to live in righteousness and generosity in a way foreign to unbelievers. That has at least been my own experience of the last two years.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I think the problem here, now that I know the distinction between empirical knowledge and scientism, is that I am having such a hard time separating the two concepts in the minds of atheists.

Having been an atheist, and knowing Hollywood culture, I must say that the scientific knowledge and scientism are presented as effectively the same thing by unbelievers of a secular bent. That is a chink in their armor though. Empirical knowledge need not turn into Materialism or Empiricism or Rationalism. Something many secularists do not seem to understand.

Then again, this appeal to wisdom must be tempered by 1 Corinthians 1:17-31, which shows the need to explain the Gospel is foolishness to those who will only commit to a wise course of action, using the wisdom of this world. We live by faith, which is the evidence of what we do not see and confidence in our hope. A concept completely foreign to secular humanism.

To be honest, the biggest problem I have with secular humanism is not its overemphasis of scientific knowledge, but its extreme hatred of the very idea of suffering in this world. I say that because I know that many times it takes suffering to do the right thing over the wrong thing. That has been like the number one lesson of the last two years since I became a born-again Christian.

As an example from the bible, the wisdom of the world, including of secular humanism, would call the example of apostle Paul a tragedy beyond all words. For he suffered so much for no good reason to them, as have all the Christian martyrs. By thinking we are pleasure machines to keep happy, we have robbed the Gospel of an important message: That we follow Christ, becoming like him in his sufferings (Philippians 3:10).

Righteousness is hard and so is generosity to the needy, two things I am sure people will compromise on if it requires them to be less than fully happy. However, we have the Spirit and life and fruit by that Spirit that allows us to live in righteousness and generosity in a way foreign to unbelievers. That has at least been my own experience of the last two years.

Exactly! There is no difference between scientism and science in the minds of atheists, or of those who “practice” scientism. You cannot separate it in their minds, only in your own. That is the whole point. They don’t call it scientism. They call both “science” as it works in their favor. They do not want people to separate the two at all. If they can achieve this, they become the high priests of society. Such “empiricists” have no clothes, but exposing this to them is not so easy. However, for those who prefer truth there is hope, great hope.

As for suffering, I do not think that is extremely popular among American Christians either. I believe in reference to your verse Paul said it was for those “as be perfect.” An ASV footnote says “full-grown;” the NIV translates it “mature.”

And don’t be too ready to take at face value whatever else unbelieving “idealists” teach either. There are plenty who would gladly help you suffer as surely as they helped crucify the Christ. Like you when you were an atheist, not all who have heard them are really like them. Some have merely fallen under their spell for a time. God will use those believers willing to suffer to reach them. What a privilege!