Over the past months I’ve been listening to a number of discussions / debates between believers and non-believers and have been quite struck by the almost apologetic nature of the Christian in these discussions. I certainly do not believe we should be rude or abrasive in our discussions – but we ought to be firm and not let those that disagree with us so easily off the hook. Sometimes there just isn’t the time to get into a debate. But anyway, by apologetic in this instance I do not mean as a defense of the faith (apologetics) but in the ‘I really don’t want to be dogmatic about this, so I can’t tell you Christianity is absolutely true’ sense.
This is in direct contrast to a phrase Michael Robinson uses in his book ‘God does exist‘. He writes: ‘The believer is not to defend the faith with Probabilities’ (p. 92). It strikes me that this is exactly what many Christian apologists are doing, defending the faith with probabilities! Whether this is a deliberate charm offensive to win over the non-Christian or a particular methodology I’m not 100% sure. However, the obvious question to ask is this: why would anyone want to commit to a probability? If Jesus is only a probability I’m not interested.
In fact one person I greatly admire gave what was (IMHO) the completely wrong answer. I couldn’t believe it, when the non-Christian said ‘ but you are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove!’. My first thought was ‘did he really say that?’ Greg Bahnsen uses the very same phrase to show how to completely disarm the unbeliever. Funny isn’t it, I never imagined anyone would actually use that phrase!! But they did. I was on the edge of my seat as it were in anticipation of the answer, but to my disappointment it didn’t come.
The answer that should have come was ‘of course, that’s right. If Jesus and the Word of God is my final authority then I will have to assume the thing I’m trying to prove or it wouldn’t be my final authority. And you do the same’ In fact as Bahnsen has said if I didn’t assume the thing I’m trying to prove something else would be my final authority.
The unbeliever assumes what he’s trying to prove as well. He assumes there is no God and ends up proving it. What a surprise! If he were to assume anything else he would be a believer. So all this talk of neutrality and intellectual credibility is just sheer nonsense. It’s a fiction, a facade or a lie, at best self-deception. Atheists seek to take the high ground supposedly of reason and neutrality but actually do neither. They use reason but can’t tell us how it’s grounded. They play the neutrality card but are anything but. What would be nice is some intellectual honesty.
So is Christianity probable? Absolutely not! Christianity is certain – it’s true. As I already said, why would anyone want to commit to a probability? If Jesus is only a probability I’m not interested.
Have popular scientists committed to a probability – no they haven’t. See the enthusiasm in their presentations. Is there really any suggestion they might be wrong? No. They have given themselves wholesale to rebellion against God and against His Christ. But thanks be unto God He still saves rebels. This is why Jesus came into the world, to save sinners and rebels.
The kidnapper of the young girl is also after justice and it seems actually has no intention of harming the girl as long as justice is done. Although if he had managed to kill the murderer and abuser of his own daughter would he have let her go – it’s not clear. And like Sarah perhaps because of his own obsessive work ethic he too is a failed parent. He cannot get back the time he should have spent with his family but now he can at least find justice for his daughter – with the help of Sarah Lund.
