Is it wrong to use only LOGIC, not scripture, when arguing theology with an atheist who wants to avoid scripture?

[Jordon]

Well having read many doctrines here at cc, I would say the best post of them all I read was all names are in the book of life untill blotted out.

I would say that should truly ring home with anyone, and if it doesn't well we can always play ping pong, and whilst it will be a ping to some, it will be a pong to others,

So you could play pong ping without realising it,

Hmmm. I liked the way you paraphrased Rev. 20:15, but actually it does not say that.
Just be sure that you and I do not play ping pong.

interesting so your saying total depravity exists . You must be a tulipist as well then.

Ping pong


Revelation 3:5

New International Version



5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.


Means all names are in the book of life until blotted out

 

[GWH]

interesting so your saying total depravity exists . You must be a tulipist as well then.
Ping pong
Revelation 3:5
New International Version
5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.
Means all names are in the book of life until blotted out

Yes, I believe Heb. 6:4-6 and Matt. 13:14-15 refer to souls who become totally depraved.

Aah, I thought your paraphrase sounded familiar, but I had not connected the two verses in my NIV margin notes,
so I just did so. I also connect Rev. 3:5 with 1Tim. 2:3-5 & 2Tim. 2:25, indicating that God wants everyone to be saved,
although not everyone wants to be saved. I just inserted those connections in Lesson 2 of the website. Thanks!

 

[Jordon]

Yes, I believe Heb. 6:4-6 and Matt. 13:14-15 refer to souls who become totally depraved.

Aah, I thought your paraphrase sounded familiar, but I had not connected the two verses in my NIV margin notes,
so I just did so. I also connect Rev. 3:5 with 1Tim. 2:3-5 & 2Tim. 2:25, indicating that God wants everyone to be saved,
although not everyone wants to be saved. I just inserted those connections in Lesson 2 of the website. Thanks!

so in that case then all are depraved without without God, which means all are depraved until enlightened. And when there enlightened all must obey, which means all are in the book of life unless blotted out. Which means all have been enlightened and those who don't repent afterwards, its difficult to help them.

Which means God is also a God to the spiritually dead, which means these people are depraved without God. Which means whilst God is a God to the spiritually dead, there in his book of life, which means all life is accounted for by God.

 

[Burn1986]

Is it wrong to use only LOGIC, not scripture, when arguing with an atheist who wants to avoid scripture?


Atheists often do not want to argue about theology from within scripture.

They seem to prefer often times to stick to logic that is outside of scripture.

When i argue with atheists who want to discuss God, I ususally use logic that they can understand.
I avoid using scripture because i am trying to argue within their world view, and then expand their world view.
I stick to logic as it seems to be agreeable with them.

My question:
Is it wrong to AVOID scripture, and ONLY use logic when arguing with them on behalf of my Christian beliefs?

Give us some background on who you’ve been arguing with. What did they say?

 

[JesusLives]

Is it wrong to use only LOGIC, not scripture, when arguing with an atheist who wants to avoid scripture?


Atheists often do not want to argue about theology from within scripture.

They seem to prefer often times to stick to logic that is outside of scripture.

When i argue with atheists who want to discuss God, I ususally use logic that they can understand.
I avoid using scripture because i am trying to argue within their world view, and then expand their world view.
I stick to logic as it seems to be agreeable with them.

My question:
Is it wrong to AVOID scripture, and ONLY use logic when arguing with them on behalf of my Christian beliefs?

Eleven years ago when I first joined CC there were several atheists on this site and at the time I felt attacked by most of the Christians on this site they were telling me I was a Judaizer and I had no idea what that even was. When I joined I thought it would be cool to chat with different faiths and beliefs but they sure put me in my place which I had no idea I needed to be put. I was thinking we would all be singing kumba yay together didn't happen.

So I started chatting with the atheists as they were much more conversational and kinder actually and I started asking them questions to try and understand their point of view and I made friends with several of them. We talked about everything Bible and not. Then one by one they either quit or were banned. So at this point since I haven't been on CC much myself lately I don't know if we have any resident atheists on the site like there was back in 2014.

Since they don't believe there is a God the Bible isn't their go to book. However, I used to refer to my one friend as Spock as he used that picture. He was quite knowledgeable when it came to the Bible and we had great conversations. I still think of him and wonder how he is doing.

 

[JesusLives]

If I may, arguing with atheist is pointless and not fruitful.

Atheist will change the rules of the discussion on a whim.

Atheist by simple definition means "a person who lacks belief in the existence of gods or deities"

Atheist does not mean they do not believe in God but rather they lack knowledge of God. i.e. An empty glass without drink in it or an empty plate without food on it.

The hypocrisy of atheism is this, although they, themselves claim not to believe in God, they sure waste a lot of time convincing others of their beliefs on something they claim does not exist.

The second part of their hypocrisy is , they indulge in many thing that originated by belief in God ; such as clothing, cleanliness, morals, rules, laws, governing-authorities, civilities, LOVE, HOPE, Mercy, Forgiveness, sharing, education-pursuit of knowledge(basically how science is defined), family matters(co-existing), ministry(medicine), Enlightenment(philosophy), They even claim "FAITH" in what they believe in errrr... what they do not believe in.

Most of what they claim as facts are still scientific theories.

What they do not understand, atheist call it the "UNKNOWN", funny that is how God's Knowledge of his Spiritual Word is define.

Most of their arguments are based on others works and not of their own input, basically plagiarism of others works as their own thoughts.

And boy they plagiarize it all ; stand-up comedy skits, movies, songs, poems, novels, A.I. (like their own fake intelligence), politics, religions, philosophies, ...etc.

This is a huge foolish-palette, they present as their OWN thoughts but underneath they are simply frustrated with everything in their lives but can never pin point what exactly motivates them.

The signature of atheist-ism is grasping at straw man, circle after circle they will present for anyone who does not agree with them to follow on their terms.

Should you find yourself in conversation with atheist, just treat them like the general unbelieving people that they are, nothing significant about them, and do not fall for their conversational traps that lead to their social arenas that they use to pacify their carnal-ignorant egos.

Know first, it is God who has them in this state of mind, and nothing can oppose the Will of God.

Psalm 14:1
To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.

They are soiled children pointing at others in their arrogance, claiming "you all stink!", I would simply say "OK!?!" and move toward fresher air

My understanding is an atheist does not believe there is a God, and agnostic is the one who is in the more questionable area.

 

[GWH]

so in that case then all are depraved without without God, which means all are depraved until enlightened. And when there enlightened all must obey, which means all are in the book of life unless blotted out. Which means all have been enlightened and those who don't repent afterwards, its difficult to help them.

Which means God is also a God to the spiritually dead, which means these people are depraved without God. Which means whilst God is a God to the spiritually dead, there in his book of life, which means all life is accounted for by God.

The totally depraved were enlightened but chose the dark side and were blotted out
because of it being impossible they would re-repent per Heb. 6:4-6.

 

[GWH]

My understanding is an atheist does not believe there is a God, and agnostic is the one who is in the more questionable area.

Yes, atheists disbelieve in God/Christ, but agnostic means "not knowing for certain/with absolute certainty" or walking by faith,
which everyone does, atheist or Christian. However, the Gospel condition for salvation (accept Jesus as Messiah and Lord) is a proposition, so those who do not accept Christ are de facto atheists per Matt. 12:30 = Luke 11:23 (cf. John 3:16-18 & 8:42-47).

 

[Jordon]

The totally depraved were enlightened but chose the dark side and were blotted out
because of it being impossible they would re-repent per Heb. 6:4-6.

so you are a tulipist then

 

[GWH]

so you are a tulipist then

No, the p stands for perseverance of the saints, which I believed because of my Baptist upbringing until I read the Bible
and learned it taught "not necessarily" per 16 Scriptures, so I became a mfwer, because I still agreed with the Baptist teaching
regarding the tuli, which disagreed with the Calvinist dogma.

 

[Doll]

Is it wrong to use only LOGIC, not scripture, when arguing with an atheist who wants to avoid scripture?


Atheists often do not want to argue about theology from within scripture.

They seem to prefer often times to stick to logic that is outside of scripture.

When i argue with atheists who want to discuss God, I ususally use logic that they can understand.
I avoid using scripture because i am trying to argue within their world view, and then expand their world view.
I stick to logic as it seems to be agreeable with them.

My question:
Is it wrong to AVOID scripture, and ONLY use logic when arguing with them on behalf of my Christian beliefs?

Imo,you can't employ logic when defending religious Scripture.

On its face,every religion is illogical.

That's the separation between the spirit in the world,and the spirit that made the world.

 

[Jordon]

No, the p stands for perseverance of the saints, which I believed because of my Baptist upbringing until I read the Bible
and learned it taught "not necessarily" per 16 Scriptures, so I became a mfwer, because I still agreed with the Baptist teaching
regarding the tuli, which disagreed with the Calvinist dogma.

I don't get it lol here you are agreeing people are depraved before enlightenment but you rule out perseverance of the saints, I'm sure it means you can not fall away once saved and it's about God's grace preserving your faith

I think you may well of become a back to front tulip

 

[Blain]

God is the author of logic so it only makes sense that we can and should use logic to defend our faith. the whole flat earth thing for instance let us say that an athiest is arguing for a flat earth well my counter argument would be the issue of mass and gravity. See if the earth was indeed flat the mass of the earth would be drastically lower than it is now and the gravitational pull of the sun would just suck us right into the suns inferno if it was a flat earth or rather even the moon would pull us towards it making us collide with the moon.

 

[Jordon]

, because I still agreed with the Baptist teaching
regarding the tuli, which disagreed with the Calvinist dogma.

so your a tuli ist then

 

[Magenta]

God is the author of logic so it only makes sense that we can and should use logic to defend our faith. the whole flat earth thing for instance let us say that an atheist is arguing for a flat earth well my counter argument would be the issue of mass and gravity. See if the earth was indeed flat the mass of the earth would be drastically lower than it is now and the gravitational pull of the sun would just suck us right into the suns inferno if it was a flat earth or rather even the moon would pull us towards it making us collide with the moon.

Flat earthers do not believe in gravity.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Being a silent partner sounds doable for me. I have met some folks who do prison ministry, which also sounds fruitful.
The last person to do street corner preaching that I have heard of was Arthur Blessitt, who carried a cross across the country.

I also prefer being positive, and it is a challenge not to succumb to the temptation to make snide rejoinders on CC.
The website is me, because I cannot remember everything I believe, especially stated the best way I want to put it,
so it is the main way I witness these days, utilizing my gift of editing, and I am still learning and amending it.

Most recently the Lord led me to add a lesson on Applied Biblical Hermeneutics and a corresponding thread on CC
called Resolving Problematic Interpretations, primarily concerned with trying to resolve the endless debate about
TULIP vs. MFW, because after a few folks were banned that seems to be the main bone of contention. Pray it heals!

I am looking forward to your website friend!
Bible interpretation is extremely important, especially for those who are communicators of God's Word. I am of the opinion that pastors/teachers should train the congregation on hermeneutics.
Even Paul the Apostle addressed the issue in regards to the gospel in Galatians 1.

. 6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

When we see the multiple opinions opposing the grace gospel in the Bible Discussion Forum, we see just how needed that is.

About preaching the gospel, I have done so at the student gather place on the campus if WVU with good results. More believers helping would make it exponentially more fruitful. The crowd hears the preaching of the word and are already at a familiar location for R&R. They tend to stick around and listen. The street corners are far less receptive and the people are in a hurry to go somewhere. I always suggest locations that are established for people who are not compelled to leave, but considered hang outs. Table at festivals is another idea. The best is that group of believers organized and led to go to individuals by twos. We see that work in the gospels, Acts and for the history we have records of.
I know of individual churches that lead thousands to Christ yearly. God wants us to partner with other believers . If that means a silent one, that's what the speakers need for a list of reasons. Everyone benefits and works ass a team to accomplish the most important job in the world.
Please pray for me to be able to begin this ministry ASAP.

Thanks!

 

[Falconn007]

My understanding is an atheist does not believe there is a God, and agnostic is the one who is in the more questionable area.

Yeah some will claim that they do not believe in God, and in the same breathe tell me they are married or in Love, go figure, but they never explain why they live in accordance to God's laws on civility.

I do not believe in UFO's or bigfoot and have spent like 5-10 minutes a year discussing this nonsense, because it just is not fruitful.

It would seem they love antagonizing and being trolls.

 

[biblestudent78]

Is it wrong to use only LOGIC, not scripture, when arguing with an atheist who wants to avoid scripture?


Atheists often do not want to argue about theology from within scripture.

They seem to prefer often times to stick to logic that is outside of scripture.

When i argue with atheists who want to discuss God, I ususally use logic that they can understand.
I avoid using scripture because i am trying to argue within their world view, and then expand their world view.
I stick to logic as it seems to be agreeable with them.

My question:
Is it wrong to AVOID scripture, and ONLY use logic when arguing with them on behalf of my Christian beliefs?

It may not be wrong but it will be fruitless. Christianity is not following a religion. It is following an example. No scripture is needed to tell the story of Jesus and the example He set for mankind. People were attracted to Jesus long before they had any big picture idea of what He was all about. The Gospel is the story of Jesus. Tell the story. No scriptural references needed, but tell the story with love in your heart, not victory.

 

[JesusLives]

Yeah some will claim that they do not believe in God, and in the same breathe tell me they are married or in Love, go figure, but they never explain why they live in accordance to God's laws on civility.

I do not believe in UFO's or bigfoot and have spent like 5-10 minutes a year discussing this nonsense, because it just is not fruitful.

It would seem they love antagonizing and being trolls.

When I first joined CC the atheists were the friendliest to me. I miss them and enjoyed chatting with them and thought it was great that there were several hanging out here.

 

[presidente]

Is it wrong to use only LOGIC, not scripture, when arguing with an atheist who wants to avoid scripture?


Atheists often do not want to argue about theology from within scripture.

They seem to prefer often times to stick to logic that is outside of scripture.

When i argue with atheists who want to discuss God, I ususally use logic that they can understand.
I avoid using scripture because i am trying to argue within their world view, and then expand their world view.
I stick to logic as it seems to be agreeable with them.

My question:
Is it wrong to AVOID scripture, and ONLY use logic when arguing with them on behalf of my Christian beliefs?

I'm not going to say that it is 'wrong.' But the power is in the word of God. God can convict and convince them even if they say they don't buy the logic of your argument. But the God works through the word, so explain the Gospel, whether you quote word for word or not. Share the word of God with them. If they reject it, that is on them.