What Would You Say To This Guy?
Previous post: Rick Phillips Critiques Tim Keller’s Latest
Biblical Christianity, Reformed Theology, Reformed Apologetics
Featured Resource
Helpful Sites
(in progress. to recommend sites for this section, please use the contact form)
Social Network
-
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Nothing
Ive heard it over and over again, the sad thing is this guys favorite apologist would call him an unbeliever, and going to an eternal hell
Simple… Read the Scripture. He might want to focus on Matt 7:21.
Wow….Thank you for enlightening me!!
And all this time I was relying on Scripture…..Ha!! What a dope I was!!
I have doubts about his faith……
I take that back I am confident that this video has proven him to be clearly an unbeliever in need of the gospel. This guy has read the Bible but there is no light in his life and that is not to say that the Bible is not powerful to save and proclaim truth and light. This shows the pervasive effects of the fall and the deceitfulness of the human heart to give a person assurance of salvation and even intellectual confidence in the midst of utter foolishness and contradiction.
Thanks to all those who contributed to the first round of comments. Going down the line (beginning with the first) I have some commentary of my own to each commenter, then a transcript of the Q’a & A’s in this video will follow. See post below, and if you choose to participate further you can copy and paste the Q’s & A’s and address them as individual comments.
1. Joey Frascella: The answer, “nothing,” to the question, “What would you say to this guy?,” seems to imply – a) that you agree with him so fully that you believe no additional clarification or correction is necessary, b) that you believe you have “nothing” to contribute and therefore answered accordingly, c) that you believe he is too far gone and out of reach, therefore “nothing,” since “nothing” will work… Is there a “d)?” (or e?) Why would you say “nothing?”
2. Travis: Correctly you’ve noted that all three of his favorite apologists would have answered differently on the question of Hell (Lewis, Craig, & Keller, to my knowledge, all hold to an eternal Hell as the consequence to the exclusivity of Christ). But would they call him an unbeliever? If so, why? Is it because he has doubts? If memory serves me rightly, all three of the mentioned “apologists” make doubt essential to faith (which is impossible to maintain, btw). What is the point you’ve noticed that led you to consider that the 3 would call him an unbeliever over?
3. Glen: Your response would be simple, pointing him to spend some time studying Matt. 7:21, which reports Jesus as saying, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” It appears that you expect him to find something in this text that will establish something in his thinking that will lead to something else. What do you suppose this text can or should do for him?
Mark Caro: I see that you have chosen sarcasm to make a point (classic Mark!). I take you to mean (and I think I know you pretty well) that the content of this video reflects a lack of Scripture as his foundation for knowledge; an observation I’ve made as well. And since you have relied on Scripture all this time, compared to this person’s method you’re a dope. I see the tongue-in-cheek here, but what would you say to him? Suppose you knew him personally…
Danny Pelichowski: You first had doubts about his faith, but then decided to express a stronger view in saying that he is clearly an unbeliever in need of the gospel. You seem to be saying that a proof is the lack of a light in his life, a light which you say the Bible proclaims. May you flesh this out some more and explain why and how giving assurance to someone in the midst of foolishness and contradiction shows the pervasive effects of the fall?
I believe the video above provides a good outline to frame an ongoing discussion on the subjects raised in it (and the answers, methods, etc.). Over the years here at BT we have periodically had apologetics training, taking quotes or articles and discussing them to the bone. Below is a transcript of the video’s Q’s & A’s (almost word-for-word), making it more efficient to deal with. Keep in mind that these questions were typed and sent, then answered in writing. The video is simply a reading-on-camera of the already thought-out answers -with some brief embellishment here and there, but thought went into the answers -not just off the cuff…
_______________________________
Q1: Have you always been a Christian, and if so, why Christianity?
A1: Yes, I grew up Christian. However, I have been questioning it lately, but I came to the conclusion based on many sources of evidence and it is true.
_____
Q2: If you came to Christianity on your own, can you please tell us about your experience.
A2: Not applicable, because I grew up Christian.
_____
Q3a: Favorite Atheist YouTuber?
Q3b: Favorite Christian YouTuber?
(Answers omitted due to irrelevance)
_____
Q4: What is your interpretation of Hell and salvation? Is there a literal fire or do you believe that those who reject Christianity are simply absent of God?
A4: Many fundamentalists believe only Christians who believe in a certain way are going to Heaven and everyone else is tortured for eternity. This in my opinion is a horrendous theology and an insult to God’s merciful nature. I do not believe in literal eternal fire I believe that rather than being a place it is a condition of being separate from God, and some type of semi-comatose state of shame and contempt. It is for people who have deliberately resisted God’s grace. Only God knows exactly what its nature is.
_____
Q5: Do you believe in Universal Christianity where everyone is saved regardless of religion and sin, etc.?
A5: I would certainly like everyone to be saved. I don’t think that everyone who is not a Christian is necessarily unsaved. Whether a Christian or not, anyone actively seeking God and displaying sound moral judgment has a better chance of Heaven than those who don’t.
_____
Q6a: Who is/are your favorite Christian apologists?
A6a: I like C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, and Timothy Keller.
Q6b: Who is/are your favorite atheist thinkers?
A7b: Carl Sagan.
_____
Q7a: What do you think is the biggest misconception about Christianity?
A7a: People often think that all of us are judgmental hypocrites and I certainly am not. I know that.
Q7b: What do you think is the biggest misconception about atheism?
A7b: People often say that they hate God, but of course they can’t hate what they don’t believe in.
_____
Q8: Do you have any doubts about what you believe? 1-10 where do you think you would stand? If you have doubts, what doubts do you have about your faith?
A8: In all honesty I have been having a lot of intellectual doubts. I’d say my faith is at 7 or 8 on the scale. My doubts are mainly due to fundamentalists who think Genesis is literal history and science. They think the earth is 6,000 years old, things like that. Lately I have been exploring Eastern Orthodoxy because it seems to make more sense theologically than many of the Protestant denominations.
_____
end.
Stephen replied
“all three of the mentioned “apologists” make doubt essential to faith (which is impossible to maintain, btw).”
Ive read through the Q&A. So I can give a better response explain to me why doubt would be essential to faith and why it would be impossible to maintain.
Stephen said
What is the point you’ve noticed that led you to consider that the 3 would call him an unbeliever over?
This is going to take a little research on first, is this guy a believer (based on the given knowladge, second, why each one would say yeah or neah to his asserctions. ill get back with you.
I want to try to stat the facts.
Q1, He starts out saying he is a Christian, doubt does not disqualify him from being a Christian.
Q2, this has many implications, it could possibly mean he was raised Presbyterian, or he assumes because of who his family is, he is a Christian
Q4, “It is for people who have deliberately resisted God’s grace. Only God knows exactly what its nature is.” This shows a lack of understanding in his theology of heaven and hell, could it be that he just hasnt been taught or hasnt read the scripture to understand what it truly says. possibly, he obviously believes some do not resist Gods grace, “are all of out Armenian friends destine for hell?”
Q5, I would certainly like everyone to be saved. I don’t think that everyone who is not a Christian is necessarily unsaved. Whether a Christian or not, anyone actively seeking God and displaying sound moral judgment has a better chance of Heaven than those who don’t.
This seems like a deal breaker due to his understanding of grace and what Christ has done, but again is it his immaturity or deliberate heresy?
Q6, This is deep and I will try to post on what each one has said about the given topics
Q6, no problem there I enjoy some good atheist scholars
Q7, I agree with his assertion we are labeled as hypocrites due to our nature and issues that happen all of the time.
Q7, again his theology is off due to all unbelievers actively hating God, in one way or another.
Q8, dont necessarily think this is a deal breaker because again, the doubt is natural, I doubt all the time but go to scripture to understand the truth.
We would have to unpack Q5 to understand what he really believes about Christ, as for the rest we would show him the truth from scripture and if he accepts it would show a converted heart if he denies it could possibly show a condemned heart.
Stephen,
I saying that he should read Matt 7:21 I was speaking a little tongue-in-cheek. I was meaning that he could use this verse as looking in a mirror and see his life and faith for what they are.
In reality he should read the entire Scripture and grasp It’s Truth. I would not say that he is an unbeliever because of the questions he has, but rather the answers he gives. He does not understand the grace that God has bestowed on us in Christ.
He said “I don’t think that everyone who is not a Christian is necessarily unsaved. Whether a Christian or not, anyone actively seeking God and displaying sound moral judgment has a better chance of Heaven than those who don’t.” This shows a lack of understanding of our sin and Christ’s redemption and His shed blood.
This fellow is so characteristic of modern evangelical “belivers” in his autonomous attitude. He’s completely comfortable to discount formal Christian doctrine and make it up as he goes based on *his* own interpretations of things. He has *his* own doctrine of Hell and what is esstntial to salvation. [Been there, done that by the way]. Instead of standing on the shoulders or backs of the great called out saints who’ve done much of the work already, he is completely comfortable to elevate his own opinions as equal to men called to office ala Eph. 4. and elsewhere. The height of arrogance on display.
:
After carrying on as a free-thinker, the You Tuber closes by saying he’s been studying Eastern Orthodoxy lately and finding it to make more sense than the Christianity he’d been exposed to. How inconsistent! Eastern Orthodoxy claims to present the truth of Christianity in all its fullness and discourages members from questioning their priests and the church fathers. I doubt that he’ll last long there.
He seems terribly unstable, maybe double-minded. The camera angle, which made him look down his nose at viewers, gives the impression of pride.
To All
Ive met alot of these kind of guys. They all have an opinion, they have enough Christian jargon to past muster to get into a mens group without anyone tagging him a ‘non believer’. But the reality is….I dont know where he is with Christ.
Now, what I can do is create a litmus test according to what I would approve as a “solid believer”. But is this what this thread is about?
Creating litmus tests to filter guys like this through so we can get some idea of where their mind set is? Or is it so we (name your group) can find a poster boy who represents every thing we despise in nominal christianity, denominate this fellow as chairman of it and send lots of flying darts to puncture any supposed balloon hes flying on?
Now, even if we create a litmus test for this guys testimony, or literally this fellow as well, what are we going to do with it? I suppose thats up to you all. Finding a usage for our condemnation of this guys testimony
leaves little audience that wont ask the same question of themselves. Namely “When these guys get done slicing and dicing on him would they turn on me if they were to see my sins and know my failures and doubts?
Its dangerous to set our selves up as judge and jury of this guys salvation, or his eternal state. We are many times too close to the landmines to start doing a jig over watching this guy blow himself up stepping on every point of soteriology that contradicts his answers.
If we were to discuss how to effectively present the gospel to this ‘kind’ of fellow thats great, and I think thats what is planned, but thats not the way the comments seem to be running.
John
Good points, John. As a reminder to all, this thread was not intended to attempt to reach any conclusion on this person’s spiritual status (saved/unsaved), rather, to be used as an outline of points for the purpose of apologetics training. As mentioned a few times so far, this person seems highly representative of some sort of “norm” out there, a norm many of us will encounter more than once in our lifetimes. The video was selected based on the propositional content and had nothing to do with the person, per se.
I must express some level of disappointment in that most of the “real” issues (as I’ve seen them) have gone unaddressed thus far. Here is an example of what I’m talking about:
Q1: Have you always been a Christian, and if so, why Christianity?
A1: Yes, I grew up Christian. However, I have been questioning it lately, but I came to the conclusion based on many sources of evidence and it is true.
_____
Q2: If you came to Christianity on your own, can you please tell us about your experience.
A2: Not applicable, because I grew up Christian.
A1 seems to indicate that this person believes he has always been justified on the basis that he “grew up Christian.” At this point it would seem right to ask the person what he means by this. A2 does not provide additional information that would lead us to believe that our conclusion about A1 are a stretch. Rather, A2 seems to confirm our conclusion to A1. If this person is saying that questions about his “conversion” to Christianity are irrelevant (i.e., not applicable) since he has “always been” a Christian, then an appropriate response to this would be that John 1 teaches that children of God are born “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Jn. 1:13) In order for this person’s assertion to be true, something in Jn. 1:13 must give, namely, that children of God are born not of blood. Since the Scriptures are inspired being God’s Word, the objective pronouncement of *false!* can safely be made of assertions that claim one can be born (lit.) a Christian.
I would ask, “when you say that you have always been a Christian, and that you grew up Christian, are you meaning that you never had a conversion –that you were born Christian?”
This sounds like what he is saying, and given two answers to two direct questions aiming to uncover the details of conversion, the person avoids answering in the direction the question leads and appeals to the non-applicability of the question on the grounds that he has “always been a Christian.”
Interaction with the video in this manner is what I had intended. I suggest that everyone forget about the person of the video and focus mainly on the ideas expressed by the person. Take John’s exhortation and admonishment and follow along accordingly.
1. Provide direct interaction with a Q/A for the purpose of apologetics training;
2. Discuss how you would use his answers as a segue to the presentation of the gospel.
Thanks, John, for speaking up…
It is “incomprehensible” to be a Christian and at the same time have a critical and unbelieving attitude about the Bible. As Christians the Bible is our source of knowledge about God and the salvation that we proclaim and when the Bible is doubted or brushed aside as an embarrassment by a professing Christian we must notice the blaring effects of the fall in a person who is not regenerate.
John’s point is taken and I admit that after first watching the video my initial response was to point out that this guy was an unbeliever (and I did). I recognize that this is not the most helpful analysis for this discussion but I find no problem making that assertion in connection with the point I am trying to make about human depravity. Some people only discuss the fall in terms of our life situation being hindered or our actions becoming evil but the fall is far more pervasive than that and includes all of man including his intellect. The thoughts of man are fallen and his ability to know and love truth is corrupted because of the fall.
So, in this example you have a person who is raised in a Christian home, read the Bible, heard preaching, yet never having a saving knowledge of God. However, he has all the confidence in the world that he is in fact a Christian even though it is clear that this man is either embarrassed by orthodox Christianity or he deliberately contradicts it without any problem whatsoever. He publicly displays his belief as if he is elite and more sophisticated than the simple Christians who actually believe the Bible is true and this illustrates the pervasive effects of the fall and the deceitfulness of the human heart (mind/will/intellect/emotions etc). In an assessment of this video and the opportunity to respond to the content of his answers it must be first and foremost recognized that this man is a person who is blind to the truth and must hear the Gospel and be regenerated in order for progress to be made. As Stephen pointed out you are not born a Christian but must be born of God in order to be named a Christian. There is much more to be said about the content of his answers and this is a good forum to further discuss them but foundational to this discussion should be the recognition of the pervasive effects of the fall completely hindering a professing believer from the truth that is found in the trustworthy Scriptures.
Hi Danny, I pretty much agree with all you’ve said but would add that there could be a danger in making the judgement that such error is evident of one who doesn’t possess the Spirit of God. Indeed we’ve all come from the place where the point in time came where we received His indwelling–if we have the Spirit at all.
This example set before us and Stephens determination to have him answered gives me the opportunity to consider that he’s a person who needs to be corrected because he may be regenerated without knowledge and it’d be more of a litmus test to see if he takes instruction and correction which would give indication that the Spirit of God is his teacher. When the occasion of sound doctrine and teaching meets a person who has the Spirit of God, he will not persist in his contrary-ness. He may not get it right away, but he cannot persist without coming under the possible disclipline that ought to eventually come.
I guess my first tactic in dealing with this u-tube Christian would be to ask him to clarify what is it that specifically qualifies as “Christian” and what authority informs him of his definition. Giving him the first opportunity to define, state his terms, and defend by asking what do you mean when you say “Christian” etc.., would help save time later so that same word/different meaning doesn’t cloud the discourse.
This guy doesn’t demonstrate biblical Christianity in his answer to the first question so I’d introduce him to Romans 1-3 to see if he considers himself outside of Pauls exhaustive/universal condemnation of all men. If he didn’t trust my use of those scriptures, I’d likely show him WCF chapter 6 and go through the scripture proofs to show that it’s not just my opinion, but historic Christianity that admits mans utter helplessness and inability.
I agree with Danny.
Brad B,
He is quoted as saying… “Q5: Do you believe in Universal Christianity where everyone is saved regardless of religion and sin, etc.?
A5: I would certainly like everyone to be saved. I don’t think that everyone who is not a Christian is necessarily unsaved. Whether a Christian or not, anyone actively seeking God and displaying sound moral judgment has a better chance of Heaven than those who don’t.”
This is a very clear statement and shows that this man does not have a correct view of regeneration or the work of the blood of Christ.
All,
In response to this thread, the first question asked apparently was not the question that was intended. As for dealing/answering this type of theology (not the man himself) we see a very clear distinction between the answers and Biblical theology. This might be because there is clarification needed in this man’s answers and if we were able to have a fact-to-fact dialogue we would find out that he did not present himself clearly. It is also a possibility that he answered exactly as he intended and evangelization is called for.
My main problem is with answers to questions 1, 2, and 5. It is simply impossible to have been regenerated by the blood of Christ by “being born a christian.” Nobody is “born” a Christian. Every Christian has a moment where the second before they were an unbeliever and the next they are a believer. There is a definite point of regeneration where our sins are covered by the blood of the Lamb of God. Jesus in John 3 does not tell Nicodemus that we are born of water and then go to heaven. No, He told him that we are born of water and of the Spirit. Paul in Romans 3 quotes the Psalmist in that “all have gone astray” and also that “all have sinned.” Nowhere in the NT are we told that we are saved from birth.
Let’s just assume for a minute that we are born Christians… The next question would be “Is everyone born a Christian?” If the answer is yes, then why are they not living the Christian life like we are called to and what about 1 John 2:19? If the answer is no, who is the one who decides which children are born Christians? Is it because of the faith of their parents? What about the children that are born to parents who are both true believers and grows up to reject God? Was this person saved and then rejected God and lost his salvation? Is he still saved even in his rejection?
Bottom line: In the answers to questions 1, 2, and 5 there is much that is Biblically unsound and we are called to reprove and correct with Scripture (II Tim 3:16).
Hi Glen, you and I agree that his view of regeneration is incorrect, but this in and of itself doesn’t allow us to determine that he’s not born again. I think you said in the last sentence of your post what needs to be done, and as I stated in my post that this kind of belief can not be held to in a persistent way without being subject ot excommunication.
At that time, one could rightly consider that person unregenerate, but not necessarily reprobate. We do maintain that without the Holy Spirit, no man can know God in spirit and *truth*, so knowing true, scripturally revealed propositions about Him is ordinarily necessarily evident in genuine believers. The common denominator in all belivers is the Holy Spirit who’se continually confirming knowledge given to us from the scriptures as true. Since He’s our only true teacher, and common to us all, we ought normally to agree with all other Christians on most if not all things concerning God.
I dont know that his character has even subjected himself to authority at all–most modern evangelicals have not since they dont even attend a church that has membership requirements and they are sitting under self proclaimed, self called, ministers–a lot of them are hirelings in my estimation.
Hello,
I would answer this guy via ad hominem.
Is there any other effective way then this Biblically?
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).