QC and SG accountabili5ty (15/2/19)
Eugene shared about how respondents to the Evangelism Explosion program he was attending were probably a biased sample because they were willing to sit down with those sharing the gospel. The questions asked seemed very simple intellectually, with many assumptions about core beliefs like 'heaven' and 'God'. That raised the question as to whether only somewhat simple-minded, non-intellectual people would receive the gospel and be saved. On one hand, we must affirm that the Christian faith is robust enough to handle any amount of intellectual questioning. On the other, there is no doubt that part of the glory of the gospel is that it speaks to the foolish and the weak in the eyes of the world (1 Cor 1:26-29). We are not saved by being either foolish or wise - we are saved by the power of God unto salvation!
I shared the importance of having a world view that explaiedn 1) origin 2) meaning 3) morality and 4) destiny. This is not something that is explained by the cycle of karma and reincarnation, since there is no explanation for the processes that regulate this, or any explanation for the definition of what is considered good/virtuous and bad/evil.
There are some standard apologetics truths we can use in certain circumstances in our discussion with friends. For example:
i) If someone asks, "How can there be a good God when there is so much suffering and evil in the world", this begs the question of where our ideas of 'good' and 'evil' come from, since these categories are meaningless in a universe without God.
ii) If someone says, "I believe that only what we can observe and measure scientifically is real and can impact our lives", that statement is in itself not scientifically provable. On a related note, if someone says, "All truth is relative", that statement is self-contradictory.
iii) If someone says, "We are like blind men feeling an elephant and no one has a full grasp of the truth", our response can be, "So...who can see and know the whole elephant anyway?"
We also raised the issue of the permissibility of killing in war. We note that even in the NT, not all killing is murder. The state has the power of judicial killing (Ro 13:4). We also note that in John the Baptist (Lk 3:14) and Jesus' and Peter's interactions with centurions (Mt 8:5-13, Lk 7:1-6, Ac 10:1-22) soldiers were never told to give up their profession. The caution in Mt 26:52 that "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" may be interpreted as a prohibition against a violent life in general. (Lk 22:36 is even more difficult to explain!)
In any case, Christian thinkers like Aquinas and Augustine have attempted to justify war by arguing that Christians, as part of a government, need not be ashamed of protecting peace and punishing wickedness when forced to do so by a government. War must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state.War must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain. Also, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence. The teaching of just war encompasses the rationale for going to war, as well as the way in which war is conducted.
I shared the importance of having a world view that explaiedn 1) origin 2) meaning 3) morality and 4) destiny. This is not something that is explained by the cycle of karma and reincarnation, since there is no explanation for the processes that regulate this, or any explanation for the definition of what is considered good/virtuous and bad/evil.
There are some standard apologetics truths we can use in certain circumstances in our discussion with friends. For example:
i) If someone asks, "How can there be a good God when there is so much suffering and evil in the world", this begs the question of where our ideas of 'good' and 'evil' come from, since these categories are meaningless in a universe without God.
ii) If someone says, "I believe that only what we can observe and measure scientifically is real and can impact our lives", that statement is in itself not scientifically provable. On a related note, if someone says, "All truth is relative", that statement is self-contradictory.
iii) If someone says, "We are like blind men feeling an elephant and no one has a full grasp of the truth", our response can be, "So...who can see and know the whole elephant anyway?"
We also raised the issue of the permissibility of killing in war. We note that even in the NT, not all killing is murder. The state has the power of judicial killing (Ro 13:4). We also note that in John the Baptist (Lk 3:14) and Jesus' and Peter's interactions with centurions (Mt 8:5-13, Lk 7:1-6, Ac 10:1-22) soldiers were never told to give up their profession. The caution in Mt 26:52 that "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" may be interpreted as a prohibition against a violent life in general. (Lk 22:36 is even more difficult to explain!)
In any case, Christian thinkers like Aquinas and Augustine have attempted to justify war by arguing that Christians, as part of a government, need not be ashamed of protecting peace and punishing wickedness when forced to do so by a government. War must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state.War must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain. Also, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence. The teaching of just war encompasses the rationale for going to war, as well as the way in which war is conducted.
Comments
Post a Comment