The Nature and Purpose of Proving God??????

[krhagan19]

Jesus commanded us to have faith in him. If we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ is Lord and there is no need for faith, if we simply can see without any shadow of a doubt his position as the creator in John 1 then what is purpose is there Grace?

Attachments:

[Josh]

Aug 27, 2009 18:57:50 GMT -8 krhagan19 said:

If we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ is Lord and there is no need for faith, if we simply can see without any shadow of a doubt his position as the creator in John 1 then what is purpose is there Grace?

I've written extensively on this. For the long answer, try a couple of these links:

Proof or Evidence?

Apolo-what?

Is Apologetics Valuable?

For a shorter answer,

We can't prove that the claims of Christianity are true in a scientific sense. There will always be a need for faith. Apologetics is about demonstrating that our faith is grounded in evidence, coherent, warranted, and persuasive. Our faith isn't blind or randomly placed.

The message of the early church wasn't "believe because we (or Jesus) say you should". It was "He rose from the dead. Check out the evidence".

As to grace, I suppose grace would still be necessary whether we could prove God or not.

[krhagan19]

Yet, if God is all powerful, all good, and all knowing. Then he knows everything that is going to happen at every instance of every living and non living creatures life. He knew I was going to type this to you before time began. So he also probably knows who is going to be saved and who isn't. It follows logically, otherwise he is not all knowing. SO doesn't that render apologetics into more of a liturgy of reaching out, even though we have no idea who will respond and he does, and furthermore he knows they will respond whether we reach out or not, or even most annoying, he knows that we will reach out to that individual who will be receptive at that particular time even when we do not???

[Josh]

SO doesn't that render apologetics into more of a liturgy of reaching out,

more of a "liturgy of reaching out" than what? As opposed to what?

You must know I'm not a Calvinist. But even if one is a Calvinist, the value of apologetics is not diminished for the very reasons you're citing. In fact, some of the best apologists have traditionally been Calvinists.

[nathaniel]

Aug 27, 2009 18:57:50 GMT -8 krhagan19 said:

Jesus commanded us to have faith in him. If we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ is Lord and there is no need for faith, if we simply can see without any shadow of a doubt his position as the creator in John 1 then what is purpose is there Grace?

Didn't Christ pretty much prove his Lordship to the apostles and many of his disciples (and even to those who rejected him) via teachings, miracles, and physically appearing to them after his death? I mean I don't think Paul had to much question in his mind after the road to Damascus. I doubt we would say that this in anyway diminishes their faith or their need for faith.

I kind of like the idea of proving to people beyond a reasonable doubt. It leaves me feeling rational and leaves others without excuse.

[Josh]

Good point, Nate.

Plus, what about all the blatant proofs that God showered the ancient Israelites with in the Old Testament? And yet such prove didn't translate into automatic faithfulness.