Interesting article from Al Mohler about Moralism versus the true Biblical Gospel - http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4388

Excerpt:

"Writing about his own childhood in rural Georgia, the novelist Ferrol Sams described the deeply-ingrained tradition of being "raised right." As he explained, the child who is "raised right" pleases his parents and other adults by adhering to moral conventions and social etiquette. A young person who is "raised right" emerges as an adult who obeys the laws, respects his neighbors, gives at least lip service to religious expectations, and stays away from scandal. The point is clear -- this is what parents expect, the culture affirms, and many churches celebrate. But our communities are filled with people who have been "raised right" but are headed for hell."

Our churches too....

Here are two short pdf documents about the gospel that are well worth pondering!  They talk about the author's realizations of the dangers of emphasizing "performance" rather than faith / trust / God's grace in our walk with Christ.  This message is not new... it is basically the same message preached by the reformers in the 1600's, and by many others before and after... each generation must discover the gospel again for itself...

http://www.stoptryingharder.com/Chapter1.pdf

http://www.stoptryingharder.com/Preaching_to_the_Exhausted.pdf

For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith".   Romans 1:17

...Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?   Galatians 3:3b

I've been thinking about parenting some recently, having seen many good and bad examples, and having experienced God's parenting in my own life.  I have learned/realized some things recently, although it's a bit hard still to pin it down and put it into words.  I'll try to note a few things below.  Sorry it's so rambling.  Maybe these thoughts will coalesce into a more succinct form in the future.

1. First, consider these verses, from our friends Job and Paul  (consider also the story of Jonah, and the plant that God 'gave' and then 'took away')...

 He said,
"Naked I came from my mother's womb,
And naked I shall return there
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away.
Blessed be the name of the LORD."     (Job 1:21)

Notice this about God - that He gives and He takes away.  He doesn't only give (like 'Santa Claus'), and He doesn't only take away (like we are sometimes tempted to believe, when grieving a great loss).  He does both.   Why?  Is God an "indian-giver"?   Is He capricious, feeling benevolent one day but feeling grumpy the next?

How is it possible to trust Someone who gives good gifts one moment, then painful heartaches the next moment?  How can one repose one's heart in Him, release one's future to Him, if you never know what painful thing He's going to throw at you next?  When the dentist says "this might hurt a bit, but just close your eyes and try to relax", how do you respond internally?  Is this what God tells us to do (Proverbs 3:5-6), or is the analogy incorrect?

The second passage:

"Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who 'made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.' In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness."  (Acts 14:15-17)

What is it about receiving things like food and rain for one's crops that points one to God?  What is Paul saying here?

2. I think it's C.S. Lewis who talks about why God does this ---  God "gives AND takes away" in order to awaken in people the desire for Him..... the Object of desire which is the only truly satisfying one (see also this interesting related article on 'sehnsucht', a German word approximately meaning "longing"/"desire").  More on this below.

3. The concept of parenting seems to be related to this.  Parenting seems to be two main things: living an example to one's kids, and teaching/training specific principles to one's kids.  Training seems to be accomplished using rewards and punishments... rewards for good behavior, punishments for bad behavior.  The idea is that if you train children consistently using rewards and punishments, they will build character habits... at first they won't understand the rationale (they'll just know 'when I beat up my brother, I get spanked, which hurts, so I'd better not beat up my brother any more'), but as they mature, they'll understand the rationale ('it is better for many reasons to live in an amicable relationship with my brother').   Once the kids get to the teen age, spanking doesn't hold much terror for them any more, and once they hit their late teens and older, all punishments lose effect... so the training has to take place early.... but if it works, the kids won't need the rewards/punishments any more... they will WANT to act in these mature ways (for better/higher motivations)...

Anyway, the parent must both give, and take away.   Sometimes I see a parent trying to only take away, without giving... e.g. taking away their privileges, yelling at them (usually the ones who yell are the same ones who don't spank), threatening them, grounding them, etc.  Sometimes I see a parent trying to only give, without taking away...  e.g. sacrificially providing opportunities (educational, social, financial, etc) without being willing to take away those privileges if the kid is behaving badly... parents giving money to a kid who is married, jobless, homeless, etc and enabling his continued unruly lifestyle, etc.

But it is beautiful to see a parent both giving and taking away, toward the goal of seeing his/her child become an upright and mature adult.   The parent gives gifts of toys, social opportunities, educational opportunities, field trips, delicious foods, money, etc, constantly pondering what new gifts he/she might be able to give.... while being ready to take away, withold, punish, spank, scold, etc whenever the child needs it.  In engineering terms the parent is keeping open a wide dynamic range of parental reference signal to the child.

4.  As I currently understand it, this process looks different depending on whether the person is being drawn by God or not (or whether the person is seeking God or not through God's Spirit working in their heart, or whether the person is one of God's elect 'sheep' or not... different ways of saying the same thing).

If the person is being drawn by God, when God gives a good gift to them, he/she respond in delight and thanksgiving --- 'wow, thanks God!! I never knew life could be this good... my perspective on the upper end of the realm of possibility has just been expanded... if being-with-You-in-heaven is better than THIS, then it must be far better than thought previously...'  Then when God takes away that good thing, or brings some hardship into his/her life, they respond like Job - 'ok God, for some reason in your better/wiser plan You have taken this away for some good purpose... thank You that what I possess in having/knowing/being-connected-with You Yourself is far better than anything I have lost or could ever possibly lose here on earth... thank You for the reminder, in this loss, that my true Treasure is not this thing, but You... ' (Lamentations 3:24, 1 Cor 7:29-31, John 17:1-5, etc)

But the non-elect person responds differently... when God sends the good gift, it only dulls the spiritual sensibilities and cases the person to be more entrenched against God, if He comes to mind at all ("ok God, here's one thing I'm never going to let you take away from me"), and when God sends the pain or takes away the gift, it only causes rage and bitterness against God.  Again C.S.Lewis' story is powerful -- of the dwarves in "The Last Battle" who, although seated in a beautiful meadow and presented with a delicious banquet, are unable to see/enjoy it for what it is and end up less satisfied than before.   Cf. Revelation 9:20-21, 16:9,11...

5.  www.beerisproof.org says these things more coherently than I.   From their website: "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Quoting Lewis again: "Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered to us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."

6. Someone, probably Lewis again, has compared the "far-better"-ness of life-with-God to the scenario of trying to explain the pleasures of sex to a little child.  "Is it better than eating chocolate or playing with Legos?" the child asks incredulously.  How could something possibly be better than Legos? or chocolate??

Or consider a boy playing on his Xbox.  He is so engrossed by the game that he barely hears his mom say that she and his dad and the rest of his family are now waiting in the car to begin their family vacation at the beach.   "That's nice," he mumbles, eyes fixed on the screen.  His mom suddenly reaches over and abruptly switches off the power.  At first the boy is upset.  But as soon as he reaches the beach, he begins to become secretly grateful that he was forced to leave his game.   Why?

There are categories of joy that apparently we cannot even begin to grasp... and the same applies to what God is doing in His parenting of us...   He gives us delightful gifts, to shock us into realizing that there is a far greater joy awaiting us than we had imagined existed.  He then takes takes away those gifts and pours heartache into our lives, to shock us into remembering that this world is not our home and we ought not to pretend like it is.  He then repeats the cycle.

Blessing and heartache, blessing and heartache, "happiness and tears", bigger and bigger every month, wrenching our hearts out of joint, overflowing us with blessing beyond our capacity even to say 'thank you', grinding us under pains so great we can't even begin to explain them to our friends, every year upping the amplitude of life's circumstances and timing the phase just right to shatter our complacent little lives...       WHY?        As I asked above, "is God an "indian-giver"?   Is He capricious, feeling benevolent one day but feeling grumpy the next?"     Or, does He have an awesome purpose... is He parenting us with deliberate care to grow in us huge anticipation/delight/longing...     for the only 'thing' that can ultimately satisfy us... that is, Himself........

 However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love Him."     I Corinthians 2:9

I wonder what the apostle John would say about a sunday school series entitled "When Godly People Do Ungodly Things" ..... ?

1 John 1:5-10
This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

1 John 2:3-6
By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected.
By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

1 John 3:2-10
Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Here's a fascinating dialogue between a Jew, a Catholic, and some biblical Christians.  It's only a five-minute read and very well worth it in my opinion.

Here's an excerpt:

DONAHUE: Thank you. Do these 16 million people believe Jews can go to heaven?

MOHLER: Well, the gospel is not just for the worst of us. The gospel is for all of us. And the scripture tells us the hard truth, that all have sinned. And that Nazi guard is going to be punished for his sin, and it will be judged as sin. His only hope would be the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. And the profound truth of the gospel is that the salvation that can come to any person who comes to faith in Christ-can come to that Jew who was killed and to that guard who does the killing. That’s the radical nature of the gospel.

I was listening last night to a debate between Messianic Jew Michael Brown and Rabbi David Blumofe.  It's a wonderful debate to listen to and ponder.  During the Q/A at the end, the concept was presented (in 'question form') of a Nazi mowing down innocent and pious Jews with a laugh and then praying to Jesus for salvation right before the Allies shoot him.  The emotional question (posed also by Donohue) is: how could such a person go to heaven, when the pious Jews he killed go to hell?  How could such extremely bad people go to a good destination, while the good people go to a bad destination?

Michael Brown answered the question very well - listen to the mp3 to hear his answer.   I have a slightly different thought in reply (and why the hypothetical story is deeply flawed in its presented form).  Actually two thoughts.

First, as Brown also mentioned, it is not enough to simply say that one believes in Jesus God's Messiah; one must actually believe (in one's heart or inner being).  True repentance is necessary, not just the saying of a magic saving formula.   This involves seeing oneself as God sees - i.e. agreeing with the Bible's portrayal of oneself as (not abstractly but personally) very very wicked and sinful, unable to please God, unable to ever earn one's salvation; in a word, doomed.  And it involves true heart belief (inevitably producing action as fire produces heat and smoke) that Jesus' death-on-my-behalf is my only hope.

Second, the story overlooks the fact that "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."  When the Jew is said to be "innocent" and "pious" compared to the Nazi, that is a human comparison looking at outward appearances.  Compare the two next to each other, and sure - one is 'worse' than the other, outwardly speaking.  The Holocaust Jew has never killed someone, etc.

But has the Jew ever told a lie?  Has the Jew ever had an angry-without-cause or covetous thought toward someone?  Has the Jew ever felt lust?  Our sinfulness (and I am obviously including myself here) is usually buried beneath layers of piousness and outward showy good works... self-woven layers that everyone without exception enshrouds themselves with.

In response to the question of the Nazi and the Jew, the Bible says, "Hold on a second -  every single person on earth has performed despicable acts of abominable evil against God and his/her fellow man, every day.  Some people's acts are worse than others, but all have performed these acts.  All, moreover, are 'sinners by nature', 'unable to please God' even if they wanted to... even our best deeds are soaked with pride and a refusal to honor God as He deserves."

Once the Nazi and the Jew are seen as two wicked sinners who are both deserving of hell, the flaws of the emotional argument above become evident. A more accurate picture might be a homeowner peeling up his floor and finding two termites, one of whom is abusing the other, but both of whom are destroying his house.

And it so happens that the same emotional picture is often asked with respect to other religions - Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.  The Christian answer is: "Although there are moral distinctions that can be made on a relative scale, we need to look at the absolute scale.  The truth is that both (and indeed every person on earth) deserve eternal destruction.  But the good news is that God has provided a way - belief in Jesus God's Messiah - by which whoever believes can be saved!  Jesus Christ underwent the eternal destruction that I deserved."

Contemporary religions often try to pretend that they're not religions at all.   But guilt just won't go away, so the mechanisms for 'fixing' it keep accumulating as well.

I came across this very interesting thought in my readings today, from this article.

Now I want to relate a story. Some years ago I viewed the 1993 Academy Award movie of the year, Schindler's List, the Steven Spielberg story of Oskar Schindler, the Nazi war profiteer, who shortly after the German invasion of Poland in 1939 began to use the Jews of the Krakow ghetto as workers in his pots and pans factory. At first he saw them only as chattel to be used to line his own pockets, which he did quite successfully, becoming exceedingly rich. But as the war dragged on, and as he increasingly witnessed Nazi atrocities being inflicted against the Jews of Poland, increasingly did he begin to use his own wealth to bribe Nazi officials and army officers to give him more and more Jews for his factory that the Nazis had turned toward the end of the war into a munitions factory and that, by Schindler's personal instructions, became a model of non-productivity in the Nazi war effort. Though it virtually bankrupted him personally, he saved over twelve hundred Jews from certain death in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

I recount this story line only to say that I was struck by some statements put in his mouth toward the end of the movie. The war has just ended, and having worked for the Third Reich, both he and his Jewish factory workers realize that the Allied authorities might search for him. As he bids farewell to them, they present him with a letter signed by each of them that they hope will help him before the Allied authorities.

At this moment Schindler suddenly becomes very sober and quietly says: "I could have done more. I could have done more!" He begins to sob. "I could have done more. I didn't do enough. This car-why did I keep the car? Ten people right there. Ten people. Ten more people." Pulling off his lapel pin, he exclaims, "The pin. Two people. This is gold. Two more people! One more. I could have bought more people! But I didn't." His knees crumble and he sobs heavily.

As his words - "I could have done more! Why did I keep the car? Ten people right there. The pin. This is gold. Two more people. One more. I could have bought more people. But I didn't." - seared themselves into my mind as I sat in the darkness of that theater, I suddenly became convicted that many Christians-I among them-are going to be asking similar questions at the Great White Throne Judgment: "Why did I not do more to reach the lost for Christ? Why did I think I had to have that more expensive house, that more expensive car, that snowmobile, that ten-speed bicycle that hangs most of the time in my garage? Why did I not use more of my resources for the cause of Christ?" More poignantly, "Why was I not more committed to Christ's cause? Why did I esteem my own self-preservation so highly? Why was I not willing to go myself?" In that Great Day I fear that many of us will have no answers to salve our smitten consciences.

May God raise up in our day, while divine patience still grants us time, a multitude of men and women who will boldly dare to go into this lost and dying world where no man has ever gone before with the liberating law-free gospel of God!

How exactly does one become "saved", according to the Bible, and what exactly takes place?

This past year feels like it's been an "education" or at least a "challenge" along the lines of this question.  I have been exposed to friends answering the question from many different perspectives, and I am still sorting through what exactly the Bible has to say about this.

- From the Bible study I'm going to (on Galatians), Tim Keller presents a Reformed/Lutheran perspective (http://godsquad.com/discipleship/galatians/index.htm) similar to http://www.monergism.com/ ... Salvation is by faith alone (though it always produces works).  We must strive to avoid all "functional saviors" besides Christ.  The gospel is not the attitude of the "younger brother" in the Prodigal story (eat, drink and be merry, ignore God, etc), nor the "elder brother" (follow the rules, earn my own salvation).  Instead, it's "I am more wicked than I ever imagined, but God's grace is greater than I have ever dared to dream."

- I have a dear friend who says that he wants to be saved, but he doesn't want to give up a particular sin in his life.  Does the Bible teach that he must be willing to give up all sin in his life in order to be saved ("Lordship salvation"), or only that he must believe that Jesus rose from the dead and is Who He claimed to be?

- From http://www.reasoningbygrace.org/articles.htm - not only is salvation by grace alone, but those who neglect to emphasise this enough are preaching a false gospel (e.g. Rick Warren, Billy Graham and his inclusion of Catholics, etc).   See also the very sobering "Honey from the Rock" by Thomas Wilcox.

- From my Mormon friends and my Catholic friends - salvation requires both faith and works.  Faith alone is not enough - and James 2:24 "proves" this.  Plus a bunch of verses in the Book of Mormon or a bunch of church traditions.  Mormons also believe along with many other religions that everyone will eventually be saved, as far as I understand.  This is obviously difficult to reconcile with the Bible.

- From my Postmodern Type1 friends - N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul - NPP - Traditional Christianity has interpreted Paul all wrong.  Instead of the heart of the Gospel being the offer of "being made righteous" by legal imputation of Christ's righteousness, NPP claims that the heart of the Gospel is God's fulfilling his promise to those who are righteous in themselves; to those who are covenant members of the Kingdom of God.  N.T.Wright and others claim that their teaching "includes" the idea of salvation from personal sin, but "enhances" it and goes further to present the "complete" gospel.

- From my Postmodern Type2 friends - Dallas Willard and "the disciplines" of the Christian life... It is not enough simply to "be saved" - one must walk in the spiritual disciplines in order to grow in Christ.  “A discipline for the spiritual life is…nothing but an activity undertaken to bring us into more effective cooperation with Christ and his Kingdom .” Such as: "disciplines of abstinence": solitude, silence, fasting, frugality, chastity, secrecy, and sacrifice... and "disciplines of engagement": study, worship, celebration, service, prayer, fellowship, confession, and submission.
On the one hand it sounds similar to 2 Peter 1:5-10.  And certainly Jesus fasted and spent time alone, etc. On the other hand, some of the "ascetic"/"gnostic"/"you-need-this-secret-or-else-you-can't-live-the-full-christian-life"/"Christ-is-not-enough" sounding tendencies seem to go against Colossians 2:1-13, etc.

"Behind" all of these contemporary views, we feel the constant undertow that is the spirit of the age.  This worldview is above all pluralistic and syncretistic - constantly trying to avoid anything "absolute".  It is a reaction against modernism/early-humanism and the failure of Enlightenment thought... a reaction against the World-Wars, a reaction against the perception of unloving, argumentative Christians and their 'doctrinal wars', and a consequence of the global interconnectedness through which the beliefs of all other cultures (especially eastern- Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam) are now visible all around us...

The devil keeps trying always to use the world's reigning philosophies to swing the pendulum of Christian theology away from truth.  In the second, third, and fourth centuries, multitudes of heresies sprang up in the church, and had to be countered by the people of God.  In the time of the Reformation, the pendulum swung away from salvation-by-works, but some reformed people were carried in the opposite direction to hypercalvinism.  In the time of the Modernists, reacting to Darwin and the higher critics, the pendulum swung away from denying the miracles of the Bible (Lewis, McDowell), but some Christians adopted a strident anti-intellectual fundamentalism ("The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it").

A knowledge of where contemporary culture is trying to push us is helpful, but simply 'reacting against the world's philosophy' is dangerous.  Instead, we must hold to the Bible as our source of truth (not blindly/presuppositionally, but in an informed way).

As for the salvation questions discussed above, I am currently thinking that the "monergism" and "Lordship" views are closest to the truth of the Bible, though the idea of a secondary judgement based on works also seems very biblical (for the unsaved, Luke 12:35-48, and for the saved, 2 Cor. 5:9-11... Rev. 20:15 seems to discuss the "binary" savedness-or-unsavedness, and Rev. 20:13 seems to discuss the tiny "gradations" within those two huge categories... for more info see also Matthew 5:7, 6:14-21, 7:13-14, 11:20-24, 12:33-37, 20:20-28, 23:11-12, Luke 13:23-30, John 5:22-30, Acts 24:25, Romans 2:5, 8:1, 8:33ff, 14:10, 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, 4:1-5, 11:29, Phil. 4:17, 2 Thessalonians 1:4-12, James 2:13, 3:1, 1 Peter 4:15-19, 1 John 4:17).

What are your thoughts on salvation?   I will greatly appreciate reading your thoughts on these things.

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." -- Jesus, Matthew 7:15

"I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." -- Paul, Acts 20:29-30

Here's a recent email I wrote to a email group of creationists...   I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Dear -------, -------, and other friends,

I think you're both right.   We Christians can (and must) base our belief structure upon Christ and the Word of God as our sure foundation (more sure than shifting science).   Yet our faith in Christ is not subjective or based on circular reasoning, but is based on real historical facts (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) that have empirical/historical/scientific backing.

Our "presuppositional structure" can be based on the Bible (a more 'postmodern' emphasis), while our trust in the Bible itself can be based on the "evidence" for the accuracy and truth of the Bible (a more "modernist" emphasis).   Neither full postmodernism nor full modernism are correct (they are both human-centered rather than God-centered), but both philosophies of knowledge have some truth to them.

While saying "Christ should be our starting point" sounds great, problems arise whenever we ask the "What" and "Why" questions.  What/who exactly is this "Christ"?  Is He the Christ of the modern emergent church, the liberal socialistic activist-for-the-poor?  Is He the Christ of Luther? or of the Catholics?  "He's the Christ of the Bible," one might say.  But all of those groups claim Biblical basis.  It is necessary to go back to the "brute facts" of the not-completely-subjective Word of God to ascertain exactly who Christ was and is.    Furthermore, "Why" should Christ be our starting point?   Why not Muhammad or Buddha or Joseph Smith?  Why must we believe in any God whatsoever? Again we must go back to the historical "brute facts" of creation and the history surrounding Jesus of Nazareth to provide a basis for our hope (1 Peter 3:15).

Yet brute facts presented to a nonbeliever will be as ineffective as water rolling off a duck's back... unless God opens the heart and mind to believe.

The Bible itself supports both perspectives on the issue I think (they are complementary rather than contradictory) - in Acts 26:26, 17:22-32, 1 Cor. 15:1-8, etc, examples are given of pointing to Christ from empirical evidences and proofs, philosophical reasoning, and historical facts.   Yet in Col. 2:1-10, 1 Cor 1:18-2:16 and 1 Tim 6:20 we are warned against "philosophy"/"human wisdom" and in 2 Peter 1:19 we are told that the prophetic word is even more sure/reliable than direct sensory experience.

Will people come to believe in Christ without God working in their hearts to open their eyes?  No.  "Evidence" or "brute factuality" without God's regenerating power is useless.  (Acts 16:14, Rom. 1, John 6:44, 65, Eph. 2:1-10, etc).  Kuhn and Polanyi showed the stubbornness of mere scientific paradigms in the face of data... how much more the stubbornness of a human heart that hates God.
On the other hand, was Van Til right that the only way to witness to people is to first get them to adopt your presuppositional starting point (e.g. the Bible is God's Word)?   I see plenty of evidence from Scripture that there are other ways to present the gospel... including ways that start from "scientific facts" or philosophical reasoning, and end at Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Scriptures (e.g. Acts 17:22-32).

Different people are led to Christ from different starting points (1 Cor. 9:19-23).

With esteem,

In Christ, Tim

"If Satan troubles us, Jesus Christ
You who are the lion of the grasslands
You whose claws are sharp
Will tear out his entrails
And leave them on the ground
For the flies to eat."

-- Afua Kuma, Christian songwriter and poet from Ghana

There may be some humor in the reading of that song, by Christians more used to a different type of CCM... (and maybe more used to thinking of Jesus as a "tame lion" or a velvet stuffed lion)...  but there is also a lot of truth behind the metaphor...