Witnessing to Liberals
By Ron Rhodes
(The distinguished Christian writer has granted museltof
christian ministries rights to host this article here).
Liberal Christians typically seek to adapt religious ideas to
modern science.
Their goal is to make Christianity "relevant" to modern man. By
elevating science to supreme authority, they assume the Bible is
a fallible human document, approach Scripture with an
antisupernatural bias, and dismiss miracles as the fantasies of
ignorant people in biblical times who did not understand the laws
of nature. They also view humanity as fundamentally good, with no
real sin problem.
Jesus is not viewed as God incarnate as God incarnate or as a
divine Savior. Rather, He was a man supremely full of God and was
characterized by ethical and moral excellence. He is an example
to - and moral teacher of - the human race. He didn't die on the
cross for our sins, but His death nevertheless has an uplifting
"moral influence" on people (setting an example of
sacrifice).
God's primary attribute is said to be love. His holiness,
judgment, and wrath are practically ignored. Thus, it is not
surprising that liberal Christians hold out the hope of
immortality for all people. The idea that any will spend eternity
in hell is rejected.
Confronted with such a plethora of unbiblical ideas, conservative
Christians might wonder how to begin in evangelizing their
liberal counterparts. Following are some guidelines I have found
helpful when dialoguing with liberal Christians.
Be loving. Liberal Christians sometimes view evangelicals as
narrow-minded and unloving. For this reason it is all the more
important that all of your personal encounters with liberals be
marked by love. Be courteous, tactful, kind, and humble.
Debunk the caricatures liberal Christians often have regarding
evangelicals. As a case in point, some liberal Christians think
typical evangelicals believe in the dictation theory of
inspiration (the view that God literally dictated the Bible word
for word to the biblical writers). Emphasize that typical
evangelicals reject this view.
At the same time, however, be ready to explain and defend the
correct view of inspiration. Biblical inspiration may be defined
as God's superintending of the human authors so that, using
(rather than bypassing) their own historical situations,
personalities, and writing styles, they composed and recorded
without error His revelation to humankind (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet.
1:21). (Space forbids a detailed apologetic defense of
inspiration, but good resources are available for this.)
A necessary consequence of this view of inspiration is that the
authority of Scripture cannot be separated from the authority of
God. Whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms. Since the written
revelation from God has been recorded under the Spirit's direct
superintendence, that revelation is authoritative - just as
authoritative as the One who gave it.
Now, besides dealing with inspiration, you should also address
the liberal view that because the four gospel writers had
theological motives (the intent to convince readers of Jesus'
deity, for example), their historical testimony is untrustworthy.
This is clearly faulty reasoning. As scholar Craig Blomberg put
it, "The fallacy...is to imagine that telling a story for a
purpose, even in the service of a cause one believes in
passionately, necessarily forces one to distort history. In our
modern era, some of the most reliable reporters of the Nazi
Holocaust were Jews passionately committed to seeing such
genocide never repeated."
Another caricature you may need to deal with is the liberal's
misperception that evangelicals interpret Scripture too
literally. Point out that evangelicals do not hold to a "wooden
literalism" - the kind that interprets biblical figures of speech
literally. Explain that what is understood to be symbolic and
what is taken literally should be based on the biblical context
itself - such as when Jesus used obviously figurative parables to
communicate spiritual truth.
Emphasize that a literal approach to Scripture recognizes that
the Bible contains a variety of literary genres, each of which
have certain peculiar characteristics that must be recognized in
order to interpret the text properly. Biblical genres include the
historical (e.g., Acts), the dramatic epic (e.g., Job), poetry
(e.g., Psalms), wise sayings (e.g., Proverbs), and apocalyptic
writings (e.g., Revelation). Point out that an incorrect genre
judgment will lead one far astray in interpreting
Scripture.
Even though the Bible contains a variety of literary genres and
many figures of speech, the biblical authors most often employed
literal statements to convey their ideas. And where they use a
literal means to express their ideas, the Bible expositor must
employ a corresponding means to explain these ideas - namely, a
literal approach. Such an approach gives to each word in the text
the same basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary,
customary usage - whether employed in writing, speaking, or
thinking. Without such a method, communication between God and
humankind is impossible.
A third caricature you may have to deal with is the notion that
evangelicals are unaware of - or are not willing to deal with -
so-called contradictions in the Bible. Challenge this charge. Put
the burden on the liberal, and ask him or her to cite specific
contradictions. Use resources like Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia
of Bible Difficulties and Norman Geisler's When Critics Ask to
demonstrate that there are alternative explanations that make
good sense.
Debunk the liberal's charge that miracles are the fantasies of
ignorant people in biblical times who did not understand the laws
of nature. People in biblical times did know enough of the laws
of nature to recognize bona fide miracles. As C. S. Lewis put it,
"When St. Joseph discovered that his bride was pregnant, he was
'minded to put her away.' He knew enough biology for that.
Otherwise, of course, he would not have regarded pregnancy as a
proof of infidelity. When he accepted the Christian explanation,
he regarded it as a miracle precisely because he knew enough of
the laws of nature to know that this was a suspension of
them."
Moreover, Lewis observed, "when the disciples saw Christ walking
on the water they were frightened: they would not have been
frightened unless they had known the laws of nature and known
that this was an exception. If a man had no conception of a
regular order in nature, then of course he could not notice
departures from that order." Nothing can be viewed as "abnormal"
until one has first grasped the "norm."
Don't let the liberal get away with saying that science
"disproves" the biblical miracles. Science depends upon
observation and replication. Miracles - such as the Incarnation
and the Resurrection - are by their very nature unprecedented
events. No one can replicate these events in a laboratory. Hence,
science simply cannot be the judge and jury as to whether or not
these events occurred. The scientific method is useful for
studying nature but not super-nature.
Scientists are speaking outside of their proper field when they
address theological issues like miracles. R. C. Sproul observes,
"Today when somebody steps outside of his area of expertise,
people tend to follow and believe him. That is the basis of much
advertising. For example, a baseball star may appear on
television and promote a particular brand of razors. If that star
were to tell me how to hit a baseball, he would be speaking with
authority. But when he tells me the best razor blade to buy is a
certain brand, then he is speaking outside of his area of
expertise." Scientists do the same type of thing in regard to
miracles.
The skepticism of liberal Christians notwithstanding, there is
good reason to believe in the biblical miracles. One highly
pertinent factor is the brief time that elapsed between Jesus'
miraculous public ministry and the publication of the gospels. It
was insufficient for the development of miracle legends. Many
eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles would have still been alive to
refute any untrue miracle accounts (see 1 Cor. 15:6). One must
also recognize the noble character of the men who witnessed these
miracles (e.g., Peter, James, and John). Such men were not prone
to misrepresentation, and were willing to give up their lives
rather than deny their beliefs.
There were also hostile witnesses to the miracles of Christ. When
Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, for example, none of the
chief priests or Pharisees disputed the miracle (John 11:45-48).
(If they could have disputed it, they would have.) Rather, their
goal was simply to stop Jesus (vv. 47-48). Remind the liberal
that because there were so many hostile witnesses who observed
and scrutinized Christ, successful "fabrication" of miracle
stories in His ministry would have been impossible.
Demonstrate that nature and Scripture, properly interpreted, do
not conflict. God has communicated to humankind both by general
revelation (nature, or the observable universe) and special
revelation (the Bible). Since both of these revelations come from
God - and since God does not contradict Himself - we must
conclude these two revelations are in agreement with each other.
While there may be conflicts between one's interpretation of the
observable universe and one's interpretation of the Bible, there
is no ultimate contradiction.
We might say that science is a fallible human interpretation of
the observable universe while theology is a fallible human
interpretation of the Scriptures. If the liberal challenges the
idea that science can be fallible, remind him or her of what
science historian Thomas Kuhn proved in his book The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions - that is, science is in a constant state
of change. New discoveries have consistently caused old
scientific paradigms to be discarded in favor of newer
paradigms.
Here is the point: it is not nature and Scripture that
contradict; rather, it is science (man's fallible interpretation
of nature) and theology (man's fallible interpretation of
Scripture) that sometimes fall into conflict. Hence the liberal
cannot simply dismiss certain parts of the Bible because "science
and the Bible contradict."
Also keep in mind that the allegation that the Bible is not
scientifically accurate is sometimes related to the Bible's
frequent use of phenomenological language. Ecclesiastes 1:5, for
example, refers to the sun "rising and setting." From a
scientific perspective, the sun does not actually rise or set.
But let's be fair. This is the same kind of language weather
forecasters use. "Rising" and "setting" are accepted ways of
describing what the sun appears to be doing from an earthly
perspective.
Demonstrate that Jesus was not a mere example or moral teacher.
No mere "example" or "moral teacher" would ever claim that the
destiny of the world lay in His hands, or that people would spend
eternity in heaven or hell depending on whether they believed in
Him (John 6:26-40). The only "example" this would provide would
be one of lunacy. And for Jesus to convince people that He was
God (John 8:58) and the Savior of the world (Luke 19:10) - when
He really wasn't - would be the ultimate immorality.
Certainly, if Jesus had intended to teach doctrines compatible
with liberal Christianity, He was a dire failure as a teacher.
Indeed, His words led all those who followed Him during His
earthly ministry in the precise opposite direction than He
supposedly intended. All His followers ended up believing in
miracles, that man is a sinner, that Jesus died on the cross to
save them, and so forth.
In proving that Christ is the divine Messiah He claimed to be,
one good approach is to demonstrate Jesus' fulfillment of
messianic prophecies in the Old Testament - including ones He
couldn't have conspired to fulfill, such as His birthplace (Mic.
5:2), being born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14), and the identity of His
forerunner (Mal. 3:1). (This is what first got my attention back
in the 1970s when I was attending a liberal church.) Since
liberals respect science, mention that the science of statistics
shows there is something like a 1 in 1017 chance of one man
fulfilling just eight of the hundreds of messianic prophecies in
the Old Testament. Peter Stoner, author of Science Speaks,
provides an illustration to help us understand the magnitude of
such odds: Suppose that we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them
on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet
deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole
mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him
that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one
silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance
would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that
the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and
having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the
present time, providing they wrote using their own wisdom.
Jesus fulfilled not just eight but hundreds of messianic
prophecies in the Old Testament. Besides this, Jesus is referred
to by the names of deity (e.g., "God," Heb. 1:8; "Lord," Matt.
22:43-45); has all the attributes of deity (e.g., omnipotence,
Matt. 28:18; omniscience, John 1:48; omnipresence, Matt. 18:20);
did the works of deity (e.g., creation, John 1:3; raised the
dead, John 11:43-44); and was worshiped as deity (Matt. 14:33).
You should thoroughly familiarize yourself with these and the
many other biblical evidences for Jesus' deity.
Don't be surprised if the liberal suggests that Jesus is just
"one of many ways to God." If they propose this theory, you
should contrast the doctrine of God (the most fundamental of all
doctrines) in the various religions. Jesus, for example, taught
that there is only one personal God who is triune in nature
(Matt. 28:19). Muhammad taught that there is only one God, but
that God cannot have a son. Confucius was polytheistic (he
believed in many gods). Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita (a Hindu
scripture) believed in a combination of polytheism and pantheism
(all is God). Zoroaster taught religious dualism (there is both a
good and a bad god). Buddha taught that the concept of God was
essentially irrelevant. Obviously, these religions are not
pointing to the same God. If one is right, all the others are
wrong.
Emphasize that Jesus claimed that what He said took precedence
over all others. Jesus said He is humanity's only means of coming
into a relationship with God: "I am the way and the truth and the
life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
One either accepts or rejects this claim, but no one can deny
that it is exclusive.
Emphasize that Christianity is a religion of history. The apostle
Paul warned the religious men of Athens of an impending objective
event: the divine judgment of all humanity. And he based this
warning on the objective, historical evidence for the
resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:31). It was this historical
resurrection that instilled such boldness in the disciples.
Initially, when Jesus was arrested, "all the disciples forsook
Him and fled" (Matt. 26:56). But following Jesus' resurrection,
these fearful cowards became steel bulwarks of the faith. They
remained unflinching in their commitment to Christ, even in the
face of great personal danger and death.
There have been various attempts (especially by liberals) to
explain away the resurrection of Christ. One of the most popular
of these is that Jesus' followers made up the resurrection
story.
In response, point out how hard it is to believe that these
followers - predominantly Jewish and therefore aware of God's
stern commandments against lying and bearing false witness -
would make up such a lie, and then suffer and give up their own
lives in defense of it. Moreover, if Jesus' followers concocted
events like the Resurrection, wouldn't Jesus' critics have then
immediately come forward to debunk these lies and put an end to
Christianity once and for all?
It is worth noting that the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
speaks of Christ's resurrection as part of a confession that had
been handed down for years. First Corinthians was written around
A.D. 55, a mere 20 years after Christ's resurrection. But many
biblical scholars believe the confession in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
was formulated within a few years of Jesus' death and
resurrection.
Paul noted that the resurrected Christ appeared to more than 500
people at a single time, "most of whom are still alive" (1 Cor.
15:6). If Paul had misrepresented the facts, wouldn't one of
these 500 have come forward to dispute his claims? From a
historical perspective, it seems clear that the evidence for the
Resurrection is as strong as (or stronger than) the evidence we
have for any other accepted event of ancient times.
Emphasize that Christianity ultimately is a relationship, not a
religion. Christianity is not just a set of doctrines or creeds -
a "dead orthodoxy." Rather it involves a personal relationship
with the living Lord of the universe. This is the most important
truth you will want to leave the liberal to ponder because this
is the ingredient of true Christianity that the liberal
"Christian" is most painfully lacking. Jesus said His words lead
to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life
through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be
taken. A liberal reinterpretation of Scripture that fails to
recognize man's sin (Luke 19:10) and yields another Jesus and
another gospel (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-9) will yield only
eternal death.
The paradox underlying the liberal attempt to make Christianity
"relevant" is that for everyone to whom Christianity is "made
relevant" (those who believe miracles are unscientific), there
are likely thousands for whom it is made irrelevant. For, indeed,
the liberal version of Christianity lacks an authentic
spirituality to help people and give them hope in the midst of
life's problems. Former liberal Christian Alister McGrath said
that, among other things, liberalism's "pastoral weakness became
especially evident to me." He said "liberalism had little to
offer in the midst of the harsh pastoral realities of
unemployment, illness, and death."
In addressing the spiritual bankruptcy of liberalism, you can use
the liberal's recognition of God's love as a launch-pad to
emphasize that God loved humankind so much that He sent Jesus
into the world to die on the cross to rescue humankind from hell.
Be sure to note that Jesus - love incarnate - spoke of God's
wrath and the reality of hell in a more forceful way than any of
His disciples ever did (see, e.g., Matt. 25:46). Hence, God's
love is not incompatible with the reality of hell. Jesus affirmed
that His mission of love was to provide atonement for human sin
(for which there is plenty of empirical evidence in our world) by
His sacrificial death on the cross (Mark 10:45; John
12:23-27).
Inform the liberal that if he or she really wants to experience
the love of God, the place to begin is a living relationship with
Jesus Christ. Then tell him or her about your relationship with
Jesus. There's no better way to close a discussion with a liberal
Christian than by giving your testimony, focusing on how your
personal relationship with Jesus has changed your life
forever.
Ron Rhodes
(This article was originally published as an "Effective
Evangelism" article in the Christian Research Journal.)
UK APOLOGETICS
MUSELTOF
APOLOGETICS AND COUNTERCULT
