The Natural Person and The Spiritual Person

(This blog post is the beginning of a series discussing how we as Christians can engage members of the atheist and skeptic communities, specifically those who reject Christianity on the basis of materialism and science.)

Last week I discussed in the blog about both what Apologetics is and what it is not. If you will recall, I wrote about how apologetics is not man’s wisdom, but the wisdom of the Spirit. I cited 1 Corinthians 2:12-13:

“Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.”

If you have ever spoken with an atheist, you may have experienced a point in which the conversation could no longer move forward. Both of you have made your best arguments and the other refuses to move. Being a Christian, you emphatically believe not only in the existence of the Christian God but you also believe that your atheist friend will not go into glory if they continue in their outright denial of God. You have made your case the best you could; you quoted verse after verse, you recalled facts about the bible that show it is a reliable and historical document, and you even got them to admit there COULD be a God. But nonetheless, they refuse to budge and you can’t seem to make sense of it. How is it that Christianity can seem so real and true for you, yet completely false and benign to your atheist friend? Paul provides that answer in 1 Corinthians 2:14:

“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

The “natural person” to which Paul refers to can be understood to mean an unregenerate person who does not accept the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One way this is expressed is the atheist or skeptic who evaluates only the information in front of them materialistically. You know these people: they claim to only hold beliefs or accept any teaching or information that can proven to be true (or more likely true than false) through empirical and/or scientific testing, logic, and reasoning. These people are likely to refer to themselves by one of many names: Materialist, Skeptic, Freethinker, Rationalist, or Secularist. Regardless of the name used, these people hold the ideology that all beliefs and opinions should be held under scrutiny and tested. If the belief or opinion is shown to be true (or more likely true than false), then it is logical to hold that belief.

Personally, I like (and tend to identify with) the skeptics. When I was younger, I was prone to believing anything anyone told me. After years of ridicule and being proven wrong many times I took the position of the skeptic, always weary of any new information I came across. I personally believe that a little bit of skepticism is healthy and a good thing for a Christian, but that will be another blog post for another time. All that to say, I appreciate people like James Randi, Penn Jillette, and Adam Savage who have done much to reveal fraudulent claims and taught us to logically evaluate our beliefs. (xkcd, an online webcomic, provides a humorous look at this idea, http://xkcd.com/397/) I chose these names because they are widely known in pop culture and you are more likely to hear their names tossed around by the skeptic community. (Jessica Chase, "Why Millenials Stop Attending Church", 2012)

All of us hold beliefs and these make up our worldview. For those who have never heard the term worldview or who do not know what it means, allow me to explain further. A worldview is, “a network of presuppositions which are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted.” (Greg Bahnsen, from his lecture “Introduction to Worldviews” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohXp50Lkx7Q)

Essentially, a worldview is a system or network of beliefs, some of which we are reasonable to believe are true (because they are logically valid) but we cannot prove them via natural science, through which we view and understand the world around us. An example would be the Christian worldview: The core belief is that God exists and He created everything we see. This is a belief (or presupposition) that cannot be tested by natural science. But since we know God’s existence is logically valid, His existence is then considered a necessary truth in order for Christianity to be true. If someone claimed to be a Christian but denied the existence of God, they would be guilty of contradicting themselves. In the coming blog posts, we will discuss why faith in God is reasonable and how we can know God exists by the evidence around us.

Armed with this new information, we are able to understand now why our atheist friend is unwilling to budge. According to the atheist worldview, there is no God, or at least not a god worth worshiping, and therefore no argument could suffice. Two opposing worldviews are clashing and for the atheist to accept and believe in God means an entire reworking of all they have ever known to be true. Because of this clash, we cannot talk to the atheist as we would another Christian because it is foolishness to them. We will still preach Christ crucified to them (1 Corinthians 1:22-23), but we must understand that we can only influence them to consider all of the evidence available to them about the existence of God (Romans 1:18-20). The rest is up to the Holy Spirit to reveal God’s wisdom to them (1 Corinthians 1:24-25), to transform them (2 Corinthians 3:17-18), and to renew their minds so that they may know Him (Romans 12:1-2).

I sincerely hope that this introductory post has helped you to understand in some way why our atheist and skeptic friends can be so resistant to the Gospel message. To wrap this post up, I leave you with a quote from Dr. John Frame, author and Theologian: 

"The difference between unregenerate and regenerate knowledge of God may be described as ethical. The unregenerate represses his knowledge of God by disobeying God. This disobedience may lead in some cases to psychological repression, or explicit atheism, but it does not always. The apologist should recognize, therefore, that the unbeliever’s problem is primarily ethical, not intellectual. He rejects the truth because he disobeys God’s ethical standards, not the other way around." 

In my next blog post, we will discuss tactics and techniques for engaging our atheist and skeptic friends in a loving manner (1 Peter 3:15-16). We will also examine why God is necessary for logic and reason to work. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to leave me a comment in the section below and I will do my best to respond to them. Take care and God Bless.

Brian Ceely

-------

 

Brian Ceely

*Bio Coming Soon*