Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippo  I disagree strongly with the OP.
You say that:
"God expects love and trust from us, and love does not require proof. In fact, I would even argue that faith and fact are opposite to each other."
The proof of the Gospel is the resurection of Christ and we have faith because it is a fact. Your post is actually classicaly liberal in its attempt to disasociate the gospel from historical fact. To do so destroys the Gospel.
We are commanded to proclaim the Gospel, we do not know if God will open the eyes of those who hear but if he does or not that is his sovereign choice. We cannot presuppose that he will not.
I agree that a presupositional approach is both the logical and biblically correct approach and that unbelievers will not respond without the gift of regeneration but we must never retreat from proclaiming and defending the historical facts of the Gospel. |
My post does not attempt to dissociate the gospel from historical fact, and it is a high charge, and extremely insulting to call me a liberal (although you do not do so directly). That the resurrection of Christ is a fact that proves the gospel, I agree. But is it a fact that you eye-witnessed yourself? It is a fact that is recorded in each of the four gospel. But how do you know that the four gospels are accurate and true historic accounts? Do you not have to receive them with faith? The resurrection was indeed a proof to the disciples who saw with their own eyes Christ resurrected, but to you and me, we must first have faith in God and receive His Word the Bible, before we can accept the resurrection as a fact. This is at the heart of the presuppositional method. Many liberals do deny the resurrection is a fact, because they deny the gospels to be accurate accounts. This is why I first presented the two anxioms as the common ground that must exist between the evangelist and the seeker.