The Reformed Evangelist

Internet Radio Show: The Reformed Think Tank

The 2RB Network presents internet radio at its best! A radio show filled with wit, humor, and intelligence, airing live on the internet the round-table radio show Reformed Think Tank takes callers and discusses issues of reformed theology, evangelism, and other hot topics.
Listen Live or download the Podcast.

Godly and Wrong

Jeff Fuller July 7th, 2008

Can you be Godly and Wrong?

John Piper answers the question, “If You Can Be Godly and Wrong, Does Truth Matter?”

Since there are some Arminians who are more godly than some Calvinists and some Calvinists who are more godly than some Arminians, what is the correlation between true knowledge of God and godliness?

The best of both groups have historically admired the godliness of those in the other group. Whitefield, the Calvinist, said of Wesley, the Arminian, “Mr. Wesley I think is wrong in some things; yet I believe…Mr. Wesley, and others, with whom we do not agree in all things, will shine bright in glory” (Wesley and the Men Who Followed, 71).

But the sad thing about our day, unlike the days of Whitefield and Wesley, is that many infer from this that knowing God with greater truth and fullness is not important, since it doesn’t appear to be decisive in what produces godliness. Those who know what the Bible says will be protected from that mistake.

Paul correlates knowing and doing in a way that shows that knowing profoundly influences doing. Fourteen times Paul implies that our sinful behavior would be different if we knew the truth more fully. For example,

You yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers! Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? (1 Corinthians 6:8–9)
Flee from sexual immorality…. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit? (1 Corinthians 6:18–19)
Each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God. (1 Thessalonians 4:4–5)

All godliness is owing to truth, that is, to God as he is truly known. Truth, known with the mind and loved with the heart, is the way God produces all godliness. You will know the truth and the truth will set you free (John 8:32).

When a more godly person believes something erroneous about God, among other true things, it is not the error that God uses to produce the godliness.

And when a less godly person believes something true about God, among other false things, it is not the truth that his sin uses to produce the ungodliness.

There are various reasons why a person with a more true view of God may be less godly, and the person with a less true view of God may be more godly:

1. The person with a less true view of God may nevertheless be more submissive and more powerfully influenced by the smaller amount of truth that he has, and the person with more truth may be less submissive and less influenced by the truth he has. The Holy Spirit (the Spirit of truth) always makes truth an instrument in his sanctifying influences, but he does not always do it in proportion to the amount of truth present in the mind.

God’s revealed will is that we grow in the knowledge of Christ (2 Peter 3:18), because in that way the Spirit can make our holiness the manifest fruit of what we know of Christ, so that Christ is more clearly honored (John 16:14). But the Spirit is free to make little knowledge produce much holiness, lest those with much knowledge be proud.

2. Two persons with radically different personalities and backgrounds may have more or fewer obstacles to overcome in the process of sanctification. Therefore, the one with fewer obstacles may respond in godly ways to less truth, while the one with more obstacles may struggle more, even though he has more truth.

3. A person with much truth may lag behind in godliness because there are hindrances that arise between the truth in the mind and the response of the heart to that truth. These hindrances may include loss of memory; ease of distraction; blind spots that keep one from seeing how a truth applies to a long-held pattern of behavior; mental disorders (mild or profound) that create disconnects between thoughts and volitions; confusion and ignorance about the way sanctification is meant to work; or hidden rebellion of the heart that covers itself with a veneer of orthodoxy.

Therefore, let us humble ourselves. There are views so obscured by error that the God on the other side of the glass is not the true God. So the measure of truth in our views matters infinitely. But also, there is no guarantee that right thinking will produce right living. There is more to godliness than having clear views of God. Trusting him and loving him through those views matters infinitely.

Episode 30 - Reformed Think Tank

Jeff Fuller July 5th, 2008

Episode 30 - Reformed Think Tank

Biblical Feminity isn’t always picture perfect, yet neither is Church life. Jen Guerriero joins us on the next episode of the Reformed Think Tank to talk about using the gospel to overcome conflict among Christians in the Church. This is an episode you won’t want to miss!

The discussion is actually more about how my experience in street evangelism has better equipped me to handle conflicts, correction, and having “that difficult discussion” with another Christian. So I hope men will not be deterred from listening in! –Jen

www.blogtalkradio.com/tworeformedbrothers

Operation 513: Adventures in Brisbane

Josh Williamson July 4th, 2008

Saturday, 28 June, 2008

Tonight was just your average Saturday night, not a lot happened. Just the same old routine of sharing the gospel and dealing with hecklers. It was a good clear night, and it wasn’t as cold as it has been, so that created some good witnessing weather.

We set up in the Queen Street Mall at around 9:00pm, and we all knew that the first preacher up will have to deal with Alex, as he is a “Preacher Seeking Missile” and since he wasn’t present last week we expected him to be as fiery as ever. We weren’t disappointed!

The first preacher up for the night was Ralph, he opened up the Scripture and began to share the gospel of Christ. Not long into his message Alex opened fire upon him and began to heckle hard. Ralph did a fairly decent job handling Alex. Ralph is a fairly new preacher so he did well. Alex was heckling and walking back and forth waving his arms about. After awhile Ralph tagged Ryan in. Ryan began instantly by engaging Alex on an academic level. The amazing thing is that Alex seems to move the goal posts every time someone answers his arguments. But, it is growing tiresome with dealing with Alex as he uses mostly the same arguments week in and week out. So each week we have to answer his same objections week in and week out. Although, this week he did have a print out from an atheist website which gave him a few new arguments that we had to look at.

Alex argued with Ryan for sometime, then came over and spoke to me behind the preacher. We had a discussion in regards to the meaning of the word ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic’. I maintain based on the meanings of the words, and also based on the root words used, that you cannot be an atheist and agnostic at the same time. However, Alex believes that you can be an atheistic agnostic. We discussed that issue for awhile, and it seems to be that Alex is prepared to admit that there is possibly a god, but his pride won’t allow him to let go of his ‘atheist’ title, and become an agnostic.

During this time Ryan got to preach the full gospel, a few people were standing around listening, so they all got a solid message. Ryan preached for well over 90 minutes, and he dealt with a variety of hecklers like Alex and Riley right down to drunks who would just scream something random.

While Ryan was preaching a man who had been listening walked up to me and said “I need to be saved, can you lead in a prayer so that I can become a Christian.” My reply was “Do you believe that God should save you?” His reply, “Yes!”, “Do you think you are worthy of Heaven?” I asked, again he replied “Yes!”. I looked at him and said “Sir, you don’t seem to understand the fact that you are a sinner and that you don’t deserve Heaven. You aren’t ready to receive Christ yet as you still think God should do as you want Him to do.” The man became angry and stormed off saying “Well, when I am in hell it will be you who gets blamed!”

After Ryan finished preaching, Andre got up and had a preach. He is very new at preaching, and he did a decent job in fending off Alex who decided to open fire. Andre preached for a bit, and then tagged me to preach. Instantly I was under fire from Alex, so I did my best to engage and answer his questions, but also to preach the gospel. It never ceases to amaze me, that Alex has stated that it is his goal to stop us spreading the gospel, but each week when he heckles he gathers a bigger crowd for us to preach to! His efforts to stop the gospel proclamation has actually increased the number of tracts going out, and also the number of people hearing the gospel via one to ones and open air. If Alex really wanted to slow down the gospel proclamation it would be far better for him to remain silent, and not gather a crowd for us by heckling!

Praise God for a good evening!

Soli Deo Gloria!

Full report with pictures: http://www.operation513.com

While there why don’t you sign up for our newsletter, it is an easy way for you to stay in loop in regards to what God is doing through Operation 513 worldwide!

Also check out the latest Operation 513 - “The Appointed Time” broadcast: http://www.operation513.com/theappointedtime.php

Related Tags: Agnostics, atheism, Australia, brisbane, Evangelism, hecklers, Josh Williamson, one to one, Operation 513, outreach, tracts

Sam Storms on Discernment

Jeff Fuller July 2nd, 2008

I personally don’t like so-called “Discernment Ministries” because many articles they write employ ad hominem and slippery slope fallacies galore. On the other hand, Christians are called to discern the actions of those who claim to represent Christ. I like what Dr. Sam Storms has to say on the topic:

Dr. Sam Storms The Christian world is all abuzz about leadership these days. Take a look at any list of best-selling books and you’ll find at least three or four of the top ten that are concerned with some aspect of leadership, whether in identifying the essence of the good and successful sort or in warning of the bad. It’s the latter that I’d like to briefly address in this meditation.

I’m sickened, as I’m sure you are, by the almost daily barrage of news concerning either the self-serving, authoritarian practices of some professed Christian leader or the moral scandal that has befallen yet another. Where do these people come from? How do they manage to attain such lofty heights of praise and power? Why do people grant them such unqualified allegiance? What accounts for their ability to amass so much wealth and fame and authority over the lives of their followers?

Don’t be misled. I’m not talking about the obvious and notorious cult figures such as David Koresh or Jim Jones or the leaders of certain polygamous groups who have been much in the news of late. I have in mind local church pastors and leaders of para-church ministries as well as those who have risen to fame and fortune on the waves of “revival” movements and other sensational and supernatural spiritual happenings.

Countless theological and sociological studies have examined such folk in an effort to understand the source of their power and the secret to their allure. I’ve read a few of them myself and they’ve often been spot on target. Amidst the variety of explanations for their success, one is common to all, which brings us to our text in 2 Corinthians 10.

However, before noting Paul’s comments, let me differentiate between the sort of authoritative and self-aggrandizing “shearer of the sheep” that the apostle confronted in the church at Corinth and the truly gifted and godly pastor of today’s mega-church. My words that follow are not intended to indict those who, through faithful and diligent service, have built large churches and gathered zealous disciples. Not all forms of success are bad! Quite a few prominent leaders whose ministries have drawn thousands of devoted followers are to be honored and emulated. They are not the focus of my concern or the target of my criticism.

I have in mind the aggressive, self-righteous, supremely self-confident person whose alleged authority borders on legalistic control. This is the person whose flamboyant style, charismatic personality, and sheer energy of will seduce his followers into suspending their critical faculties and throwing discernment to the wind. This sort of “leader” does not humbly serve and sacrifice for the flock but expects them (without necessarily saying so) to supply him with financial blessings and a wide array of other perks and privileges. This individual is typically unaccountable and not held to the same standard that he requires of his ardent devotees.

So what explains this remarkable mystique? Why do so many fall prey to such claims? To what does this sort of “leader” appeal as the reason why he should be treated with such extraordinary respect and devotion? Look at Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 10:7 for at least one answer to our question:

“Look at what is before your eyes. If anyone is confident that he is Christ’s, let him remind himself that just as he is Christ’s, so also are we” (v. 7).

The NASB renders the opening words of v. 7 as a statement of fact: “You are looking at things as they are outwardly.” More likely this is a command: “Look at what is before your eyes.”

What they are to look at and from which they are to draw appropriate conclusions would include such things as the fact that they are themselves the fruit of Paul’s labors, bearing witness to the authenticity of his calling as an apostle (see 1 Cor. 9:1-2; 2 Cor. 3:1-3); that Paul “belongs” to Christ (as do his co-workers and all believers) no less than the intruders; that his authority came from Christ and was always exercised for the building up of the Corinthians; and that his actions and words were not incompatible, as some alleged, but were always aimed at the same goals, being prompted by the same motives.

The “anyone” of v. 7 likely “points to a particular individual, the ringleader of the Judaizing intruders who expressed the viewpoint of them all” (Harris, 688). But what precisely is it that this representative figure is claiming, on the basis of which he and like-minded others are challenging Paul’s authority?

This man is claiming, literally, to be “of Christ”. The genitive is certainly possessive, thus suggesting that he promoted himself as one who belonged to the Lord in some unique and special way. Several suggestions have been made concerning the precise nature of this statement.

Some contend that they were claiming to be Christians and insisting Paul was not. But this is highly unlikely. As radically opposed to him as they were, there’s no indication in the letter that they questioned his salvation.

Some say these opponents claimed to belong to the “Christ party” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:12 (where some said, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ”). But would Paul have responded to such a claim by saying he is of the Christ party no less than they? Given his strong denunciations of the schismatic spirit in Corinth, he would hardly now have endorsed it!

Others suggest they were appealing to an earthly relationship with Jesus. They knew him during the time of his sojourn but Paul didn’t, thus putting them at an advantage to him. But in v. 7b Paul claims to have no less a relation to Jesus, and we know he had no personal contact with the Lord until after the ascension, most likely on the road to Damascus.

Might it be a claim to have received a special commission from Jesus? But that is an assertion made only by the “super apostles” (cf. 11:5) whom Paul does not address until the next chapter. Here he is dealing with “insiders” who are critical of him because of his feeble previous visit and his frightening (”Severe”) follow-up letter (cf. 10:9-11).

The most likely interpretation is that they were asserting some special, ongoing relationship with Christ, making their point with an obviously feigned humility. One can almost see a slight tilt of the head together with just the right inflection of voice: “I am Christ’s man. I belong to Jesus in a way you don’t. He has a higher interest in me than in you. He has a deeper affection for me than for you. I have access to his mind and heart in a way that transcends whatever claims you might make. Therefore, I and a few others have been given an authority and power and place above you and your co-workers.”

In many such cases the person who stands center stage doesn’t explicitly assert that he or she is the recipient of special divine favor or revelatory insights worthy of only a chosen few. They would never commit the tactical error of publicly promoting themselves as uniquely “anointed”. They simply do nothing to disabuse their followers of such false perceptions. Their calculated silence is mistaken for humility and their power base grows.

Is this not precisely the grounds on which so many today build their reputations and undergird their authority? False and self-serving leadership that ultimately works to enhance the person’s fame and fortune is almost always the result of allowing people to think one has a unique and privileged relationship with God, one that is unavailable to ordinary believers. It is frequently, if not most times, grounded in the claim to supernatural experiences, whether angelic visitations or third heaven translations or having heard the voice of God with a clarity and force beyond what any average Christian might experience.

Let me say it as forcefully as I can: Beware of all such claims to a superior or “super” spirituality! Beware of any suggestion that one has special knowledge or insights unavailable to others! Beware of those whose only credentials are the visions they have allegedly seen or the angels with whom they have allegedly conversed (cf. Col. 2:18)! [I say this as one who believes in the gift of prophecy, visions, and angelic encounters.]

On the other hand, genuine, godly leadership that warrants your allegiance is built on character, not charisma. It is grounded in virtue, not visions. Its appeal is the centrality of Christ, not displays of power or heightened states of ecstasy. And at the heart of such authentic authority is the faithful proclamation of a cross-centered, Christ-exalting gospel, which is to say, a preaching of “Jesus Christ as Lord” and “ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 4:5).

All of us, at some point or other, will have to “look at what is before our eyes” (v. 7a) and pass judgment on the legitimacy of claims to spiritual authority. What criteria shall we employ? Upon reading the following words of Charles Spurgeon, I think I now know:

“I have not the slightest desire to suppose that I have advanced in the spiritual life many stages beyond my brethren. As long as I trust simply to the blood and righteousness of Christ, and think nothing of myself, I believe that I shall continue to be pleasing to the Lord Jesus Christ, that this joy will be in me, and that my joy will be full” (cited by Carson, 65).

Operation 513: Apostle Paul Was a Homosexual!

Josh Williamson June 27th, 2008

Saturday, 21 June, 2008

A cool south westerly breeze was blowing into Brisbane tonight, so it made it rather cold when it came to doing evangelism. But, nevertheless we pushed on to declare the good news of Jesus Christ coming into the world to save sinners.

It was good to have Heather from New Zealand join us tonight, I first met Heather a couple of years ago while on an outreach in Christchurch, she has since moved to Brisbane, and is now witnessing with us.

The team gathered at around 8:00pm in King George Square and we engaged in a time of Bible reading, and team prayer. After this we had a short time of fellowship before heading up the mall.

As we entered the mall we were greeted with the sight, that there wasn’t too many people about, this is probably due to the last week of exams at all the local universities. Another problem we had tonight was that all the preachers were sick, and had head colds. So it was going to be a hard night of preaching, especially if we got hecklers.

Ryan was the first man up to preach, he expounded on what it means to be a Christian, and also on how one can be saved from their sin. He stressed how we “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and then how if we repent we will be forgiven our sin because of what Christ Jesus did upon the cross.

While Ryan was preaching Ralph was in back play discussing things with a man and his wife. The man appeared to be rather forceful, so I dropped back to listen to their conversation. The man was building his case for why one must keep the whole of the law and especially the Sabbath to be saved. He was also stating that one does not need to repent in order to be saved, and that Jesus never preached “repent”.

I engaged the man with an open Bible, and we looked at a few verses that indicated that one must repent. “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19), “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).

The man still maintained that repentance was never taught by Jesus, and that we could not trust the Apostle Paul as he was a homosexual. I challenged the man on this and asked where he got the information from in order to make such a statement. The man replied “Well, Paul wrote about homosexuality thus he is a homosexual!” I pointed out to him that Paul wrote about many other things as well, but that doesn’t make him those things. The man kept on ignoring me saying “Paul was gay!” So I showed him to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 to show that homosexuality is a sin and that Paul says in v11 that people were homosexuals, indicating that one turn from homosexuality in order to be saved. So Paul could not be a Christian and homosexual.

The man quickly changed gears, and went back to the repentance issue. He maintained that Jesus never told anyone to repent. So once again we opened the Bible to show him the Scripture: “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:3), “ No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:5), “ From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17).

These passages made the man change gears once again, this time he said “Yes, but no where in the Bible does it say you must repent to be saved!” To this his wife joined in “You should listen to him, he studies theology and has a degree!” My reply was “You may study theology, and you may have a degree but what if I can show you in the Bible that you must repent in order to be saved?” The man simply said “You can’t show me that!”

So I opened my Bible to 2 Corinthians 7:10: “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.”. I asked the man from the text to explain to me what leads to salvation? He looked at me, laughed and said “I bet you don’t keep the Sabbath, you are a law breaker!”

Now he was off and running down the path of how one must keep the law in order to be saved. I handed him the Bible and asked him to show me one verse where it states that under the new covenant we must keep the Sabbath. He laughed again, and said that there were plenty of verses. I asked him for just one. He refused to show me saying that I was preaching another gospel. So once again I challenged him to show me from the Scripture where it says I as a new covenant believer must keep the Sabbath.

To this both he and his wife said “We both keep the whole law perfectly! We never break it!” I asked them if they kept all the Ten Commandments, they both said that they did, I asked them if they kept all the laws found in the Torah. They said they did. I then took them to Leviticus 20:13 and asked if they killed homosexuals. They replied that they did not, but that law didn’t apply to them. So I challenged them on how they can pick and chose what law they wish to keep and what laws they don’t wish to keep. To which they replied, that they must test these laws by the New Testament. I agreed with them on this point, and then asked, where in the New Testament does it say “Keep the Sabbath?”

Once again they went on a tirade about how I am going to hell because I don’t keep the Sabbath. I challenged them by showing Galatians 3:10: “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” I pointed out to the man that if he thinks that the law will save him, then according to the Scripture he is under the curse, for only Christ can save. The man laughed and walked off with his wife.

By now Ryan had finished preaching, and was witnessing one to one with people. I was then called over by Peter to assist with a guy he was dealing with. The man had some strange theological beliefs. The man was claiming to be a Mormon Hare Krishna. So I spoke to him a bit on the problems of Mormonism in the light of the Bible, and stressed to him how his good works could never save him. I showed him in the Scripture: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The night was quiet, so at around 11pm I got up to have a bit of a preach. Within minutes of standing up the crowd erupted in anger. Hecklers emerged from everywhere scream obscenities about God and Christianity. It took ages to get past all the hecklers, but eventually I was able to get to the point where the hecklers calmed down, and then I was able to preach the full gospel while engaging in discussion with a young man.

The rest of the night was spent handing out tracts and doing one to one.

Praise God for a good evening!

Soli Deo Gloria!

Full report with pictures: http://www.operation513.com

While there why don’t you sign up for our newsletter, it is an easy way for you to stay in loop in regards to what God is doing through Operation 513 worldwide!

Also check out the latest Operation 513 - “The Appointed Time” broadcast: http://www.operation513.com/theappointedtime.php

This is updated weekly, and if you have iTunes you can actually subscribe to the podcast through the iTunes store! Use this audio to be encouraged in the Gospel of Christ, or to share with your unsaved friends and family!

Some Serious Math

Jeff Fuller June 20th, 2008

www.thefivehundred.org

Operation 513: Atheist Blogs Against Us

Josh Williamson June 20th, 2008

Saturday, 14 June 2008

Well, it was an interesting night. The results of the night were rather interesting, as our “friendly enemy” Alex has decided to start his own blog in which he attacks the ministry of Operation 513.

The night began with our normal time of Bible reading, and prayer as a team. Then at around 9pm we headed up the Queens Street Mall. I was expecting a lively night, as today was the big homosexual parade in Brisbane and history has shown that in the past it is normally the homosexuals that respond most violently to the gospel proclamation in Brisbane city. It was interesting to run into Riley, who is a regular. He openly admits to being homosexual, but tonight he was running around with fairy wings, and a halo on. Also, shouting about taking five ecstasy pills.

Andre was the first preacher up, and as normal Alex was standing in the back throwing a few heckles out. Andre ignored him and continued to preach the gospel. During this time it was encouraging to see a few people from my church stop by and watch. I didn’t know they were coming, but I was glad to see them there, and also encouraged to see them witnessing to some of the people in the area.

Once Andre had finished his preaching, I jumped up and began to immediately to engage Alex in open air debate. I really enjoy his debates, and the cases he tries to make for evolution and atheism. Although, some other Atheists have commented that they disagree with the arguments he uses. Nevertheless, we began to have our open air discussion. Alex started in trying to prove evolution, this time he used E-coli a ‘proof’ of evolution. The case he tried to build was that we have observed E-coli evolving, however, he failed to mention what he believed to be evolution. What Alex described was what is known as “micro-evolution” or variation within a species. Now, any Creationist would agree with Alex over “micro-evolution”, the E-coli that “evolved”, went from one kind of E-coli to another kind of E-coli. This did not prove his case of “macro-evolution” (one kind becoming another kind - I.e. Primates to Humans”) But rather that we observe changes within kinds. However, the case that Alex made was simple “If there is a lot of little changes within the species, then it is possible for it to change into another species”. Sadly for the evolutionary camp there is no evidence of one species becoming another species. The “argument” that was put forward by Alex was nothing more than an “argument” built upon speculation. The argument he made has some major holes in it, for instance, “Where did the new information come from in order to create this new species?” If you are going to have one kind evolve into another kind, then new information must be added somewhere along the line. Now where does that new information come from?

After we wrestled over the issue of E-coli for awhile, I decided it was best to make a line for the cross of Christ. My reasoning for this was that earlier when Andre was preaching, Alex argued his hardest against Christ dying on the cross for the sins of His people.

Alex objected to this, which was to be expected, as the Bible makes it clear that those who are not Christians find the message of the cross foolishness, and abhorrent to them. But, I still preached the cross, for it was on the cross that Christ Jesus paid for the price of Alex’s sin if he would repent and believe.

I always wish to be fair in open air debates, so I addressed the crowd and stated that I would make a five minute case for the existence of God, and the Christian worldview, and then Alex will present the case for atheistic evolution. Alex corrected me and said that he would present the case for “evolution without the need of God”. So I made my case, and Alex then made his case. He stated all these ‘facts’ but failed to bring any support for them. And in his speech he spent time attacking Christianity. So I wonder how attacking actually counts as evidence for your claims?

Alex then called on the crowd to vote, and I admit there were 10 known Christians in the crowd. So the crowd put there hands up over which side they agreed with. Without much surprise the theists won. But Alex managed to get three votes. So then Alex launched into another speech on how his view point was correct. [It should be noted the crowd actually grew in this time and no one left]. Then the call to vote was give again, this time Alex lost votes from those who had been with him previously. This makes me wonder how Alex can claim victory on his blog when he actually lost ground with the crowd…

Some of the arguments that Alex presents are self refuting, for instance one of his favourites is “There is no evidence for God!” However, he fails to realise that logically speaking, for him to make that statement, he must have seen ever bit of evidence in the universe, and have all knowledge of everything. Now, if that was the case and he knew everything about everything, then by definition he would be “God”. It would be far safer for Alex to say “In the knowledge that I currently have, I am yet to see evidence for God”.

This of course led us into the argument of “What evidence is there for God?”, this week I thought I would ask Alex a question to see what he would accept as evidence. His reply was “If God is real, then let Him come down to earth, and appear before me!” Now, there are some problems with this demand, firstly, God did come down to earth in the form of a man, and they nailed Him to a Cross. Secondly, Why should God bow to the will of Alex? If there is a Supreme God who controls everything, and He chooses not to appear before Alex, does that make Him any less real? No! The problem is, Alex wants God to conform to his ideals and also to his standard. Basically speaking, Alex is wanting God to be subservient to him, and that he becomes the sovereign.

From here we went onto the argument of the “proof of God”, and after reading Alex’s blog, I am rather perplexed over why he failed to mention on his atheistic blog for all his atheistic friends, on why he admitted (on video camera) that there could be a God, and since there is a God He could do whatever he wants! No correct me if I am wrong, but I was always under the impression that an atheist believed that there was ‘no god’ (a= no; theos= God), however, what Alex admitted to was not being an atheist, but rather an agnostic (a=no; gnosis=knowledge). Was this backsliding on behalf of this member of the Brisbane atheist group? Going from “No God” to “There could be a God” is a fairly big leap for one who champions the cause of there being no god.

This revealed something interesting, the Alex does not have an issue with God. But rather his issue is with Jesus Christ. So I asked Alex “If there is a God, can He do whatever He wants?” to which Alex replied “Yes”, that admission destroys Alex’s argument against the Cross of Christ. For if there is a God then He is perfectly right to provide one to die in the place of sinners.

Something that I did find rather interesting throughout the whole discussion was the fact that Alex maintained that there is no “right and wrong”, and under some circumstances he believed that rape and even child molestation could be ‘right’. Yet, whenever a case was made opposing his view argument, he would very loudly shout “you’re wrong!” How can one be “wrong” if there is no “right and wrong”? All these arguments really just go to show the silliness of the atheistic worldview.

Alex then tried to make the classic case of religion being responsible for the deaths of millions. To which I agreed, religion has been the cause of many wars and deaths. Alex then said “Christianity has been the cause!” This is where I had to get Alex to define his terms, what did he mean by “Christianity”, his definition was “someone who claims to follow Christ”. I disagreed with his definition, and pointed out that if I claim to be a doctor, it doesn’t necessarily make me one. Then I pointed out that a Christian is one who has repented and trust in Jesus Christ, as a Christian is a Christ follower. Now, if that is what a Christian is, then we should be able to judge the fruits of those who claims to be Christians. For instance, Jesus made the case in the Gospel of John, that if someone kills you in the name of God, then that person does NOT know God. Jesus also made it clear that as Christians we are to love our enemies, and bless those that curse us. So by definition those who kill in the name of God, are not Christians. But rather they are religious.

From here I made the case that atheistic communism is responsible for more deaths than any religious movement. And that if one takes the time to look at the top twenty dictators you will not find a Christian among them, but rather you will only find Atheists and Muslims. Alex rejected this argument, stating that Atheism is not violent, however, I would like to reference Alex’s blog from June 19, 2008: “CASE dislikes violence of any kind (unless it is necessary to futher the One True Cause: Atheism)” [http://casehq.blogspot.com/2008/06/case-note-street-preachers-instigate.html]

Really the question has to be asked, which is more dangerous: A Christian preaching, repent and trust in Christ, Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. And love your neighbour as yourself! Or an Atheist preaching, the use of violence to advance the cause of atheism?

I will let the reader decided which one is more dangerous for society…

By the end of the hour of the discussion, Alex who openly admitted that there could be a God, and that God could do whatever He wants, made one final attack before withdrawing for a cigarette. His closing argument was “You Christians believe in God by faith!” To which I replied “I accept God’s existence by faith, even though I can see evidence for Him, and the atheists accept God not existing “by faith”, and I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist!”

I tagged Ryan in, and the reason for this was that Ryan has spent a lot of time studying atheism, and the evidences for the existence of God. Each time in the past when Alex has engaged Ryan in debate it has ended up with Alex’s arguments being smacked for six. It is interesting to note, that Alex even though he was present did not engage Ryan this time for discussion. So, Ryan preached the gospel to the good size crowd that had gathered.

The rest of the night was quite quiet, with many people being witnessed to, and many people getting to hear the gospel. One highlight for me was a friendly long haired atheist who came up to me, and thanked us for taking the time to come out and debate and discuss many issues. He stated that he enjoyed the night, and hopes to come back to talk again some time. It is my hope that this man would heckle, as he is really friendly and calls himself a ‘rationalist atheist’.

In closing, I must mention, that on Alex’s blog he invites other atheists to come out on Saturday nights to the Queen Street Mall. So, I would like to on behalf of Operation 513 encourage the atheists to come along and have some friendly chats. We look forward to our future discussions!

Soli Deo Gloria!

Full report with pictures: http://www.operation513.com

While there why don’t you sign up for our newsletter, it is an easy way for you to stay in loop in regards to what God is doing through Operation 513 worldwide!

Also check out the latest Operation 513 - “The Appointed Time” broadcast: http://www.operation513.com/theappointedtime.php