Example Dialogue with a Skeptic

The following is an example of a dialogue with a Skeptic using the presuppositional method. I received this from an apologetics handout from Dr. Edgar. I don't know the author to give credit to the source.

Legend: B - the believer; U - the unbeliever.


U - So, you’re a Christian? Well, how do you explain 9-11?

B - I’m not sure I can explain it. But I can try instead to show you a little about God’s nature, and that might at least put things in perspective.

U - There may be a God, but he is far away, and certainly does not care about mortal men. In fact, if God exists, he can’t be both good and powerful at the same time. He may even be a cruel being, judging by the evidence.

B - What evidence do you mean?

U - Well, read the newspaper. Millions of people go to bed hungry, and millions starve. Not to mention the two world wars and the concentration camps.

B - What is the connection you are making between God and these atrocities? Are you blaming him for them?

U - Well, it seems rather obvious that if God created the world, then he is responsible for evil. He could have avoided it if he had wanted to.

B - That is a connection Christians are not willing to make: creation and evil. At least in the simplest form. Of course, God is ultimately in control of everything, and all things are in his plan, but that does not make him the author of evil.

U - You are talking nonsense. If God is the creator, then everything we see is due to his authorship.

B - Christians believe that God is not like a computer programer, nor does he make everything happen in a simple causal manner.

U - How could it be otherwise? What other kind of causality is there besides simple causality?

B - I don't know if I can find adequate language to say what non-simple causality might be, but I could present an example from Scripture that might illuminate the issue. You will remember that when one of Jesus' closest friends, Lazarus, was dead, he came to the tomb and wept. The Greek word is stronger, it means "groaned" or "was furious within himself". Now Jesus was about to raise Lazarus from the dead, but he still was furious at the loss. Yet he was not furious at the Father, with whom he is one. He was angry at evil and death, not at the creation, nor did be blame God for having made the world.

U - Well, it is very moving for Jesus to weep over death, but he still should have made the connection to the ultimate cause of everything. I’m sorry, but if it is here, then God is responsible.

B - Yes, I grant that in some way he was responsible for everything, since he decrees whatsoever comes to pass. But if he were the author of it in the way you and I understand authorship, he would neither have wept over Lazarus, nor troubled himself to suffer immeasurable evil and die on a cross.

U - This seems to me one of the weaknesses of Christianity. It is true that Jesus was very sensitive, and knew a great deal about suffering, but why does this do any good at all? He may be a great example of endurance, but beyond giving inspiration, he certainly gave no real hope to people in far more difficult places than himself. Look at the Jews at Auschwitz. What good was Jesus to them? In fact Christians have been among the chief persecutors of the Jews.

B - I am glad you raised that issue. First of all it is crucial to say that Christians have had blind spots and sinful behavior as much as anybody. At times they indeed have persecuted Jews and other minority groups as well. It does have to be asked whether the Nazis who sent the Jews to the camps were Christians at all, whatever denomination they might belong to by birth. Hitler's world-view was one of paganism, bordering on the demonic, with no resemblance whatsoever to biblical Christianity.

U - I thought the church taught that the Jews were persecuted because they were being punished by God for rejecting Christ.

B - We can’t rule out every connection between human suffering and rejecting the gospel. Jesus often railed against the Jews for rejecting their heritage. But the Bible nowhere teaches either special credit or special guilt of one kind of person. In fact it tells me that all people, Jews and Gentiles both are capable of great cruelty. And the New Testament authors make it clear that both Jews and Gentiles put Christ to death. At the same time, I will admit that Christians are particularly shameful when they show antisemitism or racism. In fact, I believe that rejecting the Jews is ultimately to reject Christ. For Christ was a Jew!

U - This is very helpful, but I still don't see how a good God could allow such atrocities.

B - I see that you do have a standard for good. Where did you get it from?

U - Oh, it's just what I have come to believe. Everybody has the same view.

B - Not the Nazis.

U - Well then it comes from practicality. Good is what enables the most people to be happy.

B - Why most people, why not everybody?

U - Because nothing ever works out perfectly. There is necessary evil.

B - Who gets to decide what is happiness for the majority of people, what is necessary evil, and who the victims will be?

U - I don't know. I guess we do the best we can, and try to make laws and customs that are fair and just.

B - You see that your view doesn't get you very far. Again, if the Nazis, coming from one of the most supposedly advanced civilization, did the "best they could", according to their standards, and it led to atrocities, what are we saying about right and wrong?

U - Well then what is the good? Surely it is not a God who allows evil.

B - If you are going to exclude God by your prejudgment, we can't find out much about the possibility of God, can we? Let us suppose there is a God, and that besides being all-powerful he is also just and holy. And let us suppose furthermore that he created the world good, and that evil only came into the world because of the deliberate revolt of human beings against the plan of God. In this case, the world is now abnormal, though it was once good, and the horrible suffering we see all around us is not simply a fixture. It occurs because we are out of synch, we’re trying to run our own universe, with no real loyalty to the Creator. In the Scriptures, suffering and death are called the wages of sin.

U - Why would God create such a world, a world where things could go so wrong?

B - I don't know, except to say that if he is holy, and he is good, and so his motives are beyond question. But the problem is not really there. It is in the question, why did we decide to take a perfectly good place, and corrupt it, trying to do better than God?

U - If that is what really happened, then I guess I don’t know.

B - But that is not all there is to the story. That God also loved the world and formulated the most extraordinary plan to save it: sending Christ, the second person of the Trinity, to bear all the weight and guilt of sin in the place of men who deserve the condemnation, so that they could be free.

U - It sounds odd, and it’s hard to believe, since there is precious little evidence of any real change; for we are still in a mess.

B - I admit that it is "odd", in fact the Bible calls it folly. But it is a peculiar kind of folly. The scheme did work, but it is accomplished in stages. First in a radical way, in principle. Second, after the spread of the message, in a final and total way. Theologians sometimes call this already-not-yet.

U - But why such a strange answer? Why didn’t God just stop the world and bring it quickly to a close?

B - I don't know all the reasons. One of them is that only his plan would allow Christ to be fully human, as well as God. He needed to enter into history, reaching every generation, and not just wave a magic wand. Another reason may be that it makes people more open to the gospel. Sort of “Christian subversion.” When a narcotics agent wants to capture a ring of dealers he pretends to be one of them. Jesus went all the way in this, he "became sin" and turned evil on its head.

U - Well, you’ve made me think about it. I’m not yet convinced, but I think I understand your position a little better.

B - You may want to study the person of Christ in the Scriptures. That has a way of putting it all in perspective.