As some of you already know, I have been approached by Zondervan books and asked to read Charles Colson’s book, “The Faith: What Christians Believe, Why they Believe it and Why it Matters.” First of all, let me start of that I think that it is pretty presumptive for Mr. Colson to try to encompass all Christians within the title. Not all Christians have the same beliefs, even when it comes down to core beliefs such as the role that the “Holy Spirit” plays in todays’ society.
Within the first chapter of the book, you get the feeling that Mr. Colson wrote this book as a direct response to the more popular salvos that have been shot across the bow of organized religion over the past few years; “The God Delusion,” “God is Not Great” and so on.
By the time you get about halfway through the second chapter, you realize that Mr. Colson has a very limited grasp on what atheism actually is and an even lesser understanding of modern thoughts on astrophysics and theoretical physics. Example: He puts forth the notion that there are only three schools of thought when it comes to the origin of the universe. These would be as follows: a) Poof, out of nothing something, b) a non-personal god or a “universal Mind” approach and finally c) the personal God of the Bible created it all. Uh, Mr Colson… What about the umpteen thousand other “gods” that have their claims to the foundation of the universe? Why must you so quickly dismiss them? And what of the Emergence theory? What of the mathematical certainty that there may well be parallel universes? What about other universes? Should we find that there was indeed life on Mars, what then happens to your argument about how “special” life is?
All of this is mute moot. You see, Charles gives away his hand while considering the three choices. He relates to the reader a personal story of how he met someone at an exclusive dinner party. Apparently, the individual warns Charles that he is an atheist. His retort was that he had never really met an atheist. Then he explains, “An atheist believes that the existence of God can be disproved.” No, Charles. You see, it is impossible to prove an absolute negative. He knows this which is why he crafted his explanation in the positive vein.
At the end of Chapter 2, I am well aware of what I am up against. After all, Chapter 2 ends on Pascals’ Wager. Really? Is that the best that you have?
"All of this is mute."
Moot, not mute.
Yes, yes. A thousand pardons as I was trying to get this done with a 3 year old clinging to my leg and wanting to play. Please excuse me as I make the necessary corrections. Other than that, have you anything substantial to add?
“All of this is mute.”
Moot, not mute.
Yes, yes. A thousand pardons as I was trying to get this done with a 3 year old clinging to my leg and wanting to play. Please excuse me as I make the necessary corrections. Other than that, have you anything substantial to add?
Hi Brian,
I'm one of the other atheist bloggers whom Zondervan asked to talk with Chuck Colson. I picked up on that story in chapter 2 also, although I decided not to write about it. What struck me about that story is that the guy at the party is supposed to be a totally staunch atheist, yet he folds after just two brief statements by Colson which boil down to semantic nitpicking.
By contrast, I wonder what Colson would think if I told him the following story:
I met a Christian at a party. I said "You know, Christianity has no basis in reality." The Christian responded, "Well, I'm really just a semi-regular church-goer." I said "But church is ridiculous!" Two weeks later, the Christian abandoned his faith.
Would Colson take that as proof that Christianity has no foundation? Or would he just dismiss it by observing that this particular Christian I happened to meet had no idea what he was talking about?
If you're interested, my entire response to the book is here:
“>http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/06/let...
However, if you're still working on your own reply, then you may want to hold off a bit before reading it. I wouldn't want to influence your response to the book unduly, as I'd like to see as many diverse replies as possible.
Hi Brian,
I'm one of the other atheist bloggers whom Zondervan asked to talk with Chuck Colson. I picked up on that story in chapter 2 also, although I decided not to write about it. What struck me about that story is that the guy at the party is supposed to be a totally staunch atheist, yet he folds after just two brief statements by Colson which boil down to semantic nitpicking.
By contrast, I wonder what Colson would think if I told him the following story:
I met a Christian at a party. I said "You know, Christianity has no basis in reality." The Christian responded, "Well, I'm really just a semi-regular church-goer." I said "But church is ridiculous!" Two weeks later, the Christian abandoned his faith.
Would Colson take that as proof that Christianity has no foundation? Or would he just dismiss it by observing that this particular Christian I happened to meet had no idea what he was talking about?
If you're interested, my entire response to the book is here:
“>http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/06/let...
However, if you're still working on your own reply, then you may want to hold off a bit before reading it. I wouldn't want to influence your response to the book unduly, as I'd like to see as many diverse replies as possible.
Hi Brian,
I'm one of the other atheist bloggers whom Zondervan asked to talk with Chuck Colson. I picked up on that story in chapter 2 also, although I decided not to write about it. What struck me about that story is that the guy at the party is supposed to be a totally staunch atheist, yet he folds after just two brief statements by Colson which boil down to semantic nitpicking.
By contrast, I wonder what Colson would think if I told him the following story:
I met a Christian at a party. I said "You know, Christianity has no basis in reality." The Christian responded, "Well, I'm really just a semi-regular church-goer." I said "But church is ridiculous!" Two weeks later, the Christian abandoned his faith.
Would Colson take that as proof that Christianity has no foundation? Or would he just dismiss it by observing that this particular Christian I happened to meet had no idea what he was talking about?
If you're interested, my entire response to the book is here:
“>http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/06/let...
However, if you're still working on your own reply, then you may want to hold off a bit before reading it. I wouldn't want to influence your response to the book unduly, as I'd like to see as many diverse replies as possible.
Hi Brian,
I'm one of the other atheist bloggers whom Zondervan asked to talk with Chuck Colson. I picked up on that story in chapter 2 also, although I decided not to write about it. What struck me about that story is that the guy at the party is supposed to be a totally staunch atheist, yet he folds after just two brief statements by Colson which boil down to semantic nitpicking.
By contrast, I wonder what Colson would think if I told him the following story:
I met a Christian at a party. I said "You know, Christianity has no basis in reality." The Christian responded, "Well, I'm really just a semi-regular church-goer." I said "But church is ridiculous!" Two weeks later, the Christian abandoned his faith.
Would Colson take that as proof that Christianity has no foundation? Or would he just dismiss it by observing that this particular Christian I happened to meet had no idea what he was talking about?
If you're interested, my entire response to the book is here:
“>http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/06/let...
However, if you're still working on your own reply, then you may want to hold off a bit before reading it. I wouldn't want to influence your response to the book unduly, as I'd like to see as many diverse replies as possible.
Hi Brian,
I’m one of the other atheist bloggers whom Zondervan asked to talk with Chuck Colson. I picked up on that story in chapter 2 also, although I decided not to write about it. What struck me about that story is that the guy at the party is supposed to be a totally staunch atheist, yet he folds after just two brief statements by Colson which boil down to semantic nitpicking.
By contrast, I wonder what Colson would think if I told him the following story:
I met a Christian at a party. I said “You know, Christianity has no basis in reality.” The Christian responded, “Well, I’m really just a semi-regular church-goer.” I said “But church is ridiculous!” Two weeks later, the Christian abandoned his faith.
Would Colson take that as proof that Christianity has no foundation? Or would he just dismiss it by observing that this particular Christian I happened to meet had no idea what he was talking about?
If you’re interested, my entire response to the book is here:
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/06/letter-to-chuck-colson-on-faith.html
However, if you’re still working on your own reply, then you may want to hold off a bit before reading it. I wouldn’t want to influence your response to the book unduly, as I’d like to see as many diverse replies as possible.
Some might consider there to be a certain element of non-professionalism for one to be making public comments on a book that they had been asked to read by a publisher… however, we will let that go.
I find it interesting that someone who is obviously not a Christian, would comment on what Christians do or do not believe. You say it is presumptive for Mr. Colson to try to define the beliefs of all Christians? To me that does not seem that presumptive… Isn’t that essentially what the Church has done over the years? For example, the Nicene Creed, Westminster Confession of Faith, etc? I, however, will be presumptive and say that, to me, it appears Mr. Colson’s efforts are simply to easily define, in modern language, the essentials of the Christian faith. There is a very good reason for this… I believe many Christians would have difficulty in clearly defining these essentials. While I concur that there are areas of difference between denominations, areas where Christians may not agree on a specific denominational belief, that is not and should not be true in areas of essentials. For example, there are differences in how different denominations baptize (immersion, sprinkling, pouring). However, that is not a “core belief” of Christianity; i.e. baptism is not essential to salvation.
There are, however, key elements in Christianity that all believers should be able to agree upon. For example, Jesus Christ is God, Jesus was sinless, all men have sinned against God. These positions are taken from the text of the Old and New Testaments.
I believe we can resolve to “agree to disagree” on those positions or doctrines that are not essential parts of the Christian faith. Quoting Rupertus Meldenius: “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity.” However, it is important that Christians understand the key elements of their faith. Colson’s book will, hopefully, help in that area.
Note: In many ways it is similar to being an American. We have a Constitution that defines how our rights, our legal system, our political system, etc. Few people I meet have any difficulty in proclaiming themselves an American. However, I would suggest that the average American today has little knowledge of the Constitution, and (for example) would be hard pressed to even say how many Amendments are contained in that document. Therefore, if asked to define exactly what an “American” is, they would have a very difficult time. Yet, it seems to me that with some thought and study one could, using the U.S. Constitution, Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, etc. come up with a fairly clear and consistent outline of what being an American consists of.
A few thoughts…
Frank Winter
It is clear that the bible was written for all men. It is a collection of truths. Which you have a right to believe or not belive. Furthermore, the bible holds historical accounts of the transgressions/evil that mankind has put upon one another.
However, it does not advocate such transgressions (slavery, murder, theft, sin).
The Bible teaches us how not to fall prey to the same transgressions that our ancestors have -by charging men to uphold such truths.
The world might state: Know your history (BIBLE) or be doomed to repeat it.
Regarding the statement that all Christians don’t believe the same thing…..The Bible states Ephesians 4:2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. As a Christian we should all believe the same thing and be of the same mind and live in the same “Spirit” of Christ.
The world might state: United we stand, Divided we Fall
Sidenote: One of the first things I learned in my Law class was that all laws came from the “Divine Law” taken from the bilble. (5 pts) Another proven truth….
Therefore, we all should be grateful for the law. For the Law of the land protects our flesh but faith in Christ guides our spirit towards salvation of our eternal soul.
Praise God!
I pray that you’ll open your heart and find the joy, peace and love that this book of truths has given and transformed Chrisitians today.
YSIC
The Salt and the Light
One more thing…..I cannot go to bed in good conscience without replying that baptism is not a condition of salvation.
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
I Peter 3;20 In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[e] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Baptism is a pledge of good conscience that is essential to salvation. It is a method by which we all are added to the body of Christ.
Romans 6:4 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (this is the transformation that must occur – if not – how do you get into Christ?)
Plan of Salvation for ALL Christians is the same:
One must :
Hear the word -Romans 10:17
Believe – Mark 16:16
Repent -Luke 13:3,5
Confess – Matthew 10:32,33)
Be Baptized – Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16
Praise God!
The book is a good book.
Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction in right doing
2 Timothy 3:16
YSIC
The Salt and the Light