Ray Ciervo Ministries

For the second time, I presented the case for Christianity to a World Religion class at a community college. The professor, a friend of mine, invites different clergy to represent their particular faith. This is the second time I've done so at this college. It's enlightening to interact with the students, as well as fun. I take these opportunities to speak to those who sit by and listen to the dialogue.

I started off with my presentation of the "what" of Christianity and then moved into why the New Testament is the most reliable historical document in the world. Copies, dates, archaeology, and extra-biblical writers make up my direct approach. I'm actually priming the pump for questions I know will come. In this group there were three antagonists from three different perspectives. The most serious one was a young man who was an atheist fixed in his position.

The first to begin questioning was a "serious doubter." He expressed doubts about miracles. "I see outrageous miracles in the Bible, but don't see them happening now." The second comment came from the "intellectual atheist" who authoritatively quoted Isaac Asimov.

Another comment came from an older man in the back of the room with a strong "North Carolina" accent. "Why can't we accept that there's one God worshipped by all people?" One other comment came from a young woman who stated that the "Bible says, God wants His children to be happy and if worshipping their own way makes them happy, what's wrong with that?"

I have to admit I enjoy this kind of interaction. The variety of questions and comments keeps me on my toes. Sometimes I'm challenged by the intellectual capabilities these young folks bring in question form. It's kind of like batting practice - you get better by standing in the box and facing off these pitches. This makes you set up differently in the box and stand differently, too. The group grew lively with a few interacting. Most of the students had that "disinterested gaze" on.

As the discussion unfolded, "intellectual atheist" said, "Truth is all perspective. You have yours and I have mine." I asked him if the statement he made about truth being a matter of perspective was his perspective. He said it was; and I asked, "What if my perspective differs?" He said, "That's your perspective."  I asked if that was his perspective on my perspective.  He didn't get it. So I moved on to, "So, what you're saying is that there is no such thing as truth?"  "That's right!" he exclaimed, as if he had made me aware of something. So now I asked him, "Is that true?" "What?" he rejoined. I continued, "The statement you just made about there being no such thing as truth - is it true?"

He had walked into a very simple verbal trap. He had nowhere to go. If he said that it is true that there's no such thing as truth, his argument self-destructed because he would be affirming something he wished to deny. If he said no, then he would be denying what he wanted to affirm. Very simply, you cannot deny the idea of truth without using the truth to do so. He never quite recovered from that as far as the dialogue went.

I went into my Thomistic explanation of truth as that which corresponds to reality. I know some will credit Aristotle for that, and rightly so. I, however, like Thomas' rendition of it. The students had stopped their doodling and were now listening more attentively. I then took a swing at "naturalism," which I knew "intellectual atheist" subscribed to. I asked, "If only material substances exist, where is the number 2?" Then I asked where thoughts are, where the mind is, etc. If there are only natural things, where are these intangible, nonmaterial substances?

My next step was to ask if they believed the simple law of cause and effect, which states that every effect must intrinsically resemble its cause. Not in every way, but in some way, such as the sun making things melt because of its heat. Melting wax with the sun would be an intrinsic cause and effect. They all agreed this was the case. So next I asked, "Where does intelligence come from? Where does ‘mind' come from?"

"Intelligent atheist" tried to say intelligence comes from survival. I was starting to really like this guy; he was throwing the kinds of pitches that let me hit home runs. I asked if survival was a part of an intelligent response to the situation. While he pondered, I mentioned he still didn't tell me where intelligence originated. Unfortunately, he started getting frustrated, and others tried to make what he was saying sound more intelligent, but that always fails. The simple question is that if intelligence is an effect, what is its cause? Intelligence had to come from somewhere, and it had to come from something intelligent. That's the law of cause and effect. The same would be true of morals and minds.

I refrained from any further "verbal spanking" and started to proclaim why I believe that the message of the gospel is relevant for all in society. Unfortunately, we ran out of time. Several students smiled as they walked past me out of class. "Intelligent atheist" pulled his hat over his eyes and walked out without passing me.

I don't feel self-satisfied in these situations, but I sense I've taken several steps during the presentation to help people consider the Christian message.

The first is that Christians have a role in the intellectual community, and we can answer most of the objections presented to Christianity.  More than that, I've given those who simply sat and listened to the arguments something to think about beyond a Bible-thumping message. One Christian girl came up to me afterwards and mentioned how much she'd been helped. "I never knew there was so much evidence to support what I believe. I can now dialogue with my friends about why I believe the Bible is reliable."

Amen to that sister. If I was able to give these young people something to think about, I'd done my job and served a greater purpose in presenting the gospel.

My friend, the teacher who invited me, saw what I was doing. He said, "I saw that you were attacking their belief systems."

"That's right," I said. "I go after the presuppositions that they base their beliefs on. That's the only way you'll change their worldview.

"Everyone has a set of fixed points that they fly by. I simply show how their fixed points are unreliable. It's up to them to make the changes."

Christianity has the most reliable points to fly by.