Should We Use Evidence In Witnessing?

In 1993 I started working for Simon Greenleaf University (now Trinity Law School) which offered an M.A. in Christian apologetics (Craig Hazen was the director). Much of my job was to promote the school and although I had studied Christian apologetics since my sophomore year in high school, I decided I needed to see whether an apologetic witness had strong Biblical precedence.

It does.  

As I poured through the Scripture I found that Jesus and the apostles preached the resurrection of Christ as the sign of the truth of Christianity.

What follows are some of the passages which support the resurrection witness. 

Jesus to a wicked and adulterous generation
Mat. 12:39-40: A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Notice two things. First, Jesus said that it is characteristic of wicked and adulterous people to always seek more evidence. Second, Jesus said He was only going to give the world one sign and that sign would be His resurrection.

Jesus to Thomas
John 21:27-28: Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Luke to Theophilus
Acts 1:1-3: 1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

On choosing an apostle
Acts 1:21-22: Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.

Peter’s Pentecost address
Acts 2:22-24: Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead….

Acts 2:31-32: Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses to the fact.

Peter before the rulers and elders
Acts 4:10: Know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

Acts 4:20: For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.

The apostles to all who would listen
Acts 4:33: With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

The apostles before the Sanhedrin
Acts 5:30: The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.

Peter at Cornelius’ house
Acts 10:39: We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem.

Acts 10:41-43a: But God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. All the prophets testify about him….

Paul in Antioch
Acts 13:30-31: But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to his people.

13:34a: The fact that God raised him from the dead….

13:37: But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

Paul in the synagogue
Acts 17:2-3: As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead.

Paul in Athens
Acts 17:31-34: For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead. When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

Paul before Felix
Acts 24:21: I shouted as I stood in their presence: “It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today.”

Paul before Agrippa
Acts 26:22-23: And so, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.

Paul to the Romans
Romans 1:4b: Declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. (ESV)

Paul to the Corinthians
1 Cor. 15:3-8: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

So, Jesus appealed to the evidence of His resurrection, and when the apostles witnessed, they also appealed to the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection.

We should too.

By the way, in my classes in our M.A. in Christian Apologetics program at Biola University, I encourage the students to formulate their own 150 word resurrection witness.  

I’ll share mine soon.

1 John 1:1-2: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us. (ESV)


This entry was posted in Apologetics, Resurrection, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Should We Use Evidence In Witnessing?

  1. Wow, Clay! This is amazing!!!! I’ll link it right away!

  2. mark pace says:

    Your a good man–praise be to God for the work He is doing in your life.

    Mark Pace

  3. clayjones says:

    Thanks Mark!

  4. Wally Keller says:

    Hello Clay. It’s been a while since my graduation from Biola in 2008. Thank you for this great summary to remind us of the value of evidence, and how biblical it is. Your teaching has been valuable for me, as has been your kindness. Thanks brother.

  5. clayjones says:

    Thank you for the encouragement, Wally!

  6. fregas says:

    Nearly every religion claims that the reason that other people don’t agree with them and ask for more evidence is “because they are wicked”, including Christians against other Christians. That accusation is old and tired as well as self-serving.

    • Clay Jones says:

      Hi Fregas,

      If Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead, then you are right. If Jesus was raised from the dead then we have good reason to believe that he knew what he was talking about.


      • fregas says:

        Even if Jesus was raised from the dead (a big if) its not clear from the bible that he was referring to THIS generation of science, empiricism and skepticism. He was after all talking about his own generation who allegedly actually got to see his miracles. There is no reason to suppose that everyone who disagrees with your views is doing so because of evil motives, even if you are right. There are after all Clay, other Christians that believe you are mislead because your interpretation of the bible does not match theirs, and that you believe the wrong things because you are wicked.

        • ddd says:

          Evil is a bit misuderstood. If there is a God – then evil is simply the absence of God, just as darkness is the absence of light. Neither evil nor darkness are definable in and of themselves – they need an antithesis. Evil is not necessarily a focused ill-motivated force — it is often random, chaotic, and anarchistic. If God does not exist – evil is irrelevant, and you should be posting on more interesting topics, fregas. But the fact that you post here – is interesting…

          • fregas says:

            Whether God exists, what people believe and how they find meaning in their lives, are ALL very interesting to me. 🙂 I like your definition of evil.

  7. Steve says:

    Much better than van Til’s post-Kantian fideistic heresy.

  8. Salvatore Mazzotta says:

    Steve wrote:

    Much better than van Til’s post-Kantian fideistic heresy.

    It is a commonly held misconception that Van Til and presuppositional apologists disapprove of using evidence in witnessing to unbelievers. This is not the case at all. The point is that consideration of the evidence–indeed all thinking only makes sense in the context of what God has revealed to us about Himself, about creation, about the fallenness of man, about redemption.

    For an unbeliever to use his senses and to think rationally is for him to acknowledge his Creator implicitly. For Him to speak of right and wrong is to acknowledge the Judge of the living and the dead implicitly. And to use these gifts of God to attack the very existence of God, or to deny his word, or to dismiss the gospel is an act of rebellion against one’s maker. It is wicked. (But God is merciful. We’ve all done this.)

    There is common ground between the believer and the unbeliever, but it is not neutral ground. It belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ.

  9. Retha says:

    Fregas, are you seeing those Mat.12:39-40 words in context?

    The people who asked him for a sign already knew that he fulfilled very detailed prophesies (a sign); that he did remarkable miracles (another sign); and asked an extra sign. Jesus did then promise a remarkable sign to the “wicked and adulterous”- a resurrection- but that is a sign for everyone and not extra signs specially for those who look for excuses not to believe.

    On the other hand, when Thomas asked a particular sign- feeling the wounds- he got it. The difference may be that Jesus knew that Thomas would be willing to give his life if he see enough reason, and the others were looking for reasons not to believe.

    • Clay Jones says:

      Ageed, Retha!

    • fregas says:


      I was not referring to any particular verse of the Bible, more of a general tendency of every religion and even differences between fellow Christians to accuse one another of wickedness for theological differences. I think its obvious that many people believe simply because their life experiences believe different things. If you were raised Calvinist, you tend to be Calvinist, if you were raised Suni Muslim, you tend to be Suni Muslim. It is not out of wickedness necessarily.

      Here’s a question I have asked Clay: What happened to all the Chinese people who died the night after Jesus allegedly ascended into heaven? Did they all disbelieve in Jesus because they were wicked people that didn’t want to know the truth? NO! They didn’t even know who Jesus was! So even if Jesus was right, its not clear that disbelief always implies evil motives. He may have been referring only to his own generation or he may not have said that at all–it might have been added by the early Catholic Church.

      I would give my life if I saw a reason to believe. I have not seen any signs. But I know you won’t believe that. You will assume I’m an evil, wicked skeptic.

  10. Thanks for the encouragement. I just started a blog, where a section of it deals with apologetics. It is good to know that it is a worthwhile endeavor!

  11. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the further away from a Biblical view of God a society becomes the greater the need for apologetics. If this is the case the secularization of the West shows we need a greater emphasis on apologetics.

    • Clay Jones says:

      Hi Wesley,

      I think apologetics is more needed today because of Darwinism. Dawkins has said that because of Darwinism it is possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That has enabled many related arguments.


      • Alfonso says:

        Wesley, if you can get a hold of David Berlinski’s “The Devil’s Delusion”, you’ll see how a secular scholar manages to deflate the Darwinian claims in a really hilarious fashion. I still have to get my own copy of his “The Deniable Darwin”, though.

  12. Hi Clay,
    Regarding this:
    “By the way, in my classes in our M.A. in Christian Apologetics program at Biola University, I encourage the students to formulate their own 150 word resurrection witness.”
    What, if any, other directions, parameters or examples do you give for this assignment? I want to do the exercise myself and encourage others to do it as well, but I’m not sure how to go about it. I look forward to reading what you wrote for it.

  13. Dan +†+ says:

    Greeting Clay,

    The problem where you may be failing is revealed in Proverbs 26:4-5.

    Giving pearls like the resurrection to the swine, atheists, are counter productive. They will merely write it off, because of their presuppositions. That is why presuppositionalism is fully in compliant to Proverbs 26:4-5 as it exposes their preconditions for the intelligibility. When they ask for proof of things, like the resurrection, I merely say:

    “Indeed, but first, in order to prove something to you, I will need to know what qualifies as proof according to your position. Please answer the following questions:

    1. Does the thing proven have to be absolutely true?
    2. Does the thing proven have to be known for certain to be absolutely true?
    3. Does the thing proven have to follow absolute laws of logic?”

    Their answers will reveal their logic and it places the focus where it belongs, on their reasoning.

    Sye said, and I quote in my post,

    “Indeed I do not decry evidence. In fact the presuppositionalist is more of an evidentialist than the evidentialist. We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one’s very ability to reason about evidence.”


  14. clayjones says:

    Hi Dan,
    Since the apostles proclaimed the resurrection as evidence, I wonder if you think it would be casting pearls before swine to preach the resurrection to pluralists, polytheists, and pagans?

    • Dan +†+ says:


      Again, All evidence is evidence of God. Unfortunately atheistic presuppositions will determine whether they will even consider the evidence presented. This is very dangerous territory they place themselves in. That is why Presuppositionalism is a powerful tool to level their reasoning, and reveals their resistance and denial of God. Romans 1:18-23.

      >>I wonder if you think it would be casting pearls before swine to preach the resurrection to pluralists, polytheists, and pagans?

      In short yes, if they have an unrepentant heart. I believe it was Ray Comfort that said “grace to the humble, Law to the proud” Which is sound Biblical teachings. (Romans 3:19, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Romans 7:7-8)

      The real kicker is that you are helping, or even enabling, the non believer to stay in the judge’s seat by giving them evidence to evaluate to determine whether there is a God or not, since they placed God on trial. Presupps KEEPS God in the judge’s seat and NEVER allows the non believer to place them self as the judge. To give evidence to those who have put God on trial is not the way to go at all.

      My newest post points out:

      [The evidentialists tend to argue from the same epistemic axioms and criteria as the Atheist, starting from this common ground toward defeating the Atheist’s metaphysical presuppositions (to their peril, as they forget that ontology grounds epistemology).

      “The “arrogance of atheism” is manifest by those Atheists who presuppose the truth of their system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system, all the while denying for the Christian the inverse thereof because the only presuppositions the Atheist permits in the field of debate are his own.]

      It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist’s contempt toward God. The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

      It’s been rightly said that the “atheist” can’t find God for the same reason criminals can’t find the police. Because the police represent authority. Criminals would rather be their own authority (kinda like atheists). The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought we have.

      I’m sure that if an “atheist” wanted to, they could surrender to God, confess and repent of their sins, put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and receive a full pardon by God. They just don’t want to. Takes us right back to Proverbs 14:2, doesn’t it.

      The Christian worldview is the only one with an epistemological foundation. Without the Christian God, the alternative results in rational absurdity and contradiction (since there is no longer a basis for rationality). This is why we speak of the “impossibility of the contrary.”

      My argument is not intended to be convincing either, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, ‘convincing’ is out of my hands.

      Salvation is not just for the next life Clay- Not only did Christ’s death and resurrection save souls for eternity, it saves our reasoning now. Again, I beg them to repent and turn from rejecting the God they know exists, and accept the free gift of Jesus Christ’s payment for their sins, so that they might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for their reasoning NOW.

      Blessings to you and your family,

      • Jean E. Jones says:

        Hi Dan,
        But isn’t proclaiming the resurrection evidence what the apostles did? Are we not to follow their example?

        • Dan +†+ says:

          Jean (Clay?)

          One must begin with Christ in the world of thought or else surrender any hope of attaining knowledge- about himself, the world, or God. This has been the testimony of Scripture. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”~Proverbs 1:7 In Christ “whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” ~Colossians 2:3

          Even the song “Jesus loves me this I know because this bible tells me so!” is arguing presuppositionally.

          Is showing evidence Biblical? Sure, but look at the results of “evidence” with a presupposition that decry God.

          Bahnsen pointed out “We would realize this if we paid attention to the history recorded in the Bible. The Israelites saw miracles first-hand in the wilderness, but still disbelieved and disobeyed God. The Jewish leaders saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, and responded by plotting to kill Jesus! They paid the soldiers to lie about the Lord’s own resurrection! The Lord has provided us with plenty of empirical evidence of His veracity, but the way evidence is treated is determined by more fundamental beliefs and commitments in a person’s life. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).”~Heart of the Matter

  15. Clay Jones says:

    Hi Dan,
    Since wrote that it is Biblical to use evidence in witnessing and in my post I was on arguing that we use the evidence for the resurrection just at the apostles used it, exactly where do we disagree?
    by the way, if my responses are a little slow right now it’s because I’m traveling for the next few days.

    • Dan +†+ says:


      >>exactly where do we disagree?

      We disagree as to what is actually received as evidence. What you view as evidence is not evidence at all to an atheist.

      I explain about it in my newest post called Still No Evidence!

      The Atheist will say “Well, that is not evidence for God. Because I have another explanation for all of those things…”

      “In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man’s naturalism, or atheism.”

      Please read and understand the apology that Van Til presents that we owe.

      By the way, if my responses are a little slow it’s because I am not allowed to receive email updates on these comments and have to check in every few days. (FeedBlitz could not add your subscription…???)



  16. fregas says:


    Atheists really do believe what they believe, at least most of them. Non-Christians such as hindus and buddhists really believe their world view. They are not simply “deciding” they don’t want to believe in the Christian God. Why would anyone even WANT to do that? I have had atheists tell me that losing their faith was a very painful process, as they really wanted to believe in a God and Christ. This is so obvious its hardly worth mentioning. You are on very shaky logical ground (as far as i can tell) in relation to history, science and reasoning and just plain common sense.

    Everyone has bias. A christian will see God at work everywhere. A muslim will see Allah. A buddhist will see buddha-nature. A hindu Brahmin. An atheist will see natural processes. So what? This isn’t people trying to reject God or Christ. Its people believing what they do because of their culture, experiences and exposure to worldviews. Every one of your arguments can be turned around back at you. For example “its impossible for the Christian to believe in naturalism because they reinterpret everything as evidence of God” . Fundamentalists/Calvinists seem to have the need to justify their religion by vilifying everyone they disagree with. But that’s okay, they’re not alone. So do Muslims and Atheists.

    • Dan +†+ says:


      >>They are not simply “deciding” they don’t want to believe in the Christian God. Why would anyone even WANT to do that?

      Is that Biblical? Verses in context, please.

      >>I have had atheists tell me that losing their faith was a very painful process, as they really wanted to believe in a God and Christ. This is so obvious its hardly worth mentioning.

      I know. Why painful? Because they KNOW He exists. It must be painful to KNOW God rejects you for whatever reason.

      >>An atheist will see natural processes. So what? This isn’t people trying to reject God or Christ.

      Now you are completely wrong and completely defying God’s Word. I suggest you repent of that reasoning and get back into His Word. The result may be God rejecting you, much like those Atheists.

      People are hostile towards God. (Romans 1:18-23)

      It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and also reveals the professing Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist’s contempt toward God.

      >>Every one of your arguments can be turned around back at you.

      Ignoratio elenchi. The point is no matter how articulate the argument they, and possibly you, will go to hell. You are under a very wrong misconception that man can be argued into believing. [More in my post, Still No Evidence!]

      Let’s “pretend” you’re an atheists. Let’s just say that I stump you all with powerful arguments, using archaeological and scientific evidence. I have even intellectually dwarfed you.

      Now all I have to do is convince you that Noah actually built an ark and brought in the animals two by two and lived over 900 years, that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, that Samson killed a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass, that Daniel was really in the lions’ den, that Moses really did divide the Red Sea, and that Adam and Eve ran around naked…and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do you really think I can prove all of that to you?

      Look at what Paul said about how he persuaded men about God: “And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:1) Why didn’t Paul dazzle his hearers with eloquent speeches and intellectual wisdom? Bible scholars who have studied his letters tell us that he was extremely capable intellectually. First Corinthians 2:5 tells us why he deliberately stayed away from worldly wisdom: “That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (1)

      Point is there is NOTHING you can say or do to change hearts.

      My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, ‘convincing’ is out of my hands.

      Certainly out of the evidentialist’s hands also.

      • fregas says:


        I don’t believe the Bible to be God’s Word, so I don’t find it authoritative. I won’t quote verses to you. I’m sure there’s some truth to it, just as there is in many ancient writings, as well as myth and fallacy, just like many ancient writings. Its wrong about things like the age of the earth and slavery. Its wrong about how to treat children and women. Its wrong about justice. Its wrong about many things. It has ancient wisdom and ancient barbarism. I see no reason the men who wrote the books of the bible had perfect knowledge of God or perfect knowledge of anything else for that matter. They were human.

        And which Bible? Martin Luther’s which still had the apocrypha that catholics have today? The Greek orthodox bible that has books catholics and protestants don’t? Origen’s bible, the first compiled version of Christian documents, which has books yours doesnt and is missing books your does? The Jehova’s Witness’ Bible which does not proclaim Jesus as being God?

        If I was convinced of the resurrection, you would not have to prove moses, noah, sodam and gomorrah. I might still have questions or doubts about those things, but i would believe in Jesus as the son of God. I might or might not instantly become a biblical inerrantist or fundamentalist, but if I was convinced of the Resurrection, that it was really the Creator and not a trick, deception, sorcery or a myth, I would become a Christian, plain and simple.

        As far is Hindus and others that are non-christians, so were they supposed to “just know” about the Christian God and Jesus, before missionaries even made it over to them? For centuries, people lived and died before Jesus came around, and they lived and died after he left this earth without ever hearing about him. So we know at least with some people, they didn’t disbelieve because of wickedness–they disbelieved because they didn’t know about Christianity! Are all these people in hell? You put a burden of knowledge on people that they can’t possibly fulfill.

        I’m not going to argue your other points. I have read a bit of your blog. I”m going to say this as gently as I can, and I don’t like saying it. This is just my perception and I’m not trying to belittle you. You might be a really nice person. I don’t know you or how you are in real life. But you come across extremely arrogant when you talk to people, even your fellow Christians. You come across like you really enjoy ticking people off, looking down through your nose at them, using scare tactics and seething contempt rather that polite discussion and a pursuit of truth. You act as though you have all the answers, that you have no chance of being wrong, and anyone who disagrees with you is a demon from hell. You do not seem like a “regenerated Christian” with the spirit and humility of Christ. You don’t seem to love your enemies. I know you feel your are doing God’s work and speaking for Him, but people have used that excuse for literally thousands of years to treat other people as inferiors. I know this is a harsh judgment and it may be totally inaccurate, but its how you come across. I’m by no means perfect either, but I do try to not be smug and to discuss these things civilly and respectfully, even if I strongly disagree with people. I try to learn from Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and others in my pursuit if truth. Maybe one day I’ll become a Christian again, maybe not. I hope I don’t become self-righteous and self-satisfied.

        Since you are uninterested in evidence, reason or even discussion, I won’t post anything else.

        • Dan +†+ says:


          >>I don’t believe the Bible to be God’s Word, so I don’t find it authoritative.

          Thanks for being honest, it was apparent by your comments though.

          >> Its wrong about how to treat children and women.

          Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

          >>I know this is a harsh judgment and it may be totally inaccurate, but its how you come across.

          But to those to whom the gospel message is uncomfortable, it is received quite differently. When Jesus preached in His hometown at first they were amazed at His Words, but by the end of His sermon they tried to throw Him off a cliff (Luke 4: 14-30)
          The truth sometimes moves people to want to throw us off cliffs, but if we withhold the truth due to the reaction we might receive, then we are not teaching like our Lord.

          >>I’m not going to argue your other points. I have read a bit of your blog.

          Its not a choice, its impossible for a non believer. Nevertheless, Fregas. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?

  17. Clay Jones says:

    Hi Fregas and Dan,
    I’m still traveling until Saturday and will have to respond after that.

Comments are closed.