Describing the gospel to an atheist
Posted by RyftMar 18
For the sake of those who might be surprised to find out, you actually can present what the gospel says in bold and clear terms on atheist message boards. (And in my opinion, only by presenting it boldly and clearly.) The following is a brief exchange between me and an atheist (who we’ll call Anthony) which ensued after I had described one thing that makes Christianity unique or sets it apart in the marketplace of religions. I hope the following can be instructive, in some small way, for those who find themselves with an opportunity to present what the gospel is to unbelievers.
RYFT (Christian):
Christianity is the only religion in the entire world whose afterlife is based on grace; that is, every single other religion on the planet teaches an afterlife that is reached by some kind of balance of good works. Christianity is singularly unique in that salvation (afterlife) is not based on any human good works at all, period. It is based on the good works of Jesus Christ, in whom alone the believer is saved. This is because “a balance of good works” is precisely that: a balance, meaning that in addition there are bad works, violations of God’s holy law. In human courts, a person found guilty of breaking several criminal laws is never told by the judge, “Well, aside from these laws you have broken you’re an otherwise pretty decent fellow. You may go. No sentence for you.” It would be unjust to not punish guilty criminals. He may be a decent fellow, but he is nevertheless guilty of having broken several criminal laws, and justice demands crime be punished. On what grounds, then, would a person think God would leave sins unpunished? That would be unjust.
ANTHONY (Atheist):
You came to the conclusion that the correct religion in the world consists of a God with a one-size-fits-all plan for salvation? One that simply judges a book by its cover?
RYFT:
Since that is a crude caricature that fails to reflect what I had said, there is nothing for me to respond to. I have zero interest in answering for beliefs I don’t have.
ANTHONY:
But you said Christianity is based on belief and grace, rather than actions in life. I was addressing that. The only characteristic that God would consider is your belief in him, which is a human act. Would that be a fair assessment?
RYFT:
I had said nothing about what Christianity is based on. I said salvation is based on God’s grace, not human works.
Moreover, that is not a fair assessment, but a wildly inaccurate one that completely ignores what I had actually said. Belief in God does not save anyone. A person is not saved because he believes, but because of what Christ did.
It’s not as if man exists in some state of spiritual neutrality from which either ‘belief’ or ‘non-belief’ finally determines his standing before God, whether justified or condemned. Under biblical Christianity, all mankind exists in a state of condemnation already on account of sin. We all come from the same pool of death and darkness, of sin and moral ruin—and through unbelief (itself a sin) man remains there. We exist under judgment for death; only in Christ is there judgment for life. We exist under God’s wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist under condemnation; only in Christ are we justified. Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe.
"The doctrines of grace are the biblical teachings that define the ends and means of God’s perfect work of redemption. They tell us that God is the one who saves, for his own glory, and freely. And they tell us that he does so only through Christ, only on the basis of his grace, only with the perfection that marks everything the Father, Son, and Spirit do. The doctrines of grace separate the Christian faith from the works-based religions of men. They direct us away from ourselves and solely to God’s grace and mercy. They destroy pride, instil humility, and exalt God." (James R. White)
ANTHONY:
You’re not making any sense. First you say, “Belief in God does not save anyone.” But then you say, “Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe.” So in order for me to be saved, I need to believe that Christ is my personal Savior (an entity that is also considered God). Or am I getting this wrong?
(And that quote from White? Niiiice!)
RYFT:
You are getting this wrong. Let me construct a chain we can follow.
(1) Salvation is through Christ alone—by who he is (sinless substitute) and what he did (atoning sacrifice). (2) His death paid for the sins of all who repent and believe. (3) So in order to be saved, you need to be one of those who repent and believe because that’s whose sins Christ’s death paid for. (4) If you do not repent and believe, your sins are not covered by his sacrifice, leaving you to pay for your sins on your own.
So then it is not your repentance and belief that saves you. It is Christ’s life and death that saves you, a salvation you enter into through repentance and belief.
If there are any lingering questions, go ahead and ask. I hope I’ve made it clear, but only you can tell me.
ANTHONY:
It’s a bit confusing? You say it’s not your belief that saves you, but then you would not be able to be saved without that particular belief.
RYFT:
Well, not quite: “you would not be able to be saved without” Christ paying for your sins. Salvation is through having sins paid for. Belief does not pay for sins. (1) Christ paid for the sins of all those who repent and believe. (2) All those who repent and believe therefore have their sins paid for.
ANTHONY:
Got it.
PDF 
5 comments
Comment by Rick Baskett on 18 Mar 2010 at 14:13
Easy to get confused though, because our part, which most people are concerned about, is indeed believing correct? yes regardless of whether we believed if Jesus did not pay the price for us, then it wouldn't matter. But with that gigantic thing aside, our part is belief according to what you said?
Comment by Duane on 18 Mar 2010 at 17:47
Thanks for posting that Ryft. There are several benefits in sharing these exchanges with each other, one of which is the opportunity to refine our own evangelistic style or delivery. So I have a question pertaining to clarity; a question for myself as much as anyone else:
There seemed to be a bit of confusion over the word belief and what that entailed, or what it secured. Do you think that trust would be a better word to use? It's not so much that we believe in Jesus or believe in what He did, but that we put our trust in Him – as we do with the the pilot, engineers and maintenance crew whenever we get on a plane – and because He is trustworthy, being able to deliver on His promises because of who He is and what He did, we are rescued from judgment; judgment that we deserve.
Suggested homework: A word study of “believe” in the New Testament as it relates to the concept of trust. For example, in the Gospel of John the translators of my Bible (Holman) place the word “believe” on the lips of Jesus three times in just one verse (John 3:18). This is just after Jesus had told them that “…everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16). The contextual usage of “believe” appears to be synonymous with “trust”, as simply believing that Jesus is the Messiah is quite a different thing to putting you trust in Him and I wonder if that is what “believe” really means in these cases. Contrast this with John 3:12 where “believe” appears to mean exactly that?
Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 19 Mar 2010 at 01:17
Rick,
Believing is our part, yes. But his confusion wasn’t found in a soteriological distinction between what God does and what we do in the interplay of salvation. (And I say ‘God’ in order to maintain the fidelity that really the whole Trinity is involved, a liberty I can enjoy here that would have been obfuscating in an atheist environment.) Rather, his confusion was found in a mistaken caricature that believing in Jesus is what saves a person; i.e., your entering heaven depends on whether or not you believed. The reason people think that (on my educated guess) is because in our culture we are constantly told that in order to be saved we need to receive Christ or accept Christ into our hearts or believe that Christ is Savior, etc.
So I was countering two misconceptions. First, there is the stark and complete absence of the repentance part. When it comes to our response to the gospel, the unrelenting drumbeat in Scripture is repent and believe. There is no turning to Christ without a turning away from sinful self. Second, even with the repentance part asserted in its rightful place, so that our response is to both repent and believe, it’s still not something we do in order to be saved. You’re not saved because you repented and believed. You are saved because of what Christ did. My point was to combat the notion that salvation rests on anything we do, directing every last shred of glory to God alone.
“So in order for me to be saved,” he had asked me, “I need to believe that Christ is my personal Savior?” That was the sticking part, and I did not miss it: “So in order to be saved, I need to…” If I had answered in the affirmative, it would have suggested that salvation hinges upon something man does. So I rejected it and put the focus back on Christ. “In order to be saved,” your sins must be paid for, and belief does not pay for sins. The blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross at Calvary did that. We repent and believe as a response to salvation, not as a means of salvation.
Duane,
You raise a very good point, a crucially important point. In matters of salvation, belief is far more than mere intellectual assent (its meaning today); in the language of the gospel, belief carries the vital component of deeply committed trust. To be consistent with Scripture, it plays out like this: we give our intellectual assent (assensus) to the clear facts of the gospel (notitia) with a deeply committed trust (fiducia) in the name of Jesus Christ as our only plea. As any competent theologian will tell you, those three elements in concert—notitia, assensus, and fiducia—is the very definition of faith. And they cannot be separated; remove any of the three predicates and it is no longer faith, becoming instead untrusting belief or blind trust and the like. So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and placing complete and utter trust in it.
And just so that you’re aware, I had a conversation with that same atheist previously, in another thread, on the very subject of faith. He had described faith as a blind and irrational leap and I took him to task over that, as you can imagine, explaining both carefully and firmly the true nature of faith (and that it is irrational to knock down straw man caricatures and then pretend you’ve said anything intelligent about your opponent’s beliefs). He conceded both debates to me and apologized, and I commended his humble honesty. He now understands there is an important difference between the faith and gospel described in the Bible and the shrieking nonsense typically found in posts from… well, fundies who learned evangelism from Jack Chick tracts.
Comment by Jake on 20 Mar 2010 at 11:21
Ryft,
I appreciate your boldness in dealing with Anthony, but I don't think you were being clear. You could simplify your message a bit if you stripped away some of the “Christianese.” In plain English you're basically saying:
1) Everyone sins and deserves the judgment of Hell. 2) In an act of mercy, God unconditionally chooses to save some of us. (By “unconditionally”, I mean that God does not take into consideration any quality or good works of man).
What this means is that:
3) Everyone who has faith in Christ was chosen by God to have that faith. The faith itself was a gift from God, given to the elect (so that no man can boast of his salvation).
Ryft, wouldn't you agree this is a clearer summary of the “doctrines of grace”? I felt like you were watering down the concept of election. It's a very simple concept: God chooses some of us to have faith and thus be saved.
Were you taking that approach to avoid the accusation that God choosing some over others is not fair? If so, then it was neither clear nor bold.
Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 21 Mar 2010 at 19:21
Jake,
First, thank you very much for taking the time to contribute your thoughts. I really value and appreciate the perspective of godly people whose occupation corresponds to their vocation of advancing God’s kingdom. It’s both an honour and humbling to have you involved in the conversation. (I shall assume as a matter of good form that your comments are representative of you speaking as a private individual.)
Second, the point I was making with Anthony had less to do with the order of salvation and everything to do with the means of salvation, viz. the merits upon which salvation is based. Although God’s electing activity is surely a biblical matter, election in itself is not the means of salvation. What I mean to say is, it’s a theologically instructive truth with a vital and significant place in the ordo salutis, and we do well when we examine what God reveals to us in election; but the merits upon which salvation is based and secured is principally the nature and work of Christ, without which election would be unrealizable (i.e., God cannot elect anyone without sin being vanquished). The Father does choose who he gives to the Son (and all those chosen do come) and his choice is not conditioned upon any human merit, you are right. But election does not pay for sins; justification, expiation, and propitiation are secured by what Christ did, his sinless life, guiltless death, and vindicating resurrection. The entire scope of salvation is rooted in the atoning work of Christ as God incarnate; from eternity to eternity, the entire scope of God’s salvific work looks to first century Palestine and an old rugged cross.
The point I was making with Anthony is that belief does not save. Christ saves, by his paying for the sins of all who repent and believe. Like election, the means and ends of belief also presuppose the work of Christ. We are not saved apart from election, nor are we saved apart from belief, but the means of salvation—the merits upon which it is based, the merits by which it is secured—is found in Christ and what he did, without whom it would all be in vain. Anthony (like so may others) was led to understand that salvation depends on whether one believes. That’s wrong, for salvation does not depend on any human merit, not even belief. It depends on Christ and what he did. God gets all the glory. We can take credit for nothing.
Third, my conversation with Anthony had nothing to do with the question of election, much less whether election is fair or not. However, I know what I would say to him if we did have a conversation like that, because it’s one I’ve had before. My response is always the same: “You’re right, it’s not fair. It’s merciful, a very different thing. If God were to treat us on the basis of what is fair, no one would make it.”