She told me she normally does not take a lunch. She also expressed gratitude that her private struggle with Christianity is now public to maybe help someone else.

My reaction to the letter was visceral, it literally made my stomach hurt. I have been there on the receiving end of that Grand Canyon gap between the church and the kingdom. Or the church and Jesus.

We must not relegate a story like this to "not applicable." Sueann represents many others like her, we just happen through God's hand to be able to hear her story. This should grip our hearts to change our church and keep pressing hard after Jesus and the gospel until we start to reach people like this.

It is my hope that God will bring you to a community of Christians who he can use to change your mind about the church. Church is supposed to be a visible outworking of God's kingdom here on earth, unfortunately sometimes it feels like it represents another kingdom entirely.

Why should Sueann love that church? What about that church seems to have anything to do with the kingdom of God or the catholic church? I think it's pretty easy to not let the full weight of this sink in. We need to hear "outsiders" tell us "insiders" that sometimes the local church isn't anywhere close to the kingdom it claims to represent.

Yes, it is counterintuitive spiritual mathematics. The more I realize I am nothing more than a foolish donkey, the more fame God gets out of the situation.

No problem.

That's a great point. Paul definitely is trying to convince them. The primary difference I see is that he intentionally seeks out faithful Jews, everywhere he goes. That is his first destination. He does not seek out the pagan philosophers. Instead, they seem to seek him out and push him into a broader arena. Which he then uses in an effort to persuade them. I still see a fundamental difference between some atheists (notice my qualifier) and the Athenian pagans. Different baselines. They are seekers. Paul uses that in his speech. In response to your point about religious beliefs, absolutely. And this also leads to the question of whether Paul's situation was different than ours (i.e. seeking out Jews) since he was following in such close proximity to the earthly ministry of Jesus and the transition to the New Covenant.

A sideline here is that I don't think you debate a died-in-the-wool atheist to win them over to the faith. There may be other valid reasons for these debates, from the perspective of either side. Coming from a Van Til apologetics background, I would say you are far more likely to see atheists turn to Jesus through life experiences and means other than a debate. Few debaters walk away from a debate saying, "Gee, I never thought about that." They walk away licking their wounds and committing themselves to pummeling the opposition next time. Tell me I'm wrong.

Regarding debate, I am certainly not trying into get into a debate about debate. My context is a book-length work on the battle with sin. My understanding is that faith in Christ involves many things, but one of the things a believer does is fight against sin in their own heart and life. So given this goal, I am going to focus my energy in much the same way as Jesus in the sense that I am going to spend my time trying to help those whose baseline is that they are a sinner who needs help.

I see your reference to Paul going to the faithful Jews in a much different light than you are casting it. Paul still shared a huge common ground of theism and the Old Testament with these people. How many of these people had heard of Jesus? I think Paul targeted faithful Jews precisely because they believed in the one true God, and he wanted them to hear the gospel. It is difficult for me to use that pattern from Paul as a grounds for me to prioritize intellectual debate with died-in-the-wool atheists.

As to Mars Hill in Acts 17, yes Paul does stand before them to state his case in vs. 22. Interestingly enough, he did not seek this out. Rather it was thrust upon him by the philosophers (vs. 19). Moving back to Paul's speech or sermon in vs. 22, he appeals to the common ground of religious belief. I'm still not seeing it man! Help me here.

This is significantly less than half a work, tremble because it is probably somewhere near 1/20th of the total.

Would love if you would post those references for examples of debate with those who deny the existence of God. It would be good to see those in context and for my understanding to be reformed by the Word. Certainly the classic New Covenant examples would be the numerous times where Jesus makes it exceedingly clear that he came for sinners, those who already have the baseline of accepting their sinfulness. I'm aware of the mutually reactions of repentance or persecution, very clear throughout the Bible, but am also operating from the understanding that even those non-Jewish cultures were operating from the basis of a deity or multiple deities' existence.

In case it is helpful to you, Chris, this is just the first of a book-length project. So your Calvinistic urges to see my Calvinistic urges should be well-exercised by the time I'm through.

It is not intended to be an argument against formal debates or even informal chat-room type discussions. My point is only that the great majority of those encounters do not result in life change. I am also not downplaying the reality or significance of original sin. What I am doing is using as my starting point the reality of sin that is widely acknowledged.

The next post will either elaborate on the forms sins take in our lives, or go back to original sin. Whichever one is next, the other one will be after that. My apologetic goal is to begin where we agree and work from there to disagreement. I realize many apologists take a different approach, and that's ok.