A Friendly Debate Between an Atheist and Christian Professor; Then Thoughts on the History of Revival in America

You're about to hear a friendly dialogue and debate between an atheist and a Christian professor. The building. It's time for The Line of Fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker, and theologian, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Michael Brown is the director of the Coalition of Conscience and President of Fire School of Ministry.

Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. That's 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Well, I'm holding in my hands a fascinating book, An Atheist and a Christian, walk into a bar. Talking about God, the universe, and everything. It's co-authored by Randall Rauser and Justin Schieber. And Justin and Randall are with me on the air. I'm going to be introducing them in a moment.

And they're going to carry on their debate, their discussion, their dialogue right here for you, our listening audience. I may take some calls. That number is 866-34Truth-866-348-7884, either for our atheist or Christian guests. But I want to focus on giving them an opportunity to dialogue together. Yes, in the news, an important speech by John Kerry, already blasted by Prime Minister Netanyahu, on his view of the peace process.

I'll weigh in on that at a later time. Also, probably post a video or write about it. And if you haven't heard the announcement, our new book, the first co-authored by Nancy and I, together, Breaking the Stronghold of Food, comes out in just six days. Here's the best way to order it: go to strongholdoffood.com. Strongholdoffood.com.

Order it there. All right. You can order Amazon or wherever you normally order from. Order it there. And when you order it, you'll get the first three chapters sent to you immediately in PDF form to read.

And you'll also get a free e-book when it comes out. Yeah, so take advantage of that. Go there as soon as you have the opportunity, strongholdoffood.com, and go ahead and order your book. All right, I want to bring on the air Justin and Randall. Gentlemen, thanks so much for joining us on the broadcast today.

That's great to be with you. Great. Hey, Justin, according to your bio, you are founder and host of Real Atheology, a YouTube channel dedicated to presenting issues in contemporary philosophy of religion in easy-to-follow videos, and you've been a former co-host of the Reasonable Doubts radio show and podcast. Is it important to you to try to talk believers out of their faith or persuade them that atheism is true? Not particularly.

It used to be of great importance to me, but I'm less concerned about changing. um mind from PS through eight ps. Uh then I am just interested in exploring the questions? Got it, so you wouldn't be then an evangelistic atheist in that sense. I think to I mean, I think that I think unavoidably there's some sense in which I'm trying to get people to agree with me.

as with any kind of dialogue, but At the end of the day, it's not about for me, it's not about getting as many notches in my belt of changing minds toward atheism. It's not really what I'm interested in I'm primarily interested in the philosophical questions surrounding these industries. I think they're all very interesting. Got it. And Randall, you're a professor of historical theology at Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Alberta, author, co-author of nine books.

What's your motivation, Randall, in engaging in this dialogue with Justin and with other atheists?

Well, first, it's great to be back with you, Michael. And as to answering the question, I think when I hold a belief That Of course, if I accept something as a belief, I hold it to be true.

So when I have beliefs that are I'm convinced are true, and I also think that they're very important. and I value other people. then I just want to share those beliefs with them and try to persuade them of the truth of those beliefs. I mean, even in a trivial area, a few years ago I bought a A new vacuum cleaner, a Dyson. And it's an amazing vacuum.

And I find myself telling people about the Dyson and trying to persuade them to buy one. Same thing, and even more so, of course, when it comes to my Christian beliefs, I want to share them and persuade other people of them. All right, yeah, absolutely better than a vacuum cleaner. I think we all agree on that. All right, so we just had a quick moment for introductions.

We come back, we're going to have some nice extended time on the air. And I want to ask you, Justin, what do you think is the biggest argument that an atheist has against theistic faith? All right, let's start there and then we'll get Randall's response to that. And then go to Randall. What do you feel is the strongest argument on behalf of theistic faith to get Justin's response and will allow you to go back and forth?

You don't want to miss this, friends. It's fire we want, for fire we please stand the fire. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown.

Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-342. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Thanks for joining us, friends. This is Michael Brown. Delighted to be with you. My guests today, Randall Rauser and Justin Schieber, co-authors of the book, An Atheist and a Christian, Walk Into a Bar, talking about God, the universe, and everything. Justin, let's start with you as an atheist.

What do you feel is the most compelling argument that you can offer against theistic belief, against belief in a God who's a creator and is also personally involved in our lives? You can give the argument, expand on it, and then we'll get Randall to give his response. Sure.

So I think that when it comes to atheistic arguments or arguments for the conclusion that God does not exist, I think there are a number of and strong candidates on that side of the argument. Um So I think everyone's familiar with like the problem of evil, the problem of suffering, the problem of hiddenness, why is it that if God exists, why does He remain hidden to a lot of people who may even be very much interested in having a relationship with God? But one of the arguments I use in the in the book is an argument that uh that kind of puts the spotlight on certain kinds of disagreements.

So There it is. Disagreements among theists, among devout uh very serious minded see this. About the nature of God, how God wants us to behave, you know, how best to live a life under God, how best to. have and maintain a relationship With God and how best to treat each other. These are a lot of very important relational questions.

And you can find you can find CS Devout to this on all different sides of these questions. And so I guess an analogy that I would want to use is. Um Say you have um you know twin uh brothers who are being raised by a single parent. if those if the parent only meets with them individually, right, so they can't have a group meeting, the parent just meets with them individually and tells them certain things and then the parent tells the other one uh a different set of of things that are relevant to these Questions? um they can come to realize that they have a disagreement.

even though they think they're both talking about the same person. It would seem that if the parent was a loving parent, that parent would want to intervene at least and correct some of these misunderstandings But at least in so far there's the misunderstanding is Uh They serve as detrimental to any kind of substantive relationship with the divine. And so I think that that's an interesting argument Because it I think quite clearly The kind of disagreement existing in the world is of no real surprise on a kind of atheistic view of the world where there's no God because there's no God to intervene into. You know, there's no Um you know, all of their beliefs about God would be false in that way and so then, you know, they're all gonna be all over the place. Um but on a but on the even it seems like there's at least a lot of good reasons that don't exist on atheism to think that those confusions would be corrected.

All right, so that the fact that, say, Muslims, Christians, Jews All claim to worship the one creator God, and they're such fundamental. Differences in their beliefs and even in some of their perceptions about God would line up with your view as an atheist. Of course, there are differences, but you feel that that would be challenging for theist. If there is only one God, then how is it that He's revealed Himself so differently to these different people and mutually Contradictory ways. Randall, how do you respond to that in the book?

How would you respond to that on the air? Yeah, it is a great question. And of course, it's not just about religious disagreement. outside of Christianity, but also within the church.

So we also have, of course, Baptists and Pentecostals and Catholics all disagreeing.

So I guess the the first thing I would say is we need to distinguish Between Having the right beliefs and being in relationship.

So, I mean, a small child, let's say an infant, a two-year-old, a three-year-old, a four-year-old. They may not have a lot of propositional knowledge about their parent, but they can still be in a relationship with their parent. As well, we can be in relationship with God even though we have some degree of false. uh beliefs about God. I've That would lead me into the second point in uh Romans chapter two.

Paul says that God doesn't hold, you know, God holds people accountable for the amount of light they've been given.

So I think there is some degree where there's nonculpable error, where you can be wrong about something and God will not judge you for that because he hasn't revealed himself to you in that degree. And the third thing I would say is that I think One of the reasons we would expect, in fact, God to allow this amount of disagreement is precisely because he wants to achieve some kind of greater good out of it. And one illustration I give in the book Is a team building exercise where a group of people are. Tasked to work together and try to figure out how to accomplish some common task, and they bring different positions and opinions. But there is an end goal of building team unity, of developing virtue in the people.

And I think One of the reasons God doesn't reveal Himself to everybody in the same way is precisely for the same reason. He wants to. Bring about virtues of goodness in us as we learn to talk. talk with one another much in the way that Justin and I are talking right now. All right.

Justin, I want to do my best just to moderate. Obviously, I'm a follower of Jesus and a theist. But let me throw a question back to you, and then you and Randall can go back and forth on this. What if it was argued that there are fundamental beliefs? That even these disparate religions have in common in terms of one eternal God who created everything and who in the end will be the judge of all mankind.

And you could find many common beliefs, even between these different faiths, and obviously within the Christian faith. Since we're just human beings and we don't claim that God is communicating with us via text and email 24/7, would. Would that then present an obstacle? The idea, hey, in terms of the fundamentals, there's still harmony. Yeah, I mean, I think so I definitely want to limit the argument to those persons who already believe in at least some general monotheism, some kind of You know, uh, triomni God.

God is all-knowing, he's all-powerful, he's morally perfect. Um the the kind of issue I'm talking about in this in this argument uh focuses Simply on those persons. And of course, those persons disagree on many things, and you find, you know, these Christian Muslims. Um and then also just, you know, monotheist of of Another Stripe. Um I think and so I agree that there at base, there is some base commonality between all of them.

But I don't think that that's enough. I don't think that merely the fact that the two. Twin brothers, I discussed earlier in my analogy. I don't think that the mere fact that they both agree they have a parent. I is a sufficient response to why their parent is intervening in correcting their the disagreements they have because those disagreements introduce both tensions between their children and their parents and between the children themselves.

Um So I I agree that there's a commonality there, but I don't know that that's uh I mean proper response to government. And Randall, what would you say specifically to the twin brother analogy that's being used? Do you find any fault with that as a working analogy?

Well, it yes, it it depends how one is using it. I mean, if it would work from a Christian perspective, it would work more readily if we're talking about Christian disagreement, where there's a common assumption that these are people in some degree of relationship with God.

Now it would get more complicated if you were to say, well, Christian and the Muslim or some other person outside of the Christian tradition Is in that same kind of salvific relationship with God like a parent to child, because then you're, of course, for a Christian perspective, that's a different issue. But I would just say that. Here again, I do think that there are ways that a parent would step back and allow two children that have a disagreement about what the parent has asked. have to work it out for themselves. And a parent could see value in not being overbearing, in not always telling their children everything directly, but allowing the children to work out disagreements among themselves.

There are goods to be found in that process. And I think likewise, God doesn't always force himself on us in terms of knowledge. precisely so that we can develop those virtues.

So it doesn't surprise me that we have that degree of disagreement. All right, Justin, 30 seconds, you get the last word in on this. Yeah, I think so. S Randall's talking about the issue of how the parent has good reasons. where he talks about how allowing this disagreement has goods in and of itself.

And I think that's probably true for many trivial things, like allowing kids to Fix the disagreement they have about who can play the video game next. But when it comes to core issues of the relationship between the parent and child, I think that's a quite a different story. Got it. All right. I'm speaking with Justin Schieber and Randall Rauser.

They have co-authored a book, An Atheist and a Christian Walking to a Bar. Talking about God, the universe, and everything. The book is conducted in the same ironic spirit that you're hearing now. And whatever your beliefs or non-beliefs are, I think you'll find it a fascinating read. We will be right back with our guests.

By the way, on my digital library, we've got three new videos for you. Dr. Brown responds to MTV's 2017 resolutions for white men. Yep. Why can't I marry my robot?

Oh, this is serious. The rise of robose. And our guest, Alex McFarlane, who's guest hosted for us, talking about why apologetics, all in the digital library at thelineoffire.org. Age the world O God of burning, cleansing from the world. play.

Send the fire. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Hey folks, I also posted two new articles today. Check out thelineoffire.org to read them. And one more new video on the digital library at thelineoffire.org. My comments on surreal being named Word of the Year. I'm speaking with Randall Rauser and Justin Schieber, co-authors of the book, An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar talking about God, the universe, and everything.

Randall, if you were presenting your number one strongest argument, obviously there are many you'd present, but when you put at the top of the list as far as argument for a theistic belief that you'd want to present to an atheist or an agnostic, where would you start? Yes, that is a great question. I think for me, arguments in the area of morality are personally, existentially, the most moving. Because I think it's when we come to Issues of moral value, issues of moral obligation, or what I ought to do, and issues of moral knowledge, like how we even come to have. correct true moral beliefs.

I think we are coming in. contact with something that is transcendent, that we recognize stands above and beyond us. that is not just explained by matter in motion.

So I find for many people, they find arguments in the area of morality most compelling.

Now in the book, I kind of focus on what I would say an argument from moral knowledge. and an argument from moral obligation or how we ought to live.

So I'd just maybe start with just say that something about the moral knowledge issue. For an atheist like Justin, he believes that human beings evolved randomly, not through truth-directed processes in terms of naturalistic evolution, but rather we evolved simply to survive.

Now if that's true, I think it's a huge question how we would ever come to have correct moral knowledge. We would have adaptive beliefs, but why think that they are likely to be true in the area of morality? I mean, we look out in the natural world and we find animals. living and acting in all sorts of ways. A black widow spider, she mates with her husband, so to speak, and then she eats him.

Why isn't that a moral behavior for human beings? Why should we trust our moral knowledge if it isn't because we were given this moral knowledge as part of the Cognitive apparatus from a good God who wants us to gain that knowledge.

So, the fact that we can even talk about right or wrong, or good or bad. presupposes some types of universal Moral Code and not just the survival of the fittest. Would that be a fair restatement? That's a fair restatement. I would just add a caveat that there are atheists who believe there is such a thing as objective.

moral value out there.

So there are atheists who concede that So what I've done is I've focused the argument on moral knowledge. How would we ever have knowledge of that which is transcendentally good and evil? And also I'd say something another time about obligation. Why would we be obligated to live in accord with that which is of morally good and not with moral evil. Yeah.

All right. Justin, your response, sir. Yeah, so I mean, this is a a classic problem here. How you know, if if you're an atheist who believes purely in you know, matter and motion and nothing else. And how do we explain these?

these moral obligations, these moral reasons that we have. Um And there are a number of reviews on this. Moreover, not every atheist is going to adopt an ontology that is so limited to nearly matter in motion. There are many atheists who hold that there are moral values that kind of supervene on particular states of affairs. and that we can recognize these through the cognate faculties that we do have.

And when it comes to given that you know evolution is is adaptive uh censored ledgers and truth censored Well, we have a piece of relevant background knowledge here that is We've been living for quite a long time in varied circumstances. And so given that, it's very unlikely that we would Survive in such a circumstance had our cognitive faculties not at least been generally reliable. And I think that that's. true in the general sense and it applies also to the moral sense. And just to be clear, do you believe that evolution was an unguided process.

It just basically happened. Um well, I believe evolution in the the typical trends where you have you know, you have a random aspect, but then you also have selective pressures. Um not completely random, but it has actual selective pressures toward certain Yeah. Yeah. Uh perhaps that could be Got it.

All right. So Randall, what do you find lacking in Justin's response?

Well, yes.

So he's he said that His belief is that evolution would provide reliable cognitive faculties. Correct, but the question is: reliable for what? They would be reliable for adaptation, they would be reliable to pass on our genes. but what reason does he have to think that they would be reliable for grasping true moral knowledge. why would he think they'd be reliable for knowing what the good is, what object of moral value is, what object of moral evil is?

And I didn't see hear anything in his response just now that would give him confidence that evolution could furnish him with that kind of knowledge. All right, Justin. Yeah, well I think there's um there are a number of different spots.

So On the one hand, if if you are a an atheist who believes that moral values are things that supervene on states of affairs. That's going to be a different story than if you believe that Um moral knowledge is not that much different from everyday knowledge. Maybe moral knowledge has to do with the knowledge of certain kinds of relationships that exist in the natural world. If that's the case, Then those Um those two industries collapse into each other. And it's just a question of, well, just knowledge generally.

Why do we think that it's uh reliably truth-tracking. And I think there are a number of responses to that kind of argument in the literature.

So Again, the piece of background knowledge here is that we have been surviving in varied circumstances and for quite a long time. And it would be incredibly improbable if we were able to do that while also having very unreliable Um cognitive faculties. I just don't see that um there's a case to be made here that our there are cognitive factors that are unreliable in this sense. I just don't think that there's a good argument there. Right.

So Randall, just back to you, you get the last word in in on this. But you're obviously not hearing an answer about morality when you hear the word cognitive faculty.

So maybe you could explain that in giving your closing thoughts.

Well, I think that when it comes to our moral knowledge, Uh we begin with certain intuitive judgments, and those intuitive judgments about right and wrong form the basis for our moral discourse. And what I simply haven't heard in Justin's responses is any concrete rebuttal that would give one confidence that our cognitive faculties that are based on these fundamental intuitions of right and wrong That they are reliable not simply for surviving and passing on our genes, but also reliable for gaining truth. for gaining moral knowledge about what is in fact right and wrong.

So I think at most he has given us a sort of pragmatic argument that our moral faculties help us to survive, but I haven't heard anything beyond that. And theism certainly gives you that because God would want us to have that moral knowledge.

So I definitely think this is an argument in favor of theism. If you want to have moral knowledge, then you should be a theist. Got it. Alright, the debate continues the book. By Randall Rauser and Justin Schieber, an atheist and Christian walking to a bar talking about God, the universe, and everything.

It's the line of fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker, and theologian Dr. Michael Brown.

Your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34TRUT. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

I'm speaking with Justin Sheber and Randall Rauser, co-authors of the book An Atheist and a Christian, Walking to a Bar talking about God, the universe, and everything. We've been asking them to present key arguments one to another and respond. I just want to clarify one thing and have both Justin and Randall weigh in. Starting with you, Justin. How do we get from an evolutionary process?

of the survival of the fittest, which we still see in the world of nature. and then come to the human race. where we have values like altruism and self-sacrifice and would universally brand the Nazis as wrong, even though they were right in their own eyes. What's in your mind the natural process that gets us from survival of the fittest to embracing these high moral values?

Well, I think that's absolute. Be a question of a number of different things.

So, you know, how one views morality, right? There's going to be a number of different views on. of you know, I'm an atheist, but there are other atheists that disagree with me on a lot of these things.

So Um when it comes down to how we come to have these moral judgments, there are people who view moral judgments as different things. I'm I kind of teeter between two different views, one that says that these are that these moral values supervene on certain states of affairs and that we can Um we can and our cognitive faculties also are aware of these in the sense that we intuit them. Um And there are other stories to be told as well by other thinkers. And Um I think that there are a number of plausible ones and there are some that are not so plausible. But I I don't think that this is a This is a a debt issue.

And do you believe that there's Uh such a thing as absolute morality, absolute rights and wrongs that are that are universally true. I'm not entirely sure what what absolute means in this sense. That it would it would always under all uh circumstances be wrong for Someone to murder another human being in cold blood, that it would always, under all circumstances, be wrong for someone to steal something that didn't belong to them.

Well, I think that there are Well, let me put it this way. Would you say the same thing about Jean Valjean in the beginning of Lightmits? Right.

He stole a piece of bread for his family. Um There are some circumstances that there are gray areas to these kinds of questions.

So I don't want to make an absolute claim like that, because I think that there needs to be some compassion that kind of that needs to find its way into our moral judgments in that way. All right, so it murder might be justified in certain circumstances.

Well, murder is by definition wrong. That's just what murder means. Oh, okay, got it. All right, and and Randall, just Turn the tables coming back to you on a different angle. Uh if Christians and Muslims say both believe that God has revealed himself in a definite way.

And our holy books, and there are mutual contradictions in those, wouldn't that at least invalidate the truth claims of one, if not both, of those groups?

So certainly.

So you I believe religious doctrines are not simply subjective opinions, like I like ice cream and another person I don't, and they can both be correct. We're talking about God. We're talking about the nature of God. We're talking about how he relates to human beings, how he proposes to address our condition so that we can be reconciled to him. And if two different individuals make incompatible claims about the nature of God or how we relate to him, then at least one of them has to be wrong.

So I don't think that we do ourselves any favors when in the name of religious dialogue, we sort of pretend we all kind of agree on issues that we fundamentally disagree on. Got it. All right, friends, we're going to dive in deeper when we come back with Justin Schieber and Randall Rauser. Stay tuned right here, their book, An Atheist and a Christian, walking to a bar talking about God, the universe, and everything. Around the new time, shake the new sign, change the world, change the world.

It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown.

Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34 Truth. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Thank you for joining us on the line of fire. I was sent a complimentary copy of the book, An Atheist and a Christian, Walking to a Bar Talking About God, the Universe, and Everything by Randall Rauser and Justin Schiebert. Randall's been on with me in the past, and I say, Hey, guys, would you come on and carry on your friendly debate dialogue right here on the radio?

So, we want to continue in our discussion now with Justin and Randall. Justin, what in your mind is one of the greatest weaknesses? of the theistic argument or one of the the greatest issues that That Prompts you not to believe in the God of the Bible, the God of Christianity, but rather to say you don't believe there is any God. Sure.

So I think there's a distinction that Randall and I make in the book between full blown Christian theism and then the theism that we discuss more in the book. which is not a classical vehicle. I think the the problem with uh Christian theism Uh both are going to be I think The main problem with Christian theism is going to be a substantively different question from the main problem with classical theism. The main problem with Christian theism, I would say, is that it entails so many Um details. that it becomes a hypothesis that's rather loaded and complex.

And it doesn't really gain much by way of explanatory power to justify the complexity.

So I think that that's a real kind of uh problem for Christianity uh with with that's about theism. I think that Uh you have probably a cross up between issues related to suffering Um and issues related to uh belief as in hiddenness or I think that those are probably Orders. that are strongest carriers against Oh, general user. All right. Randall, your response.

Well, so on the Christian theism point that Justin said, he says that. Christian theism, I guess in terms of doctrine, adds a lot that is really unnecessary as a hypothesis to explain the world or reality. And I guess my response would be twofold. The first part would be, that it's somewhat mistaken to think of the way Christians hold beliefs about God as a hypothesis, as if there's some data and we're trying to explain that data with this hypothesis. Rather, Christian belief, I think, is born out of an experience of God Individually and in community through his spirit, through his resurrected son.

And it's through that kind of knowledge of acquaintance. That experiential knowledge shared in the Christian community that we come to acquire these beliefs. It's not like a scientific hypothesis.

Now in terms of a second part I'd want to add to that is I think if you do invest the time in understanding why Christians have come to believe the things about God that they do, then you will in fact find a response to Justin's question. There is a reason why Christians have come to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, historical as well as experiential. There is a reason why they've come to believe God is a Trinity. You can go on down through the list, and if you invest the time, you can understand why Christians have come historically to hold these beliefs about God. Uh where does that break down for you, Justin?

Well, I think I mean, I've looked into a lot of those issues. pretty underwhelmed by the historical case. But when it comes to the prior concern about the details of the so called Christian hypothesis, I think that it's perfectly fine to talk about the way in which Christians hold their beliefs, but I think it's a separate question from whether it's actually true. And I think that when deciding whether or not one particular Yeah. Um is true Mm-hmm.

important to treat it as a hypothesis and to see whether it has explanatory power. whether or not it's relatively simple or it's an incredibly complex hypothesis. the details of which don't do much by way of explanatory power. I think that these are When judging explanations, generally we need to take all these different things into consideration. Don't think Randall, what about the historical argument that Justin said he was underwhelmed by?

not impressed by. Why do you find that a strong argument in terms of the historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus? Yes, that's a great question. Of course, we don't really talk about those issues in the book, but I'd be happy to say something about it here.

So just to give an example, in there's this popular idea among atheists that belief in the resurrection of Jesus rose a long time after the purported events themselves, and that's simply not true. If you go to a letter like 1 Corinthians, 1 Corinthians as a letter was written about 20 years after the death of Jesus. And in 1 Corinthians 15, verses 3 to 5. Paul quotes from A teaching that he had earlier given to the Corinthians when he was there a couple years before, which he had himself received. He says, What I received, I passed on to you as a first importance.

And then he goes on to describe Jesus as having died for our sins and having been raised and then seen by Peter and James and the other apostles, and last of all, to Paul himself.

Now that is information he is recounting that he received arguably within a few years of the events, So we're talking into the thirties. In the area around Jerusalem.

So the historian has to ask a question. Where did this belief that Jesus had not only died but then been raised again? Where did that originate from? And I think that the best historical explanation is that he was in fact raised. And Justin, why don't you just respond to that briefly as well?

Sure, sure. I actually don't disagree with Randall on the early attestation of these things. I think that is true that we have relatively early sources Christianity is unique in that sense. It does have relatively early sources. And that said I think that's that the question cannot be answered by that merely alone.

So there are a number of other factors that play into this. Um do this comes from a time and place in which there were many Um people, uh Jewish prophets. And you also have Jesus claiming about the end of the world coming soon. And we know that that that was not true. When it comes to his resurrection though, I think that Mm-hmm.

that these kinds of um beliefs that arise. I think that this is not at all uncommon to From these beliefs. Um through Um to events that have not that are not actually accurate of them.

So when you have beliefs forming about the resurrection, I think that those can be explained in other ways that do not need to appeal to supernatural causation.

So I mean, it's a it's a complex debate, but uh I just No. briefly touching on it, I just don't find it compelling. All right, and Randall, what what about um The chief, any point that Justin made that you feel is the strongest to respond to in our limited time, back to you and then we'll shift our discussion again.

Well, he said that there are many different miracle claims in the ancient world, and I would just say certainly there are. That's why you have to look at the evidence for them. And I do think the evidence for the resurrection is unique in the ancient world, not only the earlier belief in the resurrection of Jesus, but also in the empty tomb. You also have these empty tomb reports.

So you've got to explain not only the belief that Jesus was raised, but also the fact that the tomb was found empty. And I just don't think there is a good hypothesis apart from the resurrection itself to explain all that data. All right, let's just shift here for a moment and ask a larger question. Then I want to come back and discuss some origin issues about theism. If there is no God, how do we get where we are today in our last segment?

But I want to press on both sides here to first Justin, then Randall. Justin, do you see? Among Some or many atheists and arrogance towards people of faith as if they are ignorant and weak. And Randall, do you find a negative stereotyping of atheists among Christians as if atheists are intrinsically Evil and hostile towards God.

So, Justin, first to you. Yeah, so um you know the You know, you're asking whether or not there is a belief about, you know, among atheists as to Christianity being. Um Weak or I forget the other word, do you use that? Ignorant. I don't.

I don't know that that's the case. I think that perhaps there's a view that they're less Um they're less willing to explore certain things because they have a religion which You know. that has an obligation to hold every thought captive to Christ. I think there's an aspect of free thinking that really revolts against such an idea. All right, and Randall, do you find that negative stereotyping among Christians towards atheists.

Yes, I think I find a fair degree of stereotyping on both sides. As a Christian, I often Face the sting of some atheists who are very dismissive, who do treat all Christians as if they're kind of soft in the head. And I think sometimes you get it on the other side with Christians, where there's sort of a suspicion of atheists, the belief that the only reason that they're They're an atheist is because they're hostile to the word God, because they really don't want to acknowledge the God. who is is has presented himself to them. And so they just want to sin and live in the way they want.

And I think if you go out and talk to atheists, you'll quickly find that there are many, many people who just don't fit that stereotype. These are deeply thoughtful people who really struggle. And in many cases, they actually want to believe. And they've felt a great degree of loss that they can't be a part of the Christian or theistic community and believe in God.

So I think we just need to be very careful on both sides about stereotyping and instead just get out and talk to people like we're doing right now. Got it. And that you'll find throughout the book. An atheist and a Christian walk into a bar talking about God, the universe, and everything. Render Rauser and Justin Schieber.

Let's just. touch on the question of origins when we come back. Angel World. Give us strict to always do what's right. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr.

Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Thanks for joining us today in this friendly dialogue between atheist Justin Schieber and Christian professor Randall Rauser, co-authors of An Atheist and a Christian, Walking to a Bar talking about God, the universe, and everything. Randall, in short, What's the theistic argument in terms of origins? And in terms of the need for a first cause that brings everything else into existence. Go over the first. First cause argument.

Um so There's different what we call cosmological arguments, which is the arguments from the cosmos to God.

Now we have to look at, first of all, the universe is contingent, and that just means that it might not have existed. And when you have something that might not have existed, You have to ask the re you have to ask the question, well then why does it exist?

So we have to ask the reasonable question, why does the universe exist?

Now there are many different Types of cosmological argument that reason from the existence of a contingent universe to God. And I think the one that I like best is argument from sufficient reason.

So it just says uh that for every for every contingent thing, you need to have a sufficient reason to explain why it exists. And then we have to appreciate how God functions as an explanation. See, the atheist is often going to say, well, what caused God? But what we have to understand is that God is by definition a necessary being, a necessary agent.

So if we're going to explain a contingent thing, you have to have a necessary thing to explain it. And that's why God is the doorstop. cosmologically, metaphysically speaking, he explains the universe, and you don't have to then ask, well then what explained God?

Alright, Justin, your response. Yeah, I just I just don't see the need to put God at the beginning in that way. Um So I think that first of all, when it comes to the universe, there's a point at which you know, we go back far into far into the past, there's a point at which our kind of Ability to explain the universe kind of falls away. Where I The sites of science only go back so far, right? And we get the rapid expansion from there on.

We just don't know what's before that. And I have a a kind of a knee jerk reaction of putting God in an area where we just don't have good answers right now. Maybe maybe there is a God there, maybe there's not, but I'd really like to not be premature in our answer. All right, so does it on a rational level uh trouble you that you go back to the beginning and And there's lack of clarity. In other words, for theists, yes, God is the necessary.

first cause because something had to start everything and we don't believe matter was eternal or the universe is eternal. Does that trouble you at all? Because you're wanting to be rational, you're wanting to be logical. You wanted to be able to put things in a coherent order. And yet, if we back, you know, we're talking about the origin of life or other origin issues, there seem to be these question marks.

Does that trouble you at all? Well, no, I think that well, I mean, only in the sense that uncertainty about anything would trouble someone. I think that it's it would be cool to know all the answers, but at the end of the day, we have to admit humility when it comes to the reach of our sciences. And to recognize that and rather than put in place of that an explanation prematurely, we just have to just admit that sometimes we don't know. And I think that's what's the healthy Um respectable answer to that kind of question.

All right. And and Randall, obviously we all have to come with humility as theists, atheists or anything, because there are going to be questions that come up that we don't have absolute simple answers for. But do you find there to be a logical incoherence in the atheist response to the origins of the universe or the origins of life?

Well, so I don't know if I would necessarily say it's an incoherence, but I would say it's not intellectually satisfying to me.

So I think often atheists will kind of prod or poke the Christian by saying, you're just invoking God as an explanation, you just want to say God did it, and that's an end to inquiry. But what I sometimes find is that Atheists are unwilling to take the next step of ask, but what would explain the universe?

Now Justin, his explanation, what he what he talked about is Science, in terms of science going back and trying to understand the beginning of the cosmos. But the argument that I invoked is not an argument appealing to a gap in scientific knowledge. It's an argument from the metaphysical contingency of the universe.

Now science is not going to explain by definition, science cannot explain metaphysically what that the universe is somehow necessary.

So this is an argument that transcends science, and no scientific investigation is going to close that gap. And I just find it intellectually unsatisfying to say that we're not going to ask the question what brought about the contingent universe.

So, Justin, is there anything in your own position? In terms of certainty, what happens after you die, purpose, meaning of life. Anything where you feel if you knew the God of the Bible that any of this would change? Again, I'm not asking you the depth of your private life, are you aching or something? But could you see how there could be perhaps a greater sense of destiny?

purpose with a connection to a Creator God, or does that just not seem relevant to you? No, I mean, I certainly I certainly would agree that if it were the case that I became a believer tomorrow, that there would be a real sense in which I have a connection with the creator that I don't currently believe exists. Um That's certainly true. I recognize that I would view the world in a radically different way. Um And I say this in the book that when it comes to classical theism, at least when it comes to just general minor theism.

Uh I would prefer that to be true. Um it's just the case that I don't find it uh to be true. In my judgment, the evidence I have available to me, the way I've assessed it, is that this is just not the case, but it would be pretty cool if it was. Um as for Christian theism, there's doctrinal issues that I find morally Some troublesome and I I there's no preference in me that wishes for Christian the using the future. But classical theism.

What do they call? Got it. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you for your candor there.

And of course, that's expressed through the book. And, Randall, just in the last minute. Do do you think that an atheist could have a sense of purpose and destiny, in this world the same way a Christian would That's a huge question. I would say that I think They can, but I think that the question is philosophically: what is the most satisfactory explanation for that purpose?

So you'll find atheists committing themselves to great, noble, charitable causes. having a sense of moral obligation and moral purpose. And my question is, what Account of the universe, account of reality best explains that, and I think it's theism and ultimately Christian theism. Got it. All right, friends.

Obviously, some of you are listening and wanting to join in in different ways. Read the book, An Atheist and a Christian, Walking to a Bar talking about God, the universe, and everything. I think it'll help you in terms of recognizing perhaps blind spots you might have on one side or the other, or perhaps. Prejudged sentiments towards one another. You can learn by the irenic approach.

And for those of you, of course, that don't go to bars, have your discussion somewhere else. But, gentlemen, thanks for carrying on the discussion here. I hope you both felt treated fairly, and hope you get a few more readers of your book. It's been a pleasure. Thank you, doctor Brown.

All right. Thank you, gentlemen, Justin Scheber and Randall Rauser. I appreciate you guys joining me today. All right, friends, remember to go to thelineofire.org. What is it?

Just two, three days left. All of our digital downloads, 40% off.

So take advantage of them. There's some great debates there, too, I think you'll really benefit from.

So check those out on thelineofire.org. My bottom line. Oh, I absolutely believe in the creator of the universe revealing himself to us, and it's an incredible joy to know him.

Well, we pray for a great awakening, but what in the world would a great awakening look like in America? Um It's time for the line of fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker, and theologian, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Michael Brown is the director of the Coalition of Conscience and president of Fire School of Ministry. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH.

That's 866-34TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Many years ago, when I was teaching at a ministry school in Maryland, I gave an assignment about revival. There was a school that specialized in training people for Jewish ministry.

So we had Messianic Jewish leaders and leaders in the making in the school, but it was also for the community of believers in our region. And we had classes, general Bible classes and spiritual life classes. We had a class on revival. And I asked the students to write a paper on revival. They had to research a certain aspect of revival and write a paper on it.

And I remember one in particular. You are listening to the Line of Fire. This is Michael Brown, and I am delighted to be with you. We're going to talk about revival and awakening, and I am going to comment briefly on the Jared Kerry speech about Israel. But This one brother wrote his paper.

He was a Messianic Jewish rabbi or Messianic Jewish pastor, depending on terminology that you use. He had a congregation not far from the Orthodox area of Baltimore, Maryland. And He wrote his paper on revival coming to that area. In other words, it was a novel. It was fiction.

but based on his study of revival in the past, based on his reading about revival movements in Scripture and in history, he then painted a picture of what it would look like in his community. What it would look like in his Orthodox Jewish community if the Holy Spirit fell dramatically and Yeshua started to reveal himself in dreams and visions, and backsliders came under deep conviction and got right with God, and secular Jews encountered the God of Israel and the Messiah of Israel. And I remember reading it and getting stirred. If I'm correct, I broke down crying reading it, if I remember that correctly, because it was so real I could see it. It was so real I could taste it.

It was so real. What he was describing was so in line with what God has done in so many other settings that it stirred my heart. And I believe we will see that day come with the lost sheep of the house of Israel. What would revival and awakening look like? in America today.

I have a new article posted, Five Ways to Move from a Great Shaking in 2016 to a Great Awakening in 2017. I laid out those five reasons on the air yesterday. But in this article, I also talk about What revival has looked like in the past in America? Just very briefly, you can read that at thelionoffire.org. I mentioned the First Great Awakening, which took place in the American colonies between 1730 and 1745.

Remember, the colonies had been very religious. They were somewhat theocratic. They had Christian origins and foundations and Christian regulations for the people in the colonies. And the main differences were between different denominations that were over the particular colonies. But they were very much Christian-based.

And yet still human nature being what it is, there was backsliding, there was falling away. And before the awakening, young people caroused and partied all night. Women were afraid to walk the streets at night. In the height of the revival, Even Benjamin Franklin, who was not a Christian, could say that quote, it seemed as if all the world were growing religious.

so that one could not walk through the town in the evening. without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street. Wow, Benjamin Franklin. What would revival look like? Today.

Can you even imagine it? It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

One of the beauties of live talk radio is that you can shift things on a dime as events dictate that. And that's the case right now with Secretary of State John Kerry delivering a speech which is meant to be a policy speech and meant to be a speech justifying the UN resolution and rebuking the Israeli IR Against America and the resolution, and saying, hey, America's never had a better friend than the Obama administration. I want to take a few minutes to comment on that. I spent the first hour of the broadcast yesterday talking about the heinous nature of the resolution, the shameful actions of our president and administration. And I do want to comment now because of the Kerry speech.

If you've got a question, we'll take your calls at 866-34TRUTH-866-348-7884. Four. All right. We will take your calls there. And then I will get back to the subject of revival and revival.

Awakening.

So Uh first There are claims from Prime Minister Netanyahu himself. that not only Did the Obama administration abstain from the UN security Vote on Friday condemning the Israeli settlements as a major obstacle to international peace and Effectively declaring East Jerusalem occupied territory. Again, that's where many of the holiest sites of Judaism are, including the Western Wall.

So uh it Mm-hmm. Prime Minister Netanyahu forthrightly said that the Obama administration was actually complicit in the resolution. which the Obama administration has flatly denied.

So one is There's a couple of options. Either Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is grossly misinformed. or he completely fabricated the saying. Or Uh uh America is lying about it. All right.

And the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, on several broadcasts said plainly, we have the evidence. It's not a debate. We have it when the Prime Minister says it forthrightly, you know it's true. And this would make the whole thing even uglier. And he said, we'll give the information at the appropriate time to the incoming administration.

If they want to release it to the public, that's their business.

So he's not going to reveal the sources now. But when you hear the Prime Minister say it that directly, you think, okay, there must be something to it. And I played a clip on the air yesterday from October 27th. Where there's a gentleman discussing this issue, and he says that there are several different things the Obama administration is talking about or could do before it goes out of office. This is before the election of President-elect Trump.

And one of the things was this very resolution. I I I mean o Almost to the letter, in terms of what was discussed, and yeah, this is something that's on the table that we think is one of the things they might do. And now America is saying, no, we have nothing to do with this, nothing at all.

So just on the surface of it I I deeply doubt The denials. from our administration. And I trust that we were actually complicit. in this.

So Jerusalem Post has this report today. Prior to the UN Security Council vote on anti-Israeli settlement resolution 2334. U. S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with the Palestinian dele delegation in early December in Washington.

to discuss the draft agreeing to cooperate according to transcripts released by Egyptian daily Al Yaum al-Saba. According to the report, Kerry, along with U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice, met with Secretary General of the PLO Executive Committee Sayeb Erkot and Majid Faraj, head of the Palestinian Authority's General Intelligence Service. The reported transcripts reflect statements by numerous Israeli officials claiming that the resolution was orchestrated by the Obama administration. The source of the leaked transcripts was not named.

So they're saying we we actually have the transcripts. Because Israeli Security is such that they've got lots of things bugged, and they've. I remember when. uh former president of Syria Hafez Assad, Bashar Assad's father, was at some major meeting of Arab leaders and the Arab uh the Israeli intelligence said he has cancer. How did they know he had cancer?

Well, urine sample. How did they get a urine sample?

Well, they they actually had uh a way to get urine samples from men going into the urinal. and know whose it was. There is Israeli intelligence had bugged the very office of the last president of Egypt. And just the cleaning crew came in there and put bugs in there. This is what I've read and understand.

Yeah, so I Trust me, different nations are doing what they can to find out what they can.

Okay. I'm sure America's done a whole lot of things to get their information as well.

So they claim now that they have actual transcripts.

Now, maybe it wasn't Israeli intelligence who got it. Maybe it was entirely Egyptians saying, hey, we recorded everything, we've got the transcripts, and someone leaked them. Um So the United States Is denying this. United States State Department has denied claims that the U.S. was involved.

And Saeb Erikot from Palestinian Authority has denied the claims written in the documents. But according to David Keyes, spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, we have ironclad information. That emanates from sources in the Arab world, and that shows the Obama administration helped craft this resolution and pushed hard for its eventual passage. All right. So I I Take this as damning evidence.

Damning evidence. Against our administration and saying yes, that's why Israel has been so forthright. They know for a fact that America worked with the Palestinians on crafting the resolution. If true, All the more. Shame on us.

Joel Pollack. Himself is an Orthodox Jew, I believe. Writes on brightbart.com, carry attacks, Israeli government defends, UN resolution. He says that Kerry delivered his remarks in the midst of a diplomatic fight with Israel. Kerry began by reassuring President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel and its security.

He then declared the two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. And he resisted the idea that support for Israel meant accepting any Israeli policy.

Well, we understand. Israelis understand. I'm not an Israeli, but speaking for the people of Israel, we understand. That The United States has differed with us over settlements for decades. We understand that.

We also understand, as Prime Minister Netanyahu, who said, you don't take your friends to the Security Council. And then pass this bill that now, as Israeli leaders have said, or pass this resolution that basically gives Israel no negotiating power at all. Because Israel does have the territories, right? It does have Judea-Samaria, so-called West Bank, under its control. And here, if you're making a deal with Palestinians for a two-state solution, well, that would be part of it.

But but no, that's that's illegally occupied territory. You don't even have that to b to to bargain with. Um And there there are very, very strong arguments that have been raised. Carolyn Glick in her book on the one-state solution really demolishes in the introduction to her book any notion that a two-state solution would work. Nonetheless, that has been what has been pursued by the American administration.

President Bush actively pursued it, President Clinton before him, and of course President Obama. They've all said that's the only way. And Israeli prime ministers basically said, okay, then that's what we'll do. That's what we have to do. But others have said it can't possibly work.

And there's another way, a one-state solution. Say, what's that?

Well, that Palestinians and Israelis are all part of one big family and everybody votes and the leaders get voted in accordingly. And as long as there's a Jewish majority, it continues to be a Jewish state. You say, well, what's the national anthem going to be? Oh, yeah, there's a million problems with that, too. I don't think there's any easy answer.

But here's the big thing. Here's the big thing. Uh John Kerry, Secretary of State Kerry. said that Israel can be Jewish. or democratic, but it cannot be both.

Israel can either be Jewish or it can be democratic, but it cannot be both. That is a direct quote. Wow. That that's extraordinary. That is.

Extraordinary. When Secretary of State Kerry said that the Obama administration has been Israel's greatest friend and supporter. He said, no American administration has done more for Israel's security than Barack Obama. Time and again, we have demonstrated that we have Israel's back. Responded to a similar claim earlier in the week.

A Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz. who's a supporter of President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also critic of the Israeli settlements, he said, yeah, having our back he said, I didn't realize what Obama meant is that he would have their back to stab them in the back, and he just stabbed them in the back. Prime Minister Netanyahu has already issued a statement completely rebuking the Kerry speech and said, once again, all the focus on settlements, settlements, settlements, settlements. That is not the issue. That is not the obstacle.

And I believe that Secretary of State Kerry does believe he does care. And he talked about his many visits to Israel. He talked about going to the Holocaust Memorial, Yad Vashem. He said it sensitized him to the security concerns of ordinary realities. He said that, quote, the fundamental reality is that Israel can either be Jewish or it can be democratic.

It cannot be both. Wow. We'll be right back. We're going to switch topics, focus on revival. Yeah.

It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown.

Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34 TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Thanks so much for joining us on the line of fire 866-348. 7884. Big question. Do you believe? That America's best days could be ahead, spiritually, morally.

Or do you believe they're definitely behind and we are on uh an irreversible moral spiritual decline. Do you believe that the scriptures indicate that we are in the last days and that the last days will get worse and worse and therefore there's no reason to pray for revival or awakening? Or Or Do you believe? That there are many great promises in the Word of God, that the Holy Spirit is promised to be poured out upon all flesh. In the last days, And that as long as we have breath and life, we ask God for revival.

Do you believe that there could be another great awakening that comes to America, or is it too late for our nation? Is it like a cancer patient, the cancer spread through the body and the doctor says, yeah, we could give you another round of chemo and give you another two months of life, but you're not going to live beyond that? Is that the state of America because of what we've sown, because of the destructive seeds? That it's inevitable, that it's only going in one direction, or Is it possible? That there could be another great awakening, perhaps the greatest awakening yet, and that we should be fervently praying for that.

866-348-7884. All right. Before I get to your calls, let me paint a picture for you. Let me paint a picture for you from the 1800s in America. Revival scholar James Edwin Moore, in my mind, was the greatest revival scholar of the last generation.

He spoke about The state of America before the 1857, 1858 prayer revival. In his descriptions, not a direct quote, but a summary: churches were becoming worldly and internalized. and immorality violent crime spiritualism, corruption, and atheism Run the rice. Does that sound familiar? Been there, done that, maybe?

Maybe recently? Listen to his description. Before the prayer revival of 1857, 1858, the churches were becoming worldly. and internalized. And immorality violent crime Spiritualism corruption And atheism We're on the rise.

Well, what happened? There was a retired businessman, Jeremiah Lamphere. who was now devoted to preaching the gospel. he got the idea of starting a noon prayer meeting, And gathered a number of people to start, about a handful, literally, a handful of people. handful or two of people.

Less than ten, I believe. And at noon they went to a building and began to pray. And this prayer movement. Began to spread. He had been handing out tracts on street corners of New York City and things like that, and the prayer movement began to spread.

And it it spread to the point that across America at noon and then at other times of the day. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Americans were stopping to pray and seek the face of God. There were major stores, department stores. That at lunchtime shut down for prayer meetings in. America.

It also happened with a great outpouring about 50 years later, especially on the west coast. But this prayer awakening just spread through America. And what was unique about it is, even though you had men like Charles Finney who were preaching at that time, even though it gave birth to the ministry of D. L. Moody.

And and over in England, William Booth. Even though these things were fruits of the revival. It was not sparked by a particular leader. The way the Great Awakening was specially sparked by George Whitfield's preaching and Jonathan Edwards' ministry in the 1730s and 40s in America. No, this was something that happened, in a sense, even more spontaneously without clear leadership.

Except for the leadership of the Holy Spirit. And in New York City, one journalist just went to cover every prayer meeting he could. He went, whatever, horse and buggy.

Okay, here, count to the people here, here, count on the people here, or here, count the people, just to try to get it in during that one hour, that noon prayer time. There's thousands of people praying throughout the city. Boom, it happened. And Orr paints a picture of what it looked like. I hope you can grasp this.

It was one of our northern states. There was a gathering for prayer at noon. and there was a local minister who was leading it. And said, before we begin to pray, we want to share some prayer requests that have been given to us. And he said, We have a sister who says, Please pray for my husband.

He's an ungodly man. He's hostile to the gospel. He's hostile to my faith. He has a stone heart. Pray that he will repent and be saved.

and before he can go on to the next prayer request a man stands up. This is at noontime prayer. What's he even doing there? He stands up and says, I'm the man. I'm the man.

What? What are you doing there at a prayer meeting if you're hostile to the gospel, unsaved with a hard heart? Before he can sit down, another man stands up and says no. I'm the man. Before he can sit down, another man stands up and says, No, no, I'm the man.

Nine different men stood up. and said, I'm the man. What were they doing at a prayer meeting in the middle of the day? As unsaved men hostile to their wives' faith. That's what happens in revival.

Friends While we are realists, while we see the massive obstacles in our society today, the deep divisions, the compromise and superficiality in much of the church. The battles that we face with technology that can be so distracting and that can make sin so available. All of that is undeniable. But what is also undeniable is that revival can turn hearts dramatically. Revival can turn hearts in such a way that 1857, 1858 prayer revival, it's estimated there were 1 million new converts into the church and 1 million dead church believers who came alive.

And the revival then skipped over the Atlantic, brought over there by people touched by God, and now it's spread over there, or reports spread it over there. And the same Holy Spirit working dramatically in England and parts of Ireland, it was dramatic. Scotland, Wales, different parts of the world were touched through this. And Mary Stewart Ralph, in her book, The Cure of All Ills, said this. The revival of eighteen fifty seven.

restored integrity to government and business in America once again. There was renewed obedience to the social commandments, An intense sympathy was created for the poor and needy. A compassionate society was rebirthed, the The reigns of America will return to the ungodly, to the godly, excuse me, yet another time. Revival became the solution to the problems, the remedy for the evils, the cure of all ills. We need revival in America.

today. A sweeping, dramatic, great awakening, a rude awakening, a spiritual visitation. Why not? Is our God not able? It's the line of fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker, and theologian Dr.

Michael Brown.

Your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34 TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Thank you so much for joining us on the line of fire, boy. I am so thrilled to be alive and serving God today. If you have breath, if you have strength, be thankful. It's not over for you. And America still has breath and strength.

I want to proclaim to you, it's not too late for America to turn. It's not too late for a great awakening in our nation. 866-342. Do you have a sense of anticipation in your heart that God's up to something? Do you have a sense of anticipation in your heart that a tide is turning in America?

Do you have a sense of anticipation in your heart that there are seeds or beginnings of awakening? Yeah, there have been reports about outpouring in different parts of the country, in West Virginia, or at a high school in Alabama, or here or there. But is there something going on where you feel it's time to press in? This could really be a time of great awakening and change in America. Remember, revival is only for those that were once alive but are no longer alive.

It's talking about being revived, brought to life again. And awakening is only needed for someone that's sleeping. America is sleeping. The church in America is sleeping. But awakening could be at hand.

Do you sense it? You feel it. Give me a call if you do. Or if you think I'm crazy, if you think there's no way we've passed the point of no return, we've shed too much innocent blood. We've destroyed marriage, family, we've done too much evil, and we're going to reap what we sow, and it's going to be ugly.

Give me a call, 866-34TRUTH. I do want to make a few comments. John Kerry's speech on Israel today. Security Council vote, pinning the blame for the lack of progress in the peace process, squarely pegging it on Israeli settlements as a major, major focus, and saying. Clearly That you cannot have A Jewish state and a democratic state.

It can't be both.

So there is interaction from yesterday. Hanana Shrawi, a Palestinian leader with Don Lemon, asked about recognizing Israel. She said we've recognized Israel in 1993 in the context. He interrupts saying not as a Jewish state. And she said, agreement on the White House law and the Declaration.

Well, it depends. If you want to give religion to states, then this is against our principles. I don't recognize Islamic states. I don't recognize Christian states. I don't recognize Jewish states.

The state is a state for all its citizens. It has to be democratic, inclusive, tolerant. It has to be genuinely representative of all its people. You cannot give added value to any people because of their religion or ethnicity. Would she tell that to the Palestinian Authority?

Would she tell it to Hamas? Would she tell that to Saudi Arabia? How in the world can you be Islamic without it being an Islamic state? In other words, you have Islamic law. That's the whole concept of Islam.

You take over. How how can that be? And if you want a state like that, then why don't you want any Jews living in it? Wow. That's quite a statement.

Would you not agree? And during. John Kerry's speech. Regarding the one-state solution, quote: If Israel goes down the one-state path, they will never have true peace with the rest of the Arab world. I can say that with certainty.

That might be the only way to have peace. Concerning Prime Minister Netanyahu, quote, the Israeli Prime Minister publicly supports a two-state solution, but his current coalition is the most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by its most extreme elements. The result is that the policies of this government, which the Prime Minister himself just described as more committed to settlements than any in Israel's history, are leading in the opposite direction towards one state. And on the U.S. abstaining from the vote on the settler movement, Kerry said, in the end, we could not in good conscience protect the most extreme elements of the settler movement as it tries to destroy the two-state solution.

We could not, in good conscience, turn a blind eye to Palestinian actions that fan hatred and violence. It is not in the U.S. interest to help anyone on either side create a unitary state. Why such opposition to one state if everyone worked for it? On the U.S.

relationship with Israel, friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect. And you don't bring your friends. to the UN Security Council and help craft a resolution that's totally damning to them. Mm-hmm. The U.S.

did not draft or introduce this legislation. Many would say he's lying. Many would say, Curry's wine. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown.

Get into the line of fire now by calling 866-34TRUT. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

All right. From Israel, we refocus on America now, 866-348-7884. Do you have the attitude of it's too late for America? No reason to pray for revival. No reason to pray for awakening.

We've made our bed, we're going to sleep in it. We've sown our seeds to destruction. We're going to reap destruction. It's too late. Plus, we know Jesus is coming any minute, and things are only going to get worse before he returns.

Maybe that's your theology. Maybe that's your belief. And maybe you hold it in great sincerity before the Lord. Can I? put out some gentle challenges to that.

God's mercy is extraordinarily deep. And while I do believe that there are times of shaking at hand for America. and that in many ways we are under divine judgment. and that we are reaping what we've sown, and we will in the future reap what we've sown. I also believe God's mercy is even greater.

It tells us in Jacob, James, the second chapter, that mercy. Triumphs overjudgment. What does that mean? Doesn't it mean that even when we're guilty, but we plead with God for mercy and turn to Him in repentance? that he is merciful and compassionate and slow to anger.

I remember being at a prayer meeting with some brothers years ago. And there was a German brother who was a professional piano tuner, but he tuned the piano of one of the most famous concert pianists in the world, Vladimir Horowitz. And this German brother was a very elegant brother, devoted to the Lord, and prayed with an elegant accent. And I remember him praying and saying, Oh God, and I'm not going to try to recreate his accent. Oh God.

you are great in mercy, and slow to anger. And we were so thankful. because if you were great in anger, and slow to mercy, we would all be consumed. How very, very true. Oh, I believe America's in a precarious situation.

I believe that our our standing is very tenuous. At the same time, I believe we can see the greatest awakening in our history. At the same time, I believe that we can see an outpouring of the spirit of historic proportions. Look I was an eyewitness from 1996 to 2000 to what is commonly known as the Brownsville Revival. It took place in a small community in Pensacola, a small community named Brownsville that didn't even have its own zip code.

It was not on the map. If you heard Brownsville, you thought of Brownsville, Texas. That was a city on the map. This is just a neighborhood in Pensacola. That's where the church is located.

And the Holy Spirit fell there dramatically, began on Father's Day of 95, and then God called me to serve in the leadership a little under one year later.

So I was an eyewitness to thousands of meetings between church services and school classes and special teachings. And By the way, as an eyewitness, I can tell you what's real and what's not, what's misinformation and what's true information. Uh just to give you an example of of of what happened. I mean, you had people coming, cumulative attendance over a five-year period of more than 3 million people, cumulative attendance. You had people that came from 130 nations to that building.

You had people getting online for several years at six in the morning. For the doors to open at 6 at night, for the service to start at 7 at night, that would then go to midnight or 1 in the morning. This went on for a period of years. When the revival began, it was Father's Day. Yeah.

And a few months later, September, So this is now from June to September. A few months later, it was C with the pole. which was a day when young people gather around the flagpole at their their school and they pray together before going into class. And it stirs them to pray and it stirs their public witness. And the youth pastor found out that about 300 kids, which was a good number, About 300 kids from local high schools participated in Seattle the poll because he had kids in his youth group that were part of the different high schools and they had friends, so they did an actual count.

And there were 300 kids that participated in the high schools in the neighborhood, the surrounding neighborhoods of Brownsville, all right, in that county. year later There were 2,000 kids participating. 2000, something had happened where so many young people were dramatically touched, and some of these young people are dramatically touched on the mission field today, these many years later.

Some of these kids were dramatically touched, that other kids got touched, then other kids got touched, and it just spreads spontaneously. Leonard Gravenhill, saintly man of God that I had the privilege of being close with the last five years of his life, author of the book Why Revival Tarries Leonard Gravenhill often said you don't have to advertise a fire. And the same way with true revival, you don't have to advertise it. The word of mouth just gets out. And there's this divine supernatural drawing.

And people are just pulled in. I remember one guy when he got baptized on a Friday night in Brownsville. He got baptized and was sharing his testimony that he was driving with his friends. on a free weekend to party. They were driving to a location where they were going to get high, get drunk, and party together.

He was a lost sinner. But he lived in the south, and as they were driving, so he's in his car, driving behind some friends in another car, he sees an exit saying Pensacola this way. And it was the highway that was going to take you over to Pensacola. And he says to himself, Isn't there that great revival taking place in Pensacola? He had heard about it, word of mouth, as an unsafe kid living in the south.

And without saying anything to his friends, he exited there, ends up driving over, finds out where the church is, when the meetings are, and he gets dramatically, wonderfully born again. I mean, this is the kind of stuff that happens. God Himself. draws people Yeah. And some of the most remarkable stories we hear are from people from around the world that came to the meetings, were deeply touched by God, felt transformed, felt as if they were being born again all over again.

And then they went back to their countries, their home churches, and saw a dramatic outpouring and visitation of the Spirit. I've run into people in all different settings and all around the world. That will say to me, I you prayed for me in Pensacola, I was in the meetings, and now at this point, we're talking about. 19, 20 years ago, 17, 18 years ago, and they'll tell me my life was changed from then on. I've never been the same.

I've talked to people that are maybe 30 now. and they were 15 when they visited. Maybe they're 31, 32. They were 15 when they were visited, and they said, That's what changed my life. I was there, and God dramatically touched me.

I've never been the same. That's what revival can do. That's what awakening could do. What could happen if God came down in power in your community? You say, but doesn't it say in the Bible that the last days will only get worse?

Well, first thing, haven't we been in the last days for 2,000 years? Doesn't the New Testament speak of the period of the New Testament as the last days? And doesn't it say in Acts 2 that the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the miraculous intervention of God, that that is a promise for, quote, the last days? Doesn't Peter make that explicit in Acts 2?

So yes, the last days for two thousand years have been characterized by great deception. great apostasy great evil. and they have been characterized by great outpouring. by great visitation, by great harvest. How does Peter end his message, Acts 2.39, the promise, namely the promise of the Spirit is to you?

The Jewish people, to your children, future generations, and to all that are afar off, the Gentile world, even as many. As the Lord our God will call. That promise remains to this day. Can I encourage you? that you would do well to pray for revival and outpouring.

And to take the counsel of one old evangelist who was asked, How do you pray for revival? How should I pray for revival? He said, Well, here's what I do. I take a piece of chalk, and and I I draw a circle. on the ground.

You see, then I I get inside that circle and I stand there. And I say, God. Revive everything in this circle. I've actually done that. In the last house where we lived, my my my office, my study, uh was in a hard uh a floor with hardwood, so didn't have carpeting.

And uh there was one little carpet just next to a chair. one little carpet. I I mean, enough room for one person to stand basically. or put your feet. And some nights I would stand on that small piece of carpet and say, God, revive everything on this carpet.

See, I'm praying for national awakening. I'm asking God for national awakening. I'm believing God for national awakening. I've been part of outpouring. I've seen what can happen.

I'm an eyewitness. My own life was dramatically changed by an outpouring of the Spirit that came in 1982, the church where I was an elder. And I got saved in 1971 in the height of what's called the Jesus People Movement. God has done dramatic, unusual, unexpected things before. Isn't it time for it again in America?

But it only comes to the hungry and to the thirsty. I've got a major question for you about revival and awakening when we come back. Age the world O God of burning cleansing. Flame send the fire. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr.

Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Oh, before I forget, I don't want to do you a disservice. There is a way for you to get a free e-book. Of our new book, Breaking the Stronghold of Food, which comes out in six days. I can hardly wait. Many of you have the pre-ordered book already that you got before Christmas, and we're hearing great reports from readers.

And once the book goes live on Amazon, January 3rd, post a review. If you have the book, if you've read it, if you've been helped by it, please post a review. It can be long or short, but the more people that hear the good fruit of the book, it'll encourage them. And we really believe we've been praying over it. We really believe that the book can touch many, many lives.

But here's an offer from the publisher. And it's only till January 7th, so the sooner you act on it, the better, because it's going to be gone. Go to strongholdoffood.com. Here's where you have to do it: okay, strongholdoffood.com. Go there.

And then you'll see an option how to order.

So, if you normally order on Amazon, let's raise a Kindle Reader or something, then order there. In fact, it's best if you do that. All right. And then, once you order, you then submit the order right there on the website, strongholdoffood.com. You will then get three chapters emailed you immediately, even though the book's not out yet.

You get the PDF of the first three chapters. And when the book comes out, not only will you get the paperback at the reduced price on Amazon, you'll get the e-book free. Since we can get the book, give the physical book away, keep the e-book. Or if you have a book already, a great way to get the e-book and then give the physical book away.

So take advantage of this. It ends January 7th only at Stronghold of Food. Dot com. All right, I was so thrilled when I heard the publisher announce this.

So, we just want to tell you about it, make it available to you. Also, make sure you visit our digital library on thelineofire.org. We've added a bunch of new videos. My video response to MTV's 2017 resolutions for white men. Yeah, I responded to that.

My thoughts on Merriam-Webster, the dictionary people naming uh the word surreal as the word of the year. Hmm. Surreal. Does that mean Divine intervention, anyway? Talk about that.

Alex McFarland, one of our regular guest hosts, comes on and talks about why apologetics.

So check out the latest videos and articles on the digital library at thelineoffire.org.

Okay. British author Arthur Wallace. Wrote one of the great Contemporary books on revival, one of the greatest books on revival in the last generation called In the Day of Thy Power. According from Psalm 110. When he was just a teenager he visited Wales.

And he heard an eyewitness account of the Welsh Revival. of nineteen oh four and nineteen oh five.

So he he describes this in the third person. And he wrote this. In the spring it was springtime in the year nineteen thirty eight. A boy in middle teens stood in the little school room adjoining Moriah Chapel, speaking of himself. In the small Welsh mining town of London.

Lugger, not sure the right pronunciation there. Glamourganshir. A strange feeling of awe and wonder filled his heart. For this was the very room that witnessed the beginnings of that great outpouring of the Spirit, the Welsh Revival of 1904. He listened to his host and guide, himself a convert of the revival, speak of those memorable days when the hardest hearts were melted by the presence of the Lord.

and when the hills and valleys rang again with the songs of Zion, It was almost too wonderful to be true. but it created questions deep down in his heart for which he could find no answer. If God can achieve such mighty things in times of revival, and if the spiritual labours of fifty years can be surpassed in so many days when the Spirit is poured out, Why, he wondered, is the Church today so satisfied with the results of normal evangelism? Why are we not more concerned that there should be another great revival? Why do we not pray for it day and night?

Is isn't isn't that If we see meager results, meager results in evangelism, meager results in cultural societal transformation, meager results in spiritual life among so many believers, so many struggles, I'm not saying this to condemn, I'm saying this to point to a solution. Wouldn't it make sense to cry out to God day and night to send revival and awakening that would bring masses? into the kingdom almost overnight. That would shake whole regions, that would awaken whole denominations. That would touch whole cities?

I mean, wouldn't that make sense? If If you're having a drought in your area. And it's causing near famine conditions. and the only water is ten miles away. And the roads are impassable, so the only way to get there is to have to walk.

Can't take a car. And you can only carry a few buckets of water at a time in a wheelbarrow or in your hands. And so you walk all the way 10 miles with other men in your village. You walk all the way to that one source of water. Come back with your buckets and wheelbarrow filled.

By the time you get back, some of it's evaporated in the heat. And and and now And now You get back, use the little water you have.

Okay, right now you have to do that, but shouldn't you be praying for rain the whole time? Oh, God, send rain. Oh, God, send rain. Because one hour of rain is going to give you more water than 100 trips back and forth, back and forth with your buckets.

So my question, why don't we pray for revival there night? If the work of decades can be accomplished in a matter of months, why don't we concentrate more of our efforts on praying for revival? Why don't we fast and intercede and cry out for a sustained outpouring of the Spirit, if it'll bring so much glory to Jesus? will touch and transform so many more lives and Do it in a deep and lasting way, why isn't there a greater urgency for revival? in our own hearts.

So I want to encourage you. Don't think you just have to go on living the way you've been living. Don't think that change is impossible. I've always been saved 20 years, never changed. Ah, maybe you need a fresh encounter with God.

Maybe there is more. If when you read the word, my friend, You say there's got to be more. I see promises here that are not being realized. I see standards here that are not being lived up to. I see a calling that is not being fulfilled.

If that's real to you. then I really encourage you. To give yourself to praying for revival and awakening. I really encourage you to say, God, there must be more. And may I encourage you to go to our website.

Check out the Sermon Archives on the S. Dr. Brown website. Check out what's available there. Check out the sermons under the category of revival, they're all free.

and listen to them. and be stirred. and be ministered to.

So that is, your coal begins to burn more brightly and ignite that it can touch the coal next to you and next to that one and next to that one. And before you know it, you have a chain reaction of fire. Before you know it, those coals are now shooting out flames. Yeah. Not.

With people, it's impossible. But with God. All things are possible. I've also got a brand new article, Five Ways to Move from a Great Shaking in 2016 to a Great Awakening in 2017. I believe that article will help you, and it's available on our website as well, thelineofire.org.

And friends, one more reminder. That we have a 40% discount on all of our digital downloads, every single one of them on thelineofire.org, but only. The next couple days, it ends with the new year. My bottom line. Great Awakening.

spiritual visitation. These are things that God has done in the past. Why can't we believe him to do them again in our day?