Darkness: But not black and white

To continue with the theological concept of darkness from last entry and one in April.

June 3

I had mentioned that I was discussing Christian evangelism and witnessing and obstacles to them, the other day, while my good friend drove us around. While pulling into a Chevron station my good friend wisely quoted John 3: 19-20 from the New American Standard Version

19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. From Strong's: 4655 for darkness in John 3: 19. (88).

σκότος

Page 88

Bauer explains that here is this context, darkness can be understood as 'religious and moral darkness, of darkening by sin, of the state of unbelievers and of the godless.' (757-758). From my Reformed perspective, the corrupted, fallen nature of humanity (Genesis 3, Romans) prohibits a person in darkness from embracing the light to the point of salvation.

June 5, 2019

From Courson's commentary in regards to John 3: 19:

Quote:

'Why don't people come to the light? It is not because they don't believe the gospel intellectually or because they struggle with it philosophically.' (460).

Quote:

'...the one and only reason people don't come to the light is because they prefer darkness.' (460).

I do not completely agree with this analysis. I reason:

Some unbelievers accept the gospel intellectually and philosophically...to a degree.

Common sense and my United Kingdom theses work tells me there are plenty of held to academic premises opposed to the Gospel, embraced by those outside of the Kingdom of God. Certainly many unbelievers do not accept the gospel intellectually and philosophically and reject the Christian worldview and Christian theology.

As I noted in the previous entry, the corrupted, fallen human nature leads to an embracing of human darkness. This is the primary human reason leading to disbelief in the Gospel. But, this does not prohibit premises which can be either true or false, to degrees, which the unbeliever, while in darkness, holds to as objections to Christianity and support for unbelief.

I like aspects of Courson's comments here, but just find them too theologically black and white.

For example:

A relative states (paraphrased) that there are too many radical, crazy, American Christians, as support for his/her unbelief.

Certainly many Christians from Canada, the United States and worldwide, believe that some American Christians are negatively radical.

(Negative on both on the left and right)

The relative in unbelief, in darkness, may actually hold to a reasonable premise against Christianity, a cumulative reason for disbelief (in his/her own mind). At the same time, I reason a conclusion that Christianity and the Gospel are false is wrong. Those in the Church, in the light, that can also hold to the premise mentioned, can correctly hold to a negative premise in regard to Christianity, in reasonable faith, theology and philosophy.

BAUER, WALTER (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.