Dr Greg Bahnsen - Introduction to Apologetics: Foundations I (Part 1)

Personally interested in. I pursued advanced studies, both seminary and graduate school, and philosophy, particularly because I was interested in the defense of the faith, what we call apologetics. And we have had classes from time to time in the ten year history of our congregation unapologetics. But I realized when I was considering what I might be teaching you during this quarter in our Thursday evening meetings, that our congregation has never gone through the syllabus that I wrote on apologetics and that I had used previously when I was a seminary instructor. And I asked around, seemed like there was additional interest. So I'm hoping that you all will stick with this and I'll see you every Thursday or as much as possible, and maybe we'll see some others as well come out. If you don't have the syllabus, a Biblical Introduction to Apologetics, I would encourage you to pick it up. We're going probably a couple of chapters a week and discuss them in some detail when they come on Thursday evenings. Where do we begin? I guess everyone has to say something about the word apologetics. I don't want to say much about it. Because in our culture, when someone apologizes, they're responding to an accusation by saying, sorry, I was wrong. But when Christians are accused of things, they respond to that accusation, but they don't say, sorry, we're wrong. Our answer is, in essence, sorry that we're right. And so someone may wish to know why it's called apologetics. That sounds like giving in. Comes from the report ogia, which was the technical term for what a man said in response to an accusation in a court of law. Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and introducing new deities. He offered his apologia, that is to say, his defense in court, trying to indicate why he was innocent of the charge. So down through history, that's where the word comes from. To offer a defense of yourself is to offer an apologetic. And so when Christians are accused of things, in particular, accused of believing superstitions or myths or things that aren't true, we offer a defense. We could say very simply that apologetics is the defense of the faith. And the history of the Christian church. There have been a lot of disagreements over how the faith should be defended. The same way that there are disagreements over what the content of the faith is, there are disagreements over the defense of the faith as well. Discouraging. And from a post millennial standpoint, I'm hoping the day will come when that will be minimized, maybe down to nearly zero, but the fact of the matter is that when we defend the faith differently and when we have different understandings of the faith being defended, it's very hard for the world to take us seriously. Right. The world is wondering, what do you Christians really believe? Who's right on the theological matter? And then, you know, Jews defend the faith differently and the world doesn't know how to respond to that. Who's really, you know, the guardian of the faith or who's doing it the way that it should be done? I want to suggest that the reason why it's hard for Christians to resolve their differences over how to defend the faith is because they have a fundamental cleavage. It's a fundamental disagreement. The very basis of their approach. The one group saying the faith should determine how it is defended, the other group saying, we need independent reasons to come to faith. And then after that, the faith takes over and has the foraging. If you're taking notes, that's going to be a key point. So I'm going to say that again. One approach to the question of how to defend the faith says the faith itself should determine its own defense. The other approach says you need independent reasons, an independent approach, something that is not committed to the faith at the outset. And then once you come to the faith, once you submit to its truth, at that point, it takes over and has authority. So the second approach you might look at is an up and down arrangement where apologetics kind of builds up step by step, and we reach this place where we finally believe, we come to faith in Christ, we hold to the Christian faith, and after that, theology is the exposition of that faith. And its authority, of course, is different than the authority of apologetics. Apologetics establishes the authority of faith, and then from there theology works out the implications. What does the Bible actually teach? Another way to look at matters, though, is to say that all of this is one task. From one standpoint, it's the apologetic task. From another standpoint, it's the task that apologetics and theology are doing the same thing, but from a slightly different perspective. One in this case is above the line, the other below the line. But the point is it's an arrow that's going the same direction. We're working the same way with the same method of operation, of the same goals. And the goal of the theologian, and the goal of the defender of the faith ought to be to bring people's minds into submission to the authority of God is revelation. And the reason why we think, well, there should be a difference is because obviously to bring a believer's mind into greater submission to God's, revelation is not exactly the same as bringing an unbeliever's mind into submission. Because a believer says, in theory, I want to understand better and I'm willing to believe whatever God says. The unbeliever says, I'm not sure that's God at all. I'm not willing to believe it. So you're dealing with different kinds of problems. I'm going to suggest that the difference between apologetics and theology, though, is an audience difference, the difference in the heart you're dealing with. It's not a difference in what you're trying to do and how you should try to do it. Our goal in each case should be the same, obviously, to bring glory to God by bringing people into greater submission to His Word. Now I've got a difference in my audience when I have an unbeliever over against dealing with a believer. So you have two approaches to apologetics. One that says it has an independent kind of existence, and the other that says apologetics is really tied to theology. They're just different sides of the same coin. Now, in the teaching of apologetics, we can deal with the theory of apologetics. We can deal with apologetical problems. The theory of apologetics is a methodological, foundational consideration. Dealing with apologetical problems is just taking one by one the accusations that are made against Christians and saying, well, now, how can we answer these? Some of you will be disappointed by this, but. But we're not going to deal with the problems of apologetics this quarter and that iterations will come up deal with the problems of apologetics, but we're going to be studying by the syllabus the theory of apologetics. That is to say, what our general approach should be, what our understanding of our task is, what our method is, things like that. I'm not going to come in week by week and say, okay, now here's this problem. How do we answer? We do that in open forum and we can have a class on that. And we have had classes on that. We can do that again. But you need to know that during these next 13 weeks or whatever, the focus is going to be upon theory, the method we should be using. Now, where am I going to develop my method of apologetics? I arranged for this ahead of time so that we have dramatics. In fact, where will it. Well, you have two approaches here, right? Not just, but to the development of a defense from the faith, that is, to the method, to the theory of apologetics. And one says, well, we develop an independent method. It seems like it would be Effective, given our culture, given the way people think. And we go to the respective intellectuals of our day and find out how we're supposed to reason and how we're supposed to research and how we're supposed to argue effectively. The other approach says, well, we have to go to the faith itself. We derive our method of doing apologetics from our theology. That is to say that faith dictates its manner of events. And I think that makes a lot of sense. And there's reasons why that makes sense. I'm going to have you look up the verses here. As I continue this introduction. Let's ask ourselves, how extensive is Christ's authority? Please turn in your bibles to Matthew 28, verses 18 to 20. Eight. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever. I have commanded you both. I am with you always. Now, in Bob's translation, the word power is the Greek word word exousia, which is. It's hard to translate into English because it carries connotations both ways. But the word means authority. Christ is all authority is mine in heaven and in earth. And on that basis, disciple the nations and make them my disciples and teach them to think my thoughts after me. I'm their teacher. Teach the nations to submit to me. How extensive is that authority? According to this passage, all encompassing heaven and earth. And Jesus did not say now, of course, except for you intellectuals. Now I realize you've got your own little carved out area of authority. And I've got to appeal to you and hopefully that I can convince you that I'm worthy of your respect. Maybe you'll pass me through your classes. I might even get cum laude, summa cum laude from you. No, Jesus doesn't say anything like that. He just covers heaven and earth. He says it's mine and everyone should submit. Everyone should submit as my disciple. Let's ask another question. How much of life should be Holy? Turn to 1 Peter, chapter 1, First Peter 1 and specific nurse. Dimension B would be 14, 15 and 16. Brian, if you have that, would you read it for us? His obedient children do not be conformed with passion of your former ignorance. And as even called it as holy. Be holy yourselves and all your converts. Since it is written, you shall be holy, for I am holy. It's interesting that when Peter here speaks of our former lives, and he Says we're not to fashion ourselves according to our former lives. He characterizes them as lives of what? Ignorance. Interesting. I think we tend to think of the Christian non Christian distinction as a distinction between saints and sinners, between morality and immorality, faith, the trust over against arrogance and unbelief, all of which are true enough. But here Peter says it's the difference between ignorance and the ahams of ignorance knowledge. He says that those who do not conform to God's ways are ignorant people. And then how much of life does he say should be holy? All of all of life should be holy. Except of course for intellect. Right. He makes an exception there. He says it's okay if you disobey God in your mind, but just make sure you don't disobey him sexually or financially or whether you love your neighbor in those areas. You have to love God. But he says you have to be holy in all manner of living because the one who calls us is holy. What does the word holy mean? Set apart. Exactly. Peter says in everything you do, you're to be set apart because you are children of obedience. You no longer fashion decorations after ignorance, your children of obedience. Because Christ's authority is heaven and earth covers everything. And we are children of obedience. We are disciples of the Lord, and therefore we are holy in everything we do. Everything we do is distinctive, is set apart, is different from the way the world in its ignorance proceeds. Now, how. How much of my behavior should show love to Christ? Turn to Matthew 22, Verse 35. And reading through verse 38, Tim, would you do that for us? 35 to 38. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him and saying, master, which is the great commandment to the law? Jesus said unto him, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the first great commandment to the Jew. To ask which was the greatest commandment was to ask which commandment summarizes more of the law than any other commandment. I realize you have probably had different expositions to that expression, great commandment. But we know from rabbinic literature that even back before the days of the New Testament, this was debate between Jewish schools. They'd ask which is the heaviest commandment or the greatest commandment, meaning which commandment encompasses the most of what God wants us? And so now a lawyer, an intellectual in that day, someone who was supposed to know his P's and pews comes from Jesus. Captuny puts that question in which the greatest command. And I'm afraid that when we look at that, we catch on to the. We're to love the Lord our God with all of our heart and soul. And that's probably conceptually where we leave it. We love God kind of in an emotional way internally. Everything about us is supposed to love God. But notice what Jesus says at the end. And our minds, walking with our minds. It's possible to use your mind in a way that is unloving toward God. And nothing in your education has suggested that to you. Everything in your education has suggested, well, to use your mind. It's kind of a neutral thing. And then you finally make decisions what to do with your attitudes and your behavior. Attitudes and behavior show love for Jesus. But the way you use your mind, I mean, that's just kind of like preparatory to what the love is or the lack of love. But Jesus says your thinking shows love for God or doesn't the way you reason? And he tells us that the Great Commandment calls for everything to be given over to love, to God. And that does not exclude our intellect, does not exclude our minds or our reasoning. So. Well, I have another question. How much of what we do is supposed to glorify God? I won't write that one down. You say, well, the answers are getting repetitive, Dr. Box. And that's why I almost skipped it. But I'm not going to. Let's turn to Colossians. Now let's turn to First Corinthians. I'm going to do First Corinthians 10:31. I'll read it for you. Whether therefore you eat or drink, whether or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God. Probably not many of us think about the way we dress or tie our shoelaces or what we eat, being mad that glorifies God. But when we're called upon to do so, we can understand we're supposed to glorify God in all of our behavior. But Paul says, whatsoever you do. This now is thinking. Something we do is reasoning and drawing conclusions something new. Well, apparently we're supposed to glorify God in the way we do that too. Now, if you find it hard to believe that our reasoning can be something that can be qualified as glorifying God or not glorifying God. Let's go all the way back to the beginning, all the way back to the Garden of Eden and think about the temptation that Adam and Eve went through. Eve's working in the garden, and serpent comes up to her and has a discussion with her. Wants to analyze what God expects of him. As God said, you're not to eat of any fruit in the garden immediately. He doesn't tempt her with sexual things or eating the fruit even. He doesn't even start out complaining. He wants to find out if she thinks clearly, as God said, that you shouldn't eat well and he should have been stopped right there. When, however, it's clear that Eve is not supposed to eat of this one particular fruit suggests that God has selfish motives for telling you that he doesn't want you to become like him. There's a logic. We call this equivocation. God did want Eve to become like him. Eve was supposed to reflect godliness by submitting to his character and demand. Satan said, God doesn't want you to become like him. Him meaning to assume his prerogatives and authority. But anyway, God said if she ate of the fruit, she would die. And what did Satan say? Eventually, you shall not die. This won't happen. Okay? That is the first intellectual challenge in the history of the human race. God said one thing, Satan said another. And there was he having to make a decision. And I asked her, how should she have made the decision? I'll be facetious for a moment. What if Eve had said, well, this could be very dangerous for me. Just to beg the question, you know, just kind of pick one opinion over another. Obviously, I'm going to have to think this through and think for myself. All my teachers from kindergarten up told me I had to learn to think for myself. And what a bee, in thinking for herself said, you know, it's possible that that fruit is. And I had enough calories today. And I don't think I've done enough working out to burn off all that. I'm really going to lose my girlish figure if I eat that fruit. So, Satan, thanks, but no thanks. I'm going to. And the human race is saved from destruction. Or is it as Eve obeyed? I mean, I'm being facetious on purpose. I'm trying to make a point. If Eve had not taken the bite out of the apple. It was an apple. Doctor said it was a persimmons. But whatever it was, Eve had not taken the bite out of the fruits. And she had simply reasoned in the way that I said. Would she have been obedient to God? Would she have done that for the glory of God, as she did for the glory of her small figure? Right. And not only that, not only did she make the right decision as her wrong reason, but she took it upon herself to decide between God and Satan. Now, a godly way to have reasoned would have been, Satan, you have no right to challenge. Although all men be liars, let God be true. And he made me to glorify Him. And I will not use my mind to challenge His Word, but I will use my mind and I will challenge you, Satan, you have no right to be saying this about my Creator and my Lord and the One who protects me day by day and provides for all my needs. I mean, she could. No one is suggesting Eve should have just blanked out and said, well, we're not supposed to think. No, she should have thought, and she should have thought on godly terms in a godly way or a godly conclusion. So it turns out that our thinking can glorify God. Our method of thinking can glorify God when it submits to His Word, honors Him above all other authorities. The reason I've gone through this is we want to decide how to develop apologetics. Should what I've just said apply to the method of apologetics? Because apologetics is dealing with people who say, God's not authoritative. God doesn't exist. God didn't say that. Can we develop a method of apologetics that also presupposes the truth of Christianity? I haven't been able to figure this out, but throughout my life, and I've dealt with a lot of evangelical Christians on this, a lot of debates, a lot of unfortunate school rivalry and factions and so forth in the community over this issue of how to do apologetics. Somehow when you bring up the question of how we do apologetics, they just blank out on this stuff. They say, well, but you can't presuppose the authority of God's word when you're talking about a method of defending the authority of God's word, because that's begging the question. That's assuming what you're supposed to prove. Well, what I want to suggest is that Eve fell into that trap through the psalm Satan. She was beguiled, and that we need to have a more simple faith. You know, in Second Corinthians, chapter 11, I believe it is false, as I worry for you that even as Eve was beguiled through the subtlety of Satan. So you should leave the simplicity of faith. The simplicity of faith is if God is authoritative over everything, if I choose to love him with my mind, if I'm to glorify him, whatsoever I do, he has all authority in heaven and earth, and every bit of my life is to be holy unto him, then the way I think about apologetics ought to be holy and loving God and glorifying him and submitting to his equality as well. So we come to the apologetic syllabus. Let's look at how it's laid. I know some of you don't have a title page, but called Biblical Approach to Apologetics. And what we've been talking about in the last few minutes is the defense of a biblical approach to apologetics. We're going to go to the Bible and ask the Bible to tell us how we should defend the faith and tell us things relevant to the defending of the faith. And there are four basis areas in my presentation. The first is called the lordship of Christ in the realm of knowledge. Think of that as a foundational area dealing with the broadest issues that are relevant to defending the faith. How does the lordship of Christ come to expression in the way that I think? And then secondly, the conditions necessary for the ability apologetic task. How is apologetics possible according to the Bible? What will have to be the case for me to present a defense of the faith to someone who the Bible calls a fool and an unbeliever? And then thirdly, we'll deal specifically with the question of how the method of apologetics and then the question that we're all interested in, how will apologetics be successful? What are the conditions necessary for success in apologetics? And also how should you measure psychologetics? Okay, so foundational issues, conditions that are nest preconditions, if you will, for doing this task. How we do the task, how we succeed at doing it. Those are the things we're going to consider over the next few weeks. Tonight probably not going to make it through everything I wanted, but tonight I want to take up the first two chapters that both deal with the subject of neutrality. The three things in this section of the syllabus that are taken out for discussion are neutrality, the antithesis between the believer and the unbeliever, and the basis of knowledge or knowing. And these are very broad subjects that actually apply to a lot of things besides apologetics. But we need to master what the Bible says about these things because repeatedly we're going to have to come back to these concepts. Neutrality, antithesis, the basis for knowing our knowledge. Chapters one and two deal with neutrality. I return to the first chapter right away. I say that the plea for Christians to surrender to neutrality in their thinking is not an uncommon one. And yet it strikes at the very heart of our faith and of our faithfulness to our Lord. You are going to hear people tell you Repeatedly. There are some areas of life and some ways, some things you think about, you have to be neutral about things. Now, of course, the way I set things up, what was on this side of the board, you've already got the reputation. I'm sorry, but the Bible tells me otherwise. I can't. In the second paragraph of the syllabus, I point out some ways in which this demand for a neutral or a non committal attitude toward the Bible is fostered in the area of Christian scholarship. Even at Christian colleges and Christian high schools. I'm sorry to say you'll have some teachers who believe that when it comes to science or literature or philosophy, what have you, then in those areas, we can't really have a distinctively Christian presupposition or approach to things because those things are outside of the area of Sunday worship. That is to say, many Christians, many scholars who are Christians as well, they aren't Christian scholars because their Christianity is not guiding their scholarship. But many scholars or teachers or writers who profess faith in Jesus Christ unwittingly endorse a dichotomy that is a compartmentalizing of life. Two areas or more that has come to be called the sacred secular distinction. Now, sacred. There are different ways we could put this. We could say the sacred area is the spiritual area of life, spiritual matter dealt with here. These are matters of worship. Secular areas have to do with the physical world all around us, the life that we share in common with unbelievers, The natural order. Sometimes it's called the nature grace dichotomy. For that reason. The idea is that some parts of life are approached with principles of spirituality or God's grace. Or if you will, scripture, God's revelation and other areas of life have to be approached on the basis of secular principles, principles having to do with physical or natural matters, or if you will, human reason. So you have scripture or faith on the one hand, reason on the other, grace, nature, spiritual matters, physical matters, sacred matters, secular matters, all different labels. I'm hoping you get something across to you. What will happen is person who is studying science, natural science, to say, well, when we study physics, we aren't committed to anything from the Bible. Those are two different areas altogether. The rate at which an object falls through space has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches. The chemical composition of water has nothing to do with your commitment to the bible. I mean, H2O is H2O for believers and non believers. But the way you plant a peach tree is the way you plant a peach tree. Whether you're a believer or an unbeliever, the way you get a rocket to the moon is going to be the same for believers and unbelievers. When you study the plays of Shakespeare, what you find in there, from a literary aesthetic standpoint is what you find whether you're a believer or an unbeliever. There is no difference in areas like this. And so this is what the second paragraph is dealing with. The claim is, obviously there's not a Christian way to plant a tree, or to study water, or to do your scholarship. Another area that arises, as you already know, is apologetics. And the reason why certain defenders of the faith demand neutrality is they say you'll lose your hearing with the world. I mean, if you go and you're arguing with somebody and you say I'm assuming the truth with the Christian faith, while you're trying to prove the truth of the Christian faith, they'll say, well, for me, you know, you've got to start with the nobody knows it for sure attitude, just like I do. Of course you're going to see in the course of time that the unbeliever doesn't start with a nobody knows for sure attitude, that though he claims neutrality, he doesn't really practice neutrality and he doesn't really want neutrality, but he'd love for you to give up your commitment because then of course he has quite an advantage over you. But we're told that we have to assume as little as possible at the outset when we defend the faith. And certainly we can't assume anything distinctively Christian or biblical when we're defending faith. A third area, going down to the next paragraph, we see the demanders is in reference to schooling. There are a lot of Christian parents who feel that it's perfectly alright to send your children to the local public school, the state sponsored school, because what they study in school are secular things. Their things have to do with human reason, they have to do with the natural order. And that's the same for everybody, is to really have what everybody else has, to believe what everybody else believes. And to live except ethically the way everybody else does in terms of planting trees or tying your shoelaces and then you add the frosting to the cake, you've got the spiritual things too. And so it's okay if I send my children to the local public school where they can get all this secular knowledge based on human reason, then they come home and when they go to our local congregation, then they get the spake fruit scriptural parts of life added and that's why there's no demand for Christian education. I'll bet you the vast majority of people, you know, who resist the idea of educating their kids in a Christian school in one way or another assume this view of life. They think what, what their kids are getting at the local state school is the same as what Christian kids get at the local Christian school school, except that there's no Bible reading in prayer. So it's kind of like Christian education is preferable. It's got kind of a plus factor to it. But it's not absolutely necessary because in this area we're all neutral spiritually. There are no distinctives that are being taught or presupposed. Well, I suggest in chapter one here that in all of these areas, Christian scholarship, apologetics, or schooling, Christians are called upon to surrender their distinctive religious beliefs, put them on the shelf when it comes to studying literature or science, put them on the shelf when it comes to feminists have yet believed the faith, put them on the shelf when that comes to schooling. And I suggest Satan would love nothing more because that means that the world is not being turned over heart and soil, every square inch of reality. That means you're holding back to something. Now, Satan would love us to hold back everything. But you see, he'll settle for temporary victories, believe me, because what happens when you buy into this understanding of life? It's kind of like an evil seed, you know, that begins to grow and develop and has its outcome later on in life or in other areas. It grows. It doesn't just stay at that level. And so Satan's quite happy if he can just convince you that you don't have to love God with all of your mind. You have to glorify God in whatsoever you do. Jesus doesn't have authority in everything having to do with the atom. I mean, that's religious fanaticism, isn't it? I mean, we don't really live in the same world with unbelievers and we're completely different from them. You know, you start getting all of these silly caricatures of what we're trying to say as Christians. You hear it from people in the world and Satan tempts people just to say, oh, it can't that. I mean, come on. Unbelievers balance their checkbooks and drive their cars. And you should. You balance your checkbook and drive your cars. We really have a lot in common. Those are mutual things. In John the 17th chapter, Christ prayed that his followers would be sanctified by the truth made holy by the Truth. And we've already indicated that the word holy means set apart. Jesus prayed that they be set apart by the truth. That's what Jesus wanted Satan does. Jesus went on to say thy word. Jesus prayed above all we would be set apart by God's word. That what God's word teaches would make us different, would make us unique and awaits 30 to way we reason, the way we think. I think that may be the best place for us to stop or else eat here all night. Do read chapters one and two for next week and I will continue and include my thoughts on neutrality eventually. What I want to say about neutrality and then I'll stop here is that neutrality erases the Christian's distinctiveness. That neutrality is impossible, that it destroys knowledge. And it's immoral. Yeah, I should think that about if I could prove any of those. You wouldn't be too inclined to take a neutral approach in scholarship. But I'm going to try to show all of them so that we can get down. Believe me, this is fundamental. If I can win the battle that neutrality cannot be accepted. The sacred secular distinction cannot be accepted. It's going to make huge difference as we go along in everything that we do. And you'll find that when people object down the line like when we get the how does defend the faith, you know, people start objecting to certain things in our procedure a lot of their objections are going to come right back to these issues. That's why we're mastering them. First, no neutrality, no neutrality. Put that in your notes. No neutrality. That's the thesis. And then we must insist on the antithesis. Christians and non Christians do things differently and we have a basis for knowledge. They don't. When you get those three things together you have a powerful apology. Any questions before we have over prayer? John? Yes. I had intended to do all neutrality tonight but I'm falling into my previous weakness. I I will try to get back on schedule next week. Withers respect to the dichotomy sacred sect seems to me that it must arise from a very impur awareness of who God is. The fact that he created everything. He created every cell. And maybe the people would intellectually recognize it. But if they really believed it, wouldn't they have to believe that God told them how they would? Hungry? Yes. I'm going to take a step further. I wish that everyone who had reformed theology had thought all these things through and would agree pretty much with the outline of what I said about the method of apologetics. It so happens that we were Reformed having thought through their reformed theology. That qualification having been said, the vast majority of Christians, you'll find that accept this sort of thing also deny the sovereignty. And I want to suggest that's unacceptable. You understand the sovereignty of God. You can't give up part of the world to the devil or to your travel. Moreover, the people that I'm thinking about for the most part have a defective view of sanctification. They will teach, and this is Baptistic Bible church stuff, that you can be saved and then another step later. So you make Jesus Lord of your life. Now what if it suggests that I'm saved but Jesus isn't Lord of my life? What that means is of course I can go on drinking and carousing and doing all this sort of thing, but then I ask God to forgive my sins. It's a fire insurance policy, right? I'm not going to go to hell when I die. But as far as living like hell on earth, I'm not going to give that up. But then I may go to another evangelistic meeting someday that will say that you're going to dedicate life Jesus, then he'll become Lord of life and I'll give up my dishonesty with my tax returns or whatever it may be. A defective view of sanctification, a defective view of the sovereignty of God and a defective view of life. They all. They all together. I think as a generalization they do that's not handled. Yes. I was wondering in the presupposition the exhaustively describes propositions or reduce those that are propositions or does it also involve things like trust? What involves trust? Well, you speak of, you know, Christian presuppositions that are necessary and ones apologetics and learning. Are those presuppositions identical to a list of propositions? God is this and that? Yeah. In terms of what I mean by presuppositions, yes, they are propositional. But I'm not saying that having the right presuppositions is the be all and end all of the Christian life or doing apologetic. So all of which we're supposed to do. It would be more than just giving certain propositions. But the presuppositions when I refer to them, our proposition that you express. But then would it be possible for a non believer to attent to the proposition yet lacking trust would not be a Christian, but yet a non believer attent to this list of propositions thereby correctly? Well, I'm going to argue that the unbeliever does attend these propositions. That's why God if any gnostic true and you refuse to live up to it. Okay Lord, we do thank you that you have loved us completely and you have saved us and saved our lives completely. We thank you that you have saved us from eternal destruction. We have called us to follow you and to follow you as unconditional surrender. We ask that tonight you would help us to seek out areas in our own lives, our own behavior, our own attitude that we haven't surrendered to you. For we have unwittingly or sometimes maliciously said no, we don't want the Lord to fill the rest of the earth. And above all, we ask that as we study apologetics, you would teach us to turn over our minds and our reasoning process and our intellect to this world, that you might be glorified in the way that we think. May we pray, Father, that we will do this because you are worthy of that. We pray that you would also bless us with success as we try to draw others to the truth of the Christian faith as well they might see that there is truly a difference, that we are a distinctive set apart people. We acknowledge that we can set apart not by our wisdom, not by our goodness, but we can set apart by their grace and gratitude that.