Dr Greg Bahnsen - Introduction to Apologetics: Methods IV (Part 14)

Okay, let's begin with the word of prayer. Father, we do thank you that we have an opportunity to study more in depth your word and pray that during this time you would enable us to see how you would direct us to defend our holy faith in a way that is true to the faith and that is effective in dealing with those who do not yet enjoy the benefit of that faith. We pray that you would help us to understand the issues that we discussed today, that you would keep our minds attentive and that you'd give us the courage and the commitment to follow through with what we are talking about. We thank you that we do have the truth in Jesus. We thank you that you, by your grace, have come into our hearts and changed our hearts and enlightened our minds. We do pray that as we study these matters in the defense of our faith, that we would ever remember that we enjoy the benefit of this by your grace, not because of our own superiority or our own intellect or our own accomplishments. And so we ask that during these technical discussions, you would nevertheless be softening our hearts and giving us a sense of gratitude for the things we enjoy as your people. For it's in Jesus name we pray. Amen. All right. We're talking about how to defend the faith. And I try to keep summarizing and summarizing and summarizing. So we bring it down to the nub of things. I've joked with you before that the day is going to come when I come to class and I just wink and you'll know exactly what I'm getting at. Right. I don't know if we're going to get it down that short, but we've come to the place with all of our introductory discussions that we know now that when we defend the faith, we're trying to do two things, twofold apologetical procedure. So I'm going to ask you to rehearse for me. What are the two things you want to accomplish when you're defending the faith? How are you going to go about doing that, Joe? Answer according to his calling. Answer. That's right. There's that interesting contradiction. Answer the fool according to his folly, but don't answer the fool according to his folly. Now, the reason why it's not a contradiction is because that's really talking about two different parts of our apologetical strategy. You can't do both of those simultaneously. That would be contradictory. But now tell me in your own words, what does it mean to answer the fool according to his folly? What did I say that amounted to Willie, point out the inconsistency and the incongruity of his worldview. Exactly. You want to do an internal critique of his worldview. And by this point you all know that we're dealing with worldviews. In defending the faith, we're not just dealing with isolated facts like whether Jesus rose from the dead. We're dealing with the whole approach to reality, knowledge and behavior. And you want to take his worldview and do an internal critique of it. What's the other thing you want to do, denoted in Proverbs by the expression do not answer the fool according to his folly, lest you be like unto him. Craig, internal critique is not formed on any sense of neutrality. Yes, we not only retain our own presuppositions, but we demonstrate that our presuppositions will make cogent the approach to life, whether it be morality or knowledge or reality that he can't make sense out of, although he lives in terms of all the time. We want to show that the Christian worldview makes sense out of life, to put it in real simple terms, whereas the non Christian approach cannot make sense out of life or knowledge or reality. Okay, our chapter Today is number 15, answering the fool. And I rehearse here in the opening paragraph five things. It's been observed that one, the intellectual outlook of the unbeliever is that of a fool in the scriptural use of the term. Secondly, the unbeliever proclaims a pseudo wisdom that is in reality a hatred and destruction of knowledge. That's weird, because at least college educated unbelievers tend to think they're really committed to knowledge and we're committed to emotion. The Bible says it's not that way at all. Third, God makes foolish the wisdom of the world and puts it to shame through his people who are enabled to cast down every high imagination exalted against the knowledge of Him. The Bible tells us that God is making foolish the wisdom of this world and he's doing it through us. For in order to give an answer to the fool, the believers should follow a twofold procedure which we've just talked about, refusing to answer in terms of the fool's presuppositions because they'll undermine the Christian position. But then secondly, answering in terms of the fool's presuppositions in order to show where they lead, namely to futility in terms of a theory of knowledge. Here we find the prescribed course for giving an answer to every man who asks a reason for the hope that is in us. You notice the apologetic strategy that we have been talking about here meets the precondition that is laid down by Peter in 1st Peter 3:15 for defending the faith. That is that we set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts. We refuse to suspend the presupposed truth of God's Word. When we argue with those who are criticizing the Christian faith, we acknowledge the lordship of Christ over our thinking. It is our ultimate authority. If we were to reason with the unbeliever in such a way that we trusted our own intellectual powers or the teachings of the so called experts in science or history or logic or anything else more than we trusted the veracity of God's revelation, we would end up the argument if we were consistent with by agreeing with the unbeliever. You would have to, wouldn't you? As you've already said, I trust your scientist more than I trust God's Word. In the language of Proverbs 26, we would answer the fool and end up being like him. Also, by employing the apologetic procedure laid out in the syllabus, we can arrive at the same conclusion as did Paul in 1 Corinthians 1, that the intellectual outlook of the unbeliever is at base foolishness. We can rhetorically ask, where is the wise? Where is the disputer of this world? The fact of the matter will be abundantly manifest. God has made foolish the wisdom of the world, and he does it through the word of the cross. By demonstrating to the fool that his presuppositions can produce only falsely called knowledge, the believer answers him in such a way that he cannot be wise in his own conceits thereby. This twofold procedure in presuppositional apologetics aims at argumentative success without compromising spiritual fidelity. It renders a reasoned account of the Christian hope, as well as reducing all contrary and critical positions to impotence. Remember that those who criticize Christianity, you need to pull the rug out from under them. It's not a matter of simply meeting them, you know, at the level of their criticism. You know, like bullet for bullet, wound for wound. We want to show that they have nothing to shoot with. It is to be remembered at this point, of course, that the apologist must do this destructive work, as First Peter 3 says, with humility and reverence. It's amazing how easy we forget this because we get ego involved in our argumentation. We tend to think we're defending our own, you know, intelligence, defending our own pride when we're dealing with people that criticize the Christian faith. And it's very easy to return insult for insult or one upmanship to one upmanship. And that isn't what Jesus calls us to. He calls us to do this with humility. One way you'll be able to do that this is not a lesson on humility per se today, but one way you'll be able to do that is being very sure in your heart of hearts of your own position so that you aren't feeling weak and personally challenged by this other person. If you're very confident in yourself, then his insults and his one upmanship you can just look at and say, it's really a pity that he has to play these games. But you don't have to play those games. You don't have to give into it, because then you're playing it his way. A useful and instructive summary of the presuppositional approach to apologetics now can be found in 2 Timothy 2, verses 23 to 25 and if you have the syllabus, it's right there in front of you. Avoid foolish and undisciplined questions, knowing that they produce quarrels. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel, but must be gentle toward all skillful in teaching a patient one who courteously instructs those who oppose themselves, if perhaps God may grant to them conversion unto a genuine knowledge of the truth. Boy, that passage is just chock full of things, isn't it? This passage makes it clear first that the apologist simply must not have an arrogant attitude in dealing with unbelievers. He must be gentle, patient, courteous, unquarrelsome. These attributes come hard to most people who hold to strong doctrinal positions, those who are diligent to defend those positions. It's easy to become headstrong, zealous to dominate your opponent, but your goal is not to dominate your opponent. However, it is the opposite attitude, which is peaceable and gentle, that demonstrates that our wisdom is from above. James says the way wisdom that is from above pure and what peaceable and easy to be entreated. Second, this passage teaches that those who are challenged to defend their faith must not consent to answer in terms of foolish unbelief. Because Paul says reject foolish and undisciplined questions. Yet he goes on to talk about answering the fool. So how can you reject the question if you're giving the answer? I think it's because the way in which you answer does not give into the foolishness of the question, I.e. reject questions or answering the questions from the fool's point of view. We're not to submit to his autonomous outlook which suppresses the truth of God. We're not to comply with his demand for an agnostic neutrality. In our discussions, we put aside the question oriented to the fool's perspective. And rather we're to educate him. We're to be skillful and instructive. According to Paul, an answer is to be given that constructively educates the fool without giving in to his foolish perspective. And it's interesting when we don't do that. Almost always contention results, doesn't it? The quarrelsomeness comes from are really playing the game, the unbeliever's way. Notice thirdly that in this text the unbeliever is said to oppose himself by his foolish presuppositions. The unbeliever actually works against himself. And this is what I'm trying to get at. You take his worldview and you show that your worldview is internally inconsistent. Your worldview really works contrary to the things that you are saying as to how we know what we know, how we should live our lives, and what the nature of reality is. The fool that we're dealing with here. The unbeliever suppresses the clear truth about God, which is foundational to an understanding of the world and of oneself. And he affirms a position that is contrary to his better knowledge. He knows one thing in his heart of hearts, but then what he professes with his mouth and the way he reasons with people is contrary to that. And so I put down here he's intellectually schizophrenic, right? In his intellectual life, he's really living two lives, one that he won't tell people about, in which the Christian worldview is what makes sense out of everything. And the other that he makes quite a boast of that is quite contrary and makes impossible all those things from the Christian worldview that he wants to maintain. Now, last week we looked at a particular illustration. I said that every unbeliever that has not given up his sanity, every unbeliever believes the future will be like the past. That's what makes predictability in life, makes plans, makes scientific experimentation, balancing the checkbook, driving your car possible. You have to believe that the things you've learned in the past will be useful and applicable to the way things are going to happen in the future. Or to put it simply, you have to believe in the uniformity of nature. You have to believe in the uniformity of the way things happen in this world that God has made. Of course, the unbeliever doesn't think God has made this world. And that's the problem. Since God hasn't made this world, is not sovereign in controlling this world, how can the unbeliever hold on to that aspect of the Christian worldview? We can make sense out of the uniformity of nature, but he cannot. What he says so loudly about this being a chance universe and there being no God and so forth would actually make his dependence upon the uniformity of nature ridiculous. In a chance universe, you can't count on anything, or it's not chance, it's not random. So he has no basis by his own profession for believing that the future will be like the past. And what he does profess will actually deprive him of the right to hold to that, to argue that point. Okay, the fourth thing that I observe here from the second Timothy passage, Paul indicates that what the unbeliever needs is not simply additional information. You notice God must grant him repentance unto a genuine knowledge of the truth. Repentance. Many apologetical strategies, unfortunately do not deal with the theological truth that men only come to the gospel when the Holy Spirit changes their hearts, humbles them before God, and turns their minds around. The unbeliever is not lacking in information. It's not like he simply needs to be shown how we can reconcile the King List of the Old Testament, and then he'll just say, okay, fine, or we're shown how there could be a worldwide flood, and then he'll say, okay, fine, or show how Jesus could rise from the dead and very probably did, and then he'll say, fine, he won't until his mind is changed, until his heart is changed, he won't see any of that, and none of it will make any difference to him even if he verbally admits it. But you see, he can't come to a genuine knowledge of the truth about anything until his mind is changed. And so your apologetical strategy should be aimed at what? Calling for his unconditional surrender to God's claims? Your mind must be turned around. Your orientation must be different. That's what it says right here. Instead, he needs to have his thinking completely turned around. He must undergo a conversion unto genuine knowledge of the truth. And until this turnabout takes place, the unbeliever will have a knowledge of God which condemns him. Romans 1 tells us that that but a sincere or genuine knowledge of the truth, a saving knowledge, will only come by conversion. The unbeliever must be taught to renounce his feigned autonomy. He's pretending that he's a law to himself that he's self sufficient. He must be taught to renounce that and submit to the clear word of authority that comes from God. And then finally, you do see, of course, the source of our success will not be our cleverness as debaters. I don't know how to put this. A lot of times people come to me for instruction in apologetics or in apologetics classes, and I get this feeling almost. They don't say it, but it's almost a feeling of despair because they say, well, but Dr. Bonson, I haven't got a PhD in philosophy like you do. I mean, I can't do that. But you see, that is one the compliments uncalled for. But more importantly, to whatever degree they want to compliment, success in apologetics does not come from cleverness. Now, there are people who can master sophistry and little debate tricks and things like that. And outwardly it may seem that that helps you, but true success in apologetics comes from the grace of God changing hearts. And your most important contribution to this dynamic of defending the faith through this whole scenario, your contribution is faithfulness to God's word. Don't compromise what God wants to say. And God calls for unconditional surrender. You've got to do that, too. See, the unbeliever would be more inclined to want to talk to you and continue this if you said, well, you've got something going for you and I have something, but very probable, I've got a little bit more. And so, no, you've got to say you haven't got anything going for you on your worldview. Nothing makes sense. Okay, and so you can say that to the local professor at the college, and you can say that to your milkman. The way in which you're going to discuss it, the illustrations, the level of vocabulary, yeah, they'll be different. But what you're going to say is going to be the same to everyone. God makes foolish the wisdom of this world. And so let's chat about this so that you can see how foolish your position will become. Okay, questions about the second Timothy text or today's lesson? Ellery, Right now I'm taking questions on the Sunday school lesson, and in a moment I'll take questions on the sermon. Which do you want to address? Go ahead. Going back to your earlier statement, if you trust the. Human reasoning or scientific teachings more than you trust God's words, you're going to wind up in an attempt with the yellow bees. Certainly must be true in regard to overall basics, but I was thinking that, oh, there's only one truth, truth must karma, and therefore teachings of science that are, that are not distorted shouldn't be to the same conclusion. And I wanted to ask you, do you feel that creation scientists are totally going on the wrong tangent? I suppose that the question which amounts to are the creation scientists, those defending creation account from the standpoint of scientific evidences are totally on the wrong trail. And I'd say no, they're not, because all evidence does point to the truth of Christianity. And so if they want to take up the secondary subject of looking at the created order for those evidences, that's fine. I believe that the truths of history will point to the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the only reliable hypothesis to account for all the other indicia that the historians will grant and so forth. So I agree with you. From the, as I said before, from the 5,000 witnesses to the resurrection, to the countless number of stars in the sky, everything is evidence from for the truth of Christianity when properly approached. But what most apologists don't realize, and especially those that advance what's called an evidential approach to apologetics, is that no one approaches the evidences in a neutral fashion. Everyone approaches the evidences with a particular theory of knowledge. And it's that theory of knowledge that's going to govern ultimately what you accept as a possible answer to a problem, what the real problems are to be dealt with, your worldview determines what the questions are, what the methods to be used are, and what the acceptable answers could be. And that being the case, we really need to approach the unbeliever at, I think, a more fundamental level than just what are the evidences we need to approach the unbeliever ultimately about how could you know anything? But it is true that to the extent that an unbeliever looks at the creation or looks at the evidence, science and history, if approached properly, of course it's not, that's the ringer. But if approached properly, those things will lead to verification of what the Bible says. So no, I wouldn't say that they're on a totally wrong tangent. Those who are pursuing evidences in science for creation. I would say, however, that they approach the facts with a philosophy of fact and they've got to deal with that self consciously. Their epistemology, their theory of knowledge must be dealt with and not just assuming. We all have the same approach to knowledge. Now let's go find out what the truth is. Yes, In this day and age, there are a lot of people who say they believe in God, but what they believe about God. Okay, So they can't accept that God would be like that. What would you? Well, the first thing is you want to answer. You don't want to answer the fool according to his folly. You want to answer on the basis of your own presupposition. Just say, well, I do believe in a punishing God. And I think that I am compelled to believe that because God in his own revelation, the scriptures, tells us that he will punish the wicked for all eternity and so forth and so on. So now that's why I believe God punishes people, because I believe the Bible to be the word of God. And God says that. And here I can show you some verses and xyz and you show the verses and then you want to say to the person, you know, advancing this foolish theology, why do you believe God's not a punishing God? Well, time is short, so I won't play this all the way out, but it's going to come down to this. Well, I just wouldn't like a God like that. You say, oh, so the basis of your theology is what you like and don't like. And the basis of my theology is at least what I claim to be. God's own word to me. Now, can't even a fool be addressed at that point and say, does everyone have the right to make up a God in their own imagination? Don't you think that insults God? In the nature of the case, the only God worthy of worship is the one that reveals himself and expects us to conform to his character and not to be making him over according to our own desires. So you see how you undermine the fool at that point, because what good will it do you want to say to the fool just to believe anything you want about God? When people have tuberculosis, can they think it away? Can they just say, well, I'll believe whatever I want and so I won't be sick anymore? No. Well, if God is a punishing God and has revealed himself to be so, it's not going to do you any good to say, but I wouldn't like a God like that. That's the God you're going to have to deal with. And so now how do you know about God? You've already dismissed the possibility they can just go on whatever they feel like apologetic. And we will talk more later about how to deal with adherents of other religions. For simplicity, it's easier to start with apologetics with the guy furthest away from us, the atheist, the materialist, the naturalist. But I'll work it in so you can see you can even deal with, like, Muslims and Orthodox Jews and so forth with the same approach.