Dr Greg Bahnsen - Introduction to Apologetics: Conditions For Success I (Part 28)

Let's have a word of prayer as we get underway this evening. Lord, we are always humbled as we come into your presence, for we recognize how far short of your glory we fall. We are convicted of our sin, but we also come before you boldly thanking you that we have an advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous. We thank you that because of your love we are able to love you, and because of your provision we are able to come before you and to know that you will receive us for the sake of Christ and his righteousness. We do pray that you would lay our shortcomings, our failings, our transgressions upon Christ the Savior. They might be borne away and forgotten. And we pray that as we stand before you, you might fill us with your spirit, that you might strengthen and enlighten us tonight to know your word, to be better ambassadors for Christ in this world. We do pray you'd help us to think your thoughts after you. For we pray in Jesus name. Amen. Okay, we're starting a new section in our apologetic seminar this evening and I'll just take a few minutes here to review where we have been. Our course began with some foundational considerations with respect to apologetics. The nature of apologetics, the nature, nature of the audience, that is the nature of the unbelievers thinking and so forth, and the foundation for all that we are doing. I hope that you can remember back that many weeks or months to our rejection of neutrality as both impossible and immoral. And the contrast we drew between the thinking of the unbeliever and the mind of the new man who is in Christ, as well as the ultimate authority for our thinking. And that's God's revelation remembering that everyone's thinking has an ultimate authority which is defended in a circular fashion, that is to say a self attesting authority. I went on to try to clarify this position, at least to defend it against the misperceived criticism that this is an arrogant position, or that it's an obscurantist position, that we're saying everyone's wrong and we're right because we have the Bible and we know the Bible's right because the Bible says it is and we don't have to talk to you about any details after that, or that we know more than you do and so you know you're dumb and we're smart and that's all there is to it. Sometimes people simplistically run to those conclusions about what I have taught you as presuppositional apologetics and not at all True, especially if we understand that we stand in the position we do with the privilege that we have in defending the faith only because of the grace of God, that we would be as ignorant and as lost intellectually as those to whom we're speaking if it weren't for God's goodness to us. I argued that the revelation of God is inescapable and therefore everyone can do apologetics. And every man is accessible to our apologetical argument because to know anything, men must depend on the revelation of God. And I said the key for you to understand here is that men know God, but they suppress the truth and unrighteousness. They are self deceived about what they really believe. And so we talked about common ground that God has provided throughout creation and in the nature of man. But this ground is not neutral, it's always testifying to God. And I said that we can find a point of contact with every man in that he is made in the image of God. Even if he denies that he's made in the image of God, he nevertheless is the image of God and can be contacted and can be dealt with successfully. This then led to the second major section and that had to do with apologetical method. Having dealt with the foundations, we said, now what should the strategy be? How should we approach things? And I said that we cannot defend the faith in a piecemeal fashion looking at this aspect of it. Say that Jesus is divine and that Jesus rose from the dead. Creationism or you know, one at a time. Though there are times when we have to deal with particulars, the fact is that the defense of the faith is an all or nothing matter. We are comparing worldviews, the unbelievers worldview or the false religionist worldview over against the worldview of Christianity. And our procedure is not to directly prove any one point, but it is rather to indirectly prove the truth of Christianity by showing the impossibility of the alternatives. That all those other worldviews that are out there end up destroying logic or science or morality to take my common illustrations or the dignity of man, or man's freedom, and in so doing make apologetics actually make the debate between the believer and the unbeliever impossible. And make impossible those things that we are told most men take for granted of the reliability of science, or that there are moral absolutes, what have you. And our theme passage, of course was that in Proverbs 26, answer the fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Do not answer the fool according to his folly, lest you be like unto him. The third major section of our course was really an extended illustration of the method that I have just outlined for you, given a thumbnail sketch of we went through a variety of worldviews or problems with the non Christian worldview. We went through the difficulties with atheistic materialism or the naturalistic worldview. We looked at the philosophical alternative, Platonism, we looked at the major world religions and cults, and we even considered the smorgasbord approach. And then last week we finally had to say something about people who just have faith and faith who just believe and don't need reasons, or people who will say, well, it's true for you, but not for me. People who in essence give up reasoning altogether and therefore are not interested in the apologetical game, if you will, although this is serious stuff and I mean, they don't want to play by the rules of apologetics, they want to give up reasoning altogether. And so that that section you might call an extended illustration of our critique of the non Christian worldviews. Tonight I'm going to begin the last section of our syllabus, which is entitled the Conditions Necessary for Apologetic Success. With all of this foundational, methodological and illustrative material under your belt, and I'm assuming it is. If it isn't, please get the tapes review, get caught up. But with all of that under your belt, you're still going to ask what's it going to take to be successful in apologetics? And I'm going to begin this evening by being a little bit cruel to most of you, but believe me, it's for the sake of being kind to you ultimately. But I do have to be somewhat unpleasant for a moment or two here just to make my point. I'll also be able to flesh out who has done the reading for tonight by doing this. So we're beginning a consideration of apologetical success, and I suggest to you that most all of you in this room don't really stand a chance of being successful at apologetics because you're uneducated. I want to suggest to you that the reason why most of you are not going to be able to make use of this material is because you haven't bothered to get a Master's degree in anything, much less in philosophy. Most of you in this room don't have PhDs, and those of you who do don't have them in philosophy, which we all know of course is the queen of the sciences, the real, you know, academic epitome of intelligence and insight and for lack of education, you're all going to be just killed by people who, because they've gone to college, will say they know more than you do. So I'm sorry to be so cruel, but I've taken you all this way for nothing. Because unless you get the academic credentials, how could you possibly defend the faith successfully? Not only is that something you probably worry about when you come up against people who seem to know something, or at least have the piece of paper that says they know something, but it's the sort of thing you're also going to hear from people who are going to challenge you, who are you to talk about worldviews and philosophy? You probably never taken a philosophy course. I have. I've read books and books in philosophy. So who are you to talk to me like that? So I'm sorry to be so cruel, but basically I'm telling you you can't be successful in apologetics unless you're going to take the path that I have taken and you get a couple of master's degrees and a PhD and become, you know, debaters, people who are going to publicly stand up before audiences and debate these things. So unless anyone has anything to say, I guess we can just call the class off at this point, right?

Start your own school.

What's that?

Start my own college? Declare myself a doctor?

Well, I think that can be pretty easily put down. That's not the answer to what I'm telling you. I said I have to be cruel to you. I'm exploiting some of your deepest fears, but I'm also dealing with what is not fact, a worldly attitude that, you know, you're all just superstitious bumpkins if you haven't done advanced work in philosophy or natural science or have a degree in history. Come on. Who are you to be defending the faith in this way? Did anyone do the reading? Is anyone going to tell me how to answer that? I'm looking for hands. Maybe I ought to start at an easier level. Maybe instead of playing the devil's advocate, I should just say, how many of you did the reading a while ago? That is the oldest. Excuse me. I was so far ahead of you, professor, that I did it two months ago, but actually a year ago. Patty, did you read it? Can I give you the answer? Patty, did you read it? It's been a lot. Joe, did you read it? Do I have any of my students who are going to make my day? Mike. All right, Mike, I read it, but it was so boring, I couldn't pick up anything from it go ahead.

In an attempt to be all ting Tao men as Paul would be, if we want to engage in debate with the philosophers and so forth, we might get a university degree and pursue that life. But the long and the short of it is that no one really understands and no one really is pursuing after God. And as you've stated, they all know him in a sense that they suppress that in unrighteousness.

You're not dealing with credentials right now, though, Mike. I mean, you're talking to somebody who says, what do you know about these things? Who are you to say that to me? You've not studied, Willie. You want to take a shot at it?

I was just asking, what do you know about. That's the whole point.

Oh, but what they're going to say is, well, you know, I've written papers, you know, in philosophy of religion. I got A's in my courses. Who are you to tell me I don't know I've got something to show for my work.

Just asking you to tell me what.

You know and to balance me and help me make that. Yes, and you can do that. But I have given. Who else was criticized for his educational credentials? Anybody in the Bible you can think of? Turn in the Bible to John the seventh chapter, please. Verses 14 and 15. Something tells me we're going to reassign this chapter. Isn't his argument by authority fallacious? Not always. We argue from authority. God's authority.

God's authority.

Yeah. Well, okay.

You have to have it on, you know, somebody who knows all the facts and gossip.

We to make a. Let's turn to John 7. We're on rabbit trails right now. Let's get to the heart of this. John 7, 14, 15. Now, when it was. But when it was now the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple and began to teach. And look at this criticism. The Jews, therefore, were marveling, saying, how has this man become learned having never been educated? Jesus was criticized for not having the credentials. What school did you go to, Jesus? Where did you get your PhD? Of course, it wouldn't have been a PhD then, but you get the point. That's what they were saying. Who are you to stand up in the temple and teach? Who gives you the right to teach? You have a pretty good answer. Oh, I think he has an excellent answer. That's what we want to look at. And that's the answer I think you need to be prepared to use. Look at verses 17 and 19. Well, I'll begin at verse 16 to continue the story Jesus therefore answered them and said, my teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If any man is willing to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak for myself. Verse 19. Did not Moses give you the law? And yet none of you carries out the law? Why do you seek to kill me? This is a condensed conversation, I'm sure, but what is Jesus saying here? Jesus is having his academic credentials questioned, and Jesus questions the moral competence of his critics. He says, if you were willing to do God's will, you'd be able to tell whether I was teaching something from God or I made it up. Moses gave you a law, and yet not one of you keeps the law. It's a very delicate thing, but when people start getting on your case about not having the diploma, the degree, publications, not having debated, not having whatever it is they think is so important, you need to be prepared to pull the rug out from under them in terms of their ethical competence. Now, one way you can do that, in a sense Kant has suggested this, is you can point out that even by your own standards, criticizing me for not having an education is fallacious, because what's at issue here is not the man, but what is being said by the man. So the merits of the case should be what you're looking at, not at me as a person. And it's not appeal to authority. The fallacy is called ad hominem, arguing against the man rather than against the man's position. Now, this is just a little thing you want to say. Ethically speaking, you're not even living up to the things you've been taught or the things you teach others. You see, if I had a philosophy instructor, especially one who had to teach, you know, the grunt courses in logic for freshmen and so forth, and he tried to pull that sort of thing, I'd say, what a hypocrite you are. You say one thing in class you know, about. We just look at the truth of the matter. But when it. When it gets, you know, push comes to shove, you're willing to use those same fallacious arguments. Now, anyone can do that. I mean, you can point out the hypocrisy of anybody who thinks they're educated criticizing you for not being educated. And that's why they don't have to believe your arguments. But you can do more than that, too. You can also broaden the attack upon their competence by asking what their motivation is, how much study they've really done of this matter, whether they have an answer for you whether they're willing to pursue the argument to the end. And if you want to really become effective as an apologist, talk about personal things. But it's amazing. I can't tell you that 100% of the people you run into are going to back down when you present them with some of their sins, some of their own personal defects. But I can tell you I've never found anybody who didn't real quickly start pulling back when you start talking about marital infidelity or lies and gossip or hatred. If you know the person you're talking to, most likely you know some things about them that they should be ashamed of. And what you want to suggest is, well, of course, if what I'm teaching is true, then you would have a real hard time with this, because I know you're cheating on your wife. Yeah, I know that's rough stuff. It's going for the juggler, basically, what you want to do, whether it's the little thing of saying, isn't that hypocritical of you? If you're an educated person, you know better than to attack the man rather than the man's argument, to go into, what are the notorious sins in this person's personality or lifestyle? What you want to say is it's not really a question of educational credentials, what's at stake here. It's how we live our lives. Now, you're going to be in a bad position if you do that, however, and the person has an easy comeback, aren't you? That is to say, if your lifestyle is not above reproach, then you're gonna have to be pretty careful. Jesus was in a very good position to do this kind of thing because he could say, which of you indicts me of sin? Which of you can point to anything in my life that falls short of the glory of God or keeping his law? None of you will be in Jesus position. I know that. But my point is, you got to keep your nose clean. To speak metaphorically, if you're talking to somebody who has seen you at your worst, you're probably not going to be in a good position to start talking about their own sins, lest they say, well, who are you? But now, if you make that mistake, or if it so happens, they are able to come back at you with something, of course, you better be prepared to say, I didn't tell you that I was perfect. However, as a Christian, I know what the source of salvation is and I know why what I've done is wrong. Do you? And do you see how quickly you can again turn. You know you can do a reverse on your opponent even when they have indicted something in you. The point is, your worldview accounts for what's wrong in your behavior and also provides a way of escape. They don't have either one of those things, and so you can just put it right back to them. Say, you're right, I was wrong to talk that way or to be that way or whatever it is they're getting at. But in terms of my worldview, I can understand that it's wrong and also have liberation from it. How about yours? In your worldview, there isn't anything wrong with anything, much less a way of salvation. My point is that if we're going to be successful in apologetics, we need to get beyond worrying over academic credentials and formal considerations and be willing to do as Jesus did and talk about people where they're coming from and their own competence, especially their ethical competence. Jesus says, and you might want to memorize this verse just for this purpose. Jesus says, any man who is willing to do God's will will know of the doctrine, whether it be from God or not. Jesus says, in order to know the truth, you must practice the truth, because the person you're talking to will almost invariably be approaching this. When you convince me of the truth, then it'll become a question about doing it, living it. Jesus turns the tables. He says, if you don't live the truth, you can't understand the truth. And you want to suggest to the person. That may be one of the reasons you're squirming and squawking and resisting so much. What I'm telling you is because you don't want your life exposed to the light of God's holy revelation. You don't want to be indicted. You don't want to change your lifestyle. As Jesus said, since you're unwilling to do God's will, you'll never know God's will. Romans 1 tells us that those who refuse to acknowledge God and the truth about him are going to be led into futility and error in all fields of thought. We've looked at that passage enough times. I'll just remind you of that. Romans 1:18 21 the Bible says that unbelief, the unrighteousness of unbelievers blinds them. Here's another verse to memorize in talking to the person who challenges your formal credentials. First Corinthians 1:27 God chose the foolish things of this world that he might put to shame them that are wise. Boy. It Never hurts to just say in terms of that person's thinking about you. You're right. I am uneducated. In terms of your standards, I'm very foolish. But you know what the Bible tells me? The Bible tells me God chose the foolish things of this world to put to shame the wise. Now, do you have an answer for me? Oh, because you see, what you have done is you've said, well, you may be right. I may be a real pipsqueak intellectually. But if that's true, why is it you can't answer me? So if I'm a pipsqueak, you're less than a pipsqueak. God chose the foolish things to put to shame them that are wise. So you consider yourself wise and educated. Fine. Would you please answer me? How is it that you can condemn anything out here when you say, I'm nothing but evolutionary slime and you too, I mean, start throwing these arguments back. And of course, this requires you to not just say you can't know anything on the basis of your worldview. And then he says, well, why not? And you go, I don't know. Dr. Bronson told me that you got to be able to use one or two or three, half dozen of those arguments that you've heard or ones of your own if you wish to show this person that. So when he challenges your formal credentials, your education, you can look at his lifestyle and also say, you still have to come up with an answer, even if I'm uneducated. And I'm sure for a smart person like you, that won't be real hard, and then wait for the answer. But apologetical success is going to require you to have the confidence that though you may be, you know, the little kid in the parade, that you can say the king has no clothes and that you aren't going to be persuaded by people around you that, oh, that was the wrong thing to say, or, you know, you're not seeing things correctly. Remember the story of the Valley of the Valley of the Blind? You all can help me. The short story by Orwell. He talks to a man who fell into this ravine, this deep valley, and everyone there is blind. And so when he tries to talk to them about the things he sees, they all challenge him. They treat him like he's a fool, like there's something wrong with him. He's off his rocker. And being there long enough and wanting to fit in so much, eventually he has the doctors sew his eyelids closed so that he too will be blind. That's a great story. Not Inspired by God. But I think that we can learn something from it. There's something about human nature there. If you spend a lot of time with blind people, you'll start questioning whether you see things. And you'll start wanting to talk like blind people talk in order to get along with them. You must have the confidence to say, I don't care what you say. The king has no clothes. I don't care how many PhDs you have. You need to explain to me how in a materialistic universe there can be laws of logic. Okay, God chose the foolish things to put to shame those that are wise. Do you have that confidence? If the head of the philosophy department at USC Were to be sitting next to you on an airplane, would you say, oh, I better be quiet. He obviously can out talk me. Do you have the humility and the confidence that when he starts talking to you and you're witnessing to him. And he starts using the intellectual bullying technique of vocabulary you don't recognize and say, well, I don't understand the vocabulary, but I think I can understand the argument if you'll explain what you just said to me. It takes a lot of confidence to say that sort of thing. But, you know, the first or second time after you do that, say, I didn't hurt. Just ask the guy. Say that to me another way. Because I don't want to stop talking to you. But right now you're talking to me in language I don't understand. But I do think I have something to share and I'm willing to keep talking. Do you believe that God can use you and your apparent foolishness. Without academic credential to put him to shame? Obviously, this confidence must be followed by a properly guided method. And also a lifestyle that shows that you are right with God. You must avoid appealing to the principles of secular thought. Even when something might be offered to you. I remember an experience I had back when I was a senior in college. And I was working on a large estate in Montecito. And I was training the fellow who was going to take over for me the next year. And keeping up that estate after I went on. And he was more or less a hippie from the university. I was at the Christian College. And I think he probably thought I was something of an antiquated. Isn't this quaint? This boy believes in Sunday school stories sort of thing. We spent quite a few hours together. Together we ended up talking. And again without needing any pat on the back. It was interesting to me how often he would end the day saying, I Have to go home and think about these things. You know, these Sunday school stories held up pretty well, but all was said and done. But there was one particular day we started talking about creationism, and he had been chastened enough times that I guess he felt he was doing me a favor. And he kind of threw me a sop. He said, well, it is interesting, you know, the scientists out here at the university, you're talking about, you know, the big bang theory and all these sorts of things, and they say that, you know, it doesn't go back far enough. There's just not enough years for all of the stuff in evolution to have taken place. The temptation would be for me to take that and run with it. Right? Temptation to say, well, thanks for the favor. Yeah, let's talk about that. I said, well, it is true that there are problems with the evolutionary theory, but the difficulty with even those people who are saying something that begin to favor creationism is that they don't have the basis to say anything at all. I'm trying to get along with you, you know, I'm trying to say, you know, we're in this mystery together and what's going on. Don't let the unbeliever do you favors like that. Don't let the unbeliever suck you into saying, well, we could all approach this, you know, this mystery of life and realize we all don't know what's going on. And there is kind of a sense in which I don't have the answers either. But why don't you admit you don't have the answers and we're kind of working at this thing together. You don't want to accept those principles. Don't use unbelieving presuppositions. Don't use an autonomous attitude in order to get people to give up their unbelieving presuppositions and their autonomy. You're dealing with the unbeliever. You need to remember the teaching of Paul in Romans 3, 10, 12. Paul, of course, here is quoting the old testament, psalms and Isaiah. But in verses 10 to 12 of Romans 3, he says, as it stands written, there is none righteous, not even one. There is none who understands. There is none who seeks after God. All have turned aside. Together they have become useless. There is none who does good. There is not even one. We often use Romans 3. I think in terms of the ethical indictment. All men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and there is none righteous. No, not one. But notice what Paul says here. It has epistemic relevance. He says there's none who understands and there's none who's seeking after God. You see, when my friend out there working with me in the fields is telling me that, you know, well, even from where I come from, no one really knows about the universe. It's all a great big mystery and how can we account for certain things? He wasn't seeking after God. Now, at base, what he was trying to say is, I guess none of us can know for sure, huh? So why don't you ease up a little bit, Greg? You know, don't make it so hard. Don't be so confident in your position and I won't be so confident in mine, and we'll all be in the same soup together. Now, I needed to understand, and I'm not saying that I perfectly do or apply it, but we all need to realize we're talking to people who are not seeking God. When you're at the airport and Hare Krishna approaches you and talks about wanting to be at one with ultimate reality, don't think they're seeking God. Their hearts need God. And Augustine is right. Our hearts are restless until they find until God grants us the peace of salvation. But that doesn't mean people are consciously seeking God. The Bible tells us the whole human race is dead in trespasses and sin. The Bible tells us that no one has knowledge or understanding apart from God. We just looked at that in Romans 3. Check it in Psalm 53 as well. In Ephesians 2, Paul says the unbeliever in his mind is a child of wrath. In Romans 8 he says in his mind he's at enmity with God. It is inevitable that the unbeliever with that kind of mindset is going to end up speaking falsehood. He's going to depart from the faith. He's going to build his house on sand that is easily destroyed. I realize that this is unpopular to say this, and it seems harsh to say it in our day and age, but if we are not convinced of the thoroughgoing foolishness and defective approach of unbelievers thinking, we won't have the confidence to take the stand that I've been teaching you in this course up to this point. We can't avoid how strong the Bible speaks against the thinking and the reasoning of unbelievers. In Psalm 94, we see a contrast between the man whose thoughts are vain and the man who is instructed out of the law of God. The same kind of contrast can be found in the New Testament. The mind that is set on the flesh and the mind that is led by the Spirit of God. Now, if unbelievers are as bad as I'm saying, then how can we ever be successful with them? And how should you evaluate your success? I have some arguments that I think are pretty good that have done me a lot of good, given me a lot of confidence about my Christian convictions, and have been used by God to give other people a lot of conviction, seem to be helpful, and in fact have in many cases silenced the mouths of unbelievers with whom I am debating or arguing. But then I come across people sometimes who hear those very same arguments, hopefully, you know, delivered with the same kind of flourish and clarity and cogency and forcefulness as all the rest. They aren't budged at all. Now, why is that? Sometimes it's due to our communication problems. You know, I thought that was well delivered. It wasn't. But in cases where it was put clearly, put pleasantly, winsomely, put cogently, and people still respond with indifference or like it's water on a duck's back, that sort of thing. Why is that? What accounts for that? Well, we're Calvinists. We have a certain understanding of the relationship of man to God and the way in which God governs the universe in general and the hearts of men and persecution particular in John 16:8, I want you to notice these words of Jesus speaking of the coming of the advocate, the Paraclete. Jesus says, and he, when he comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment. Jesus also says that this Spirit witnesses to him and in fact acts in a sense as the legal representative of Christ, the advocate for Christ. John 15:26. When the helper or the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness of me. To put it very simply, the success of our apologetic is going to depend ultimately upon the work of the Spirit convicting the world of sin and bearing witness to the Savior in whose name we speak. Look at 1 John 5, 21st John 5, 20th verse. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding in order that we might know him who is true. And we are in him who is true in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God in eternal life. Where did we get this understanding? We know the Son of God has come and has given us understanding. That's not our accomplishment. And as much as we wish to be tools in God's hand, as much as we want to be conduits of the truth and be persuasive in our arguments. We are not going to give understanding to the unbeliever. We are not going to help him accomplish anything that we couldn't accomplish on our own. And no man can can, because no man seeks after God. Understanding must be granted by God. Put it very simply, we're dealing with blind people and they will not see the truth until God takes away their blindness. It is always concern to me that I have people in the Presbyterian world, the Reformed orbit, if you will, who are staunch Calvinists when it comes to their theology. But when it comes to apologetics, they kind of forget all that and they argue on worldly terms with worldly presuppositions and with the idea that if we just had good enough arguments, you know, now they would say, well, we've got to have really good arguments. But then the Holy Spirit does give the understanding. It's kind of like a rather mechanical thing. All of it is out there, but it's just a matter. Now they have their minds changed, but their will hasn't been changed by the Spirit. The Bible says people's minds are darkened. People do not have understanding, and understanding must be granted unto them. Sometimes when you don't see evident success as an apologist, it's because, very simply, the person can't understand your argument. And that doesn't mean your argument is bad. And this should never be used as an excuse for arguing in a way that lacks cogency. What I'm saying is, if we are going to be true to our soteriology, we're going to understand our theology and put it into practice. We need to understand at the very outset. This is tonight's first lesson in this series. Apologetical success depends upon the sovereignty of God. It depends upon God granting understanding, enlightening the mind of the unbeliever, taking away his blindness, softening his hard heart, so that the evidence and the argumentation which is so cogent might have its full effect. But of course, if we do know that it depends upon the work of the Spirit to grant that understanding, then we should be real clear that our argumentation should be true to the word of God, should not depart from the authority of God's word. If someone says, well, but he won't buy the authority of God's word, so I'll try to use something less than that to try to impress him and get him convinced. You say, well, wait a minute. He's not going to be convinced of anything until the Spirit changes his heart anyway. And if that's true, then when the Spirit does that work, you better give him the best stuff you have. Don't give him some kind of hybrid answer that suits his autonomy a little bit, but also works toward saying Jesus is worthy of your confidence. What you want to say is if you don't have Jesus, you have no basis for confidence in anything. Give him the full strength medicine, because it's going to take the work of the Spirit to get him to believe, to submit to that kind of authority anyway. So the first condition of apologetical success is that we work in terms of Christ, word and Spirit. We must be true to the word of God, not be thrown off by attacks upon our credentials. We must indict the ethical competence of our hearers, of our opponents. And we must realize that only when the Spirit grants understanding by God's sovereign grace will our arguments be effective. I sometimes hear people frustrated in apologetics, and it's like it's almost as though they expect the unbeliever to say, well, I guess you're right, but I just don't want this. As though unbelievers are going to just openly bifurcate their personality in their that way so that you can deal with them on an intellectual plane. But then of course, you realize you've never touched their heart or their emotions or their volition, their ethical center, as it were. The Bible doesn't have that view of man. Understanding is part of a package that goes with a changed heart. And so in apologetics, let's be true to our theology, to our soteriology, and realize that success will only come if God sovereignly grants understanding. One last word, and then I'll close this long lesson tonight. Does that mean that we should be discouraged and hesitant to be apologetically active? Some people have said, well, if you're a Calvinist, I mean, here's an old argument. If you believe in predestination, why witness to anybody? Well, the answer to that problem is the answer to the thing. When people say, well, why be a presuppositionalist who relies on the sovereignty of God? I mean, it's going to take the Spirit's work. You might as well use fallacious arguments or no arguments at all. Why do we argue with people knowing that it takes God's work in their heart for them to give in? He told us to because he told us to. And is God glorified, which gives greater glory to God? An argument that shows that without him you can't do anything. Or the argument that says, well, you believe what you want, I believe what I want. If the Spirit changes your heart, then I guess you'll come with me. I mean, I'm overriding the contrast here to make the point, but obviously God is not glorified if we don't present an effective testimony to Him. And as Ellery has said, God has told us to do that. And God will be the one who grants success if we are faithful to Him. He also grants success when we're not faithful to him because he's so gracious. But our job is to be faithful, to be responsible. Why do you witness to unbelievers if it takes predestination for them to be saved? Because God ordains not only the end, but but also the means to the end. He not only ordains this person's salvation, but also that he'll hear the Gospel and believe it to be saved. And so God's predestinating sovereignty does not keep us from witnessing to people, nor should it keep us from presenting the best apologetical arguments that we can for the sake of his glory and our responsible obedience to His Word. Okay, any questions on tonight's lesson? Are we to interpret then there is none that seeketh after God. That there is none that seeketh after God until the Holy Spirit directs him to. Yes. Yeah. Unless the Holy Spirit draws upon person to Jehovah, the living and true God, they won't really seek after God. This is interesting. Some of the most hardened unbelievers are religious people, you see, because they've erected idols and they are just committed heart and soul to their idol, whether it be their own intellect or one of the false religions of the world, what have you. But even those people who want to talk about lot about religion, as long as Satan has diverted that to some other than the living and true God, they're not seeking after God. Now, Paul would be wrong if he said no man is seeking after God in the formal, abstract sense, that no man is saying he wants to find out about God. Well, there are plenty who said they want to do that. Paul knew there are plenty of false religions that are in that sense seeking a God. But of course he means the living and true God, Jehovah. And no man seeks after Jehovah until God puts it into his heart to do so.

Mark, since there's a situation where you might be clear and cogent in your arguments, yet they're not understood because apparently the mind has been darkened by God, it brings up questions. One is, how can you be sure, you are being clear and cogent. The second is often we have arguments of co Christians that obviously God isn't intentionally clouding their mind. Well, maybe he is. But you know, if you're arguing, say.

The net or gross of your income should be tied.

Apparently you might be very clear with something like that.

Well, the lesson tonight is not meant to deal with intra faith disputes over doctrinal interpretation of passages. I think that's a different kind of issue than what we're looking at right now. The first part of your question deserves an answer though, because I've been in that position especially early on. How do I know that it wasn't my fault? I mean, that I just really bumbled in my presentation of this or made myself look really foolish by not knowing enough about it? Well, it helps of course to work on your argumentation to know enough about it to realize when you are off base and not. But I think God gives us each other to help in that. The more that you do this sort of thing, the more experience you have to compare. If you've seen someone who was moderately intelligent but not somebody that had to kind of pick up the ball for you and run with it, that you presented it to in just that way and they could understand it and maybe became a Christian or something, and you did it the first same way with this other person, at least you have something to compare. But I think also if you have training with someone, not necessarily me or a pastor, but with any other Christian, Christians can help Christians. They can say, well, you know, I think you lost them when you put it this way, and that's part of the problem. But then Christians can also encourage one another thing and say no, I think it was pretty clear. It just seems to me his mind was clouded by not wanting to be taken down this path. So there's no direct and general answer to how you can know that you were cogent. But I think there are ways in which you can improve your cogency either by comparing your own experiences or having others to help you. It doesn't have to be just one person or somebody who teaches apologetics. Although, you know, if we all took this seriously, and I hope you won't misunderstand this, I don't think everyone can do this, but if we took this really seriously, I think it'd be nice if people would come to their pastors and to their elders and say, could I spend an hour with you sometime? Just kind of going over you play the devil's advocate and help me sharpen this up and show me where I might improve, you know, my clarity and my persuasiveness and so forth. I don't know. We don't expect to go out on the baseball field and be great shortstops without practice. Why do we think we can do apologetics with practice? We do, though, don't we? We tend to think, well, you know, I just kind of hold all this stuff here. I don't have to. Sometimes people say nice things that I think are undeserved, but they say nice things about my apologetical ability or the debates that I've had and so forth. You know, how can I do that sort of thing? Well, how do you sing so well, Mark, is. Because God just gives this to you on the spot. You just stand up there and all of a sudden you're just filled with ability. Yeah. Unless you have some kind of charismatic view of singing, a charismatic view of apologetics, the answer is always the same. It's hard work, and I've worked at understanding my arguments and presenting them more clearly and so forth. And I think we all should. I mean, whether it's through formal training or not, I don't think we should just assume the first time I open my mouth, it's going to come out just as good as it's ever going to be. Hopefully, the hundredth time you present the argument, it's going to be clearer and better and more forceful than the first time you did. That's a good question, though. How do we know? I think we need each other to kind of help us. Anything else, Kent?

I always have a problem. This is kind of a common question. I have a problem oftentimes because of the smoke screens that people put across on the arguments. And they're not really arguments at all. They're things like, well, there's a lot of hypocrisy in the church. And look at Jim and Tammy Baker, and they'll go through all. They'll try to point out inconsistencies in the PDU and things like that. And I tend to get very frustrated, kind of angry, because I know that they are not attempting to answer the question. And what suggestions can you come up.

With just off the top of your.

Head, dealing with frustration that you feel when somebody says something like.

Well, do you want suggestions on how to answer that sort of thing or dealing with your personal frustration?

Well, how to answer that sort of thing and how to do it in a way that doesn't upset the person?

Well, sometimes I can be effective at upsetting people, so maybe I Shouldn't, shouldn't answer them. But one thing you need to be prepared to do winsomely is to really cork that kind of thing. When they start attacking the hypocrisy of Christians, you need to have a few clear examples you want to throw right back to them, you know, if they are unbelievers. Take a couple of mass murderers or somebody who's been found guilty of multiple rapes or something like that and say, you know, it really bothers me too. Here are these people who talk about how unbelievers can lead great lives. And look at all these unbelievers that are being convicted every day in the courts that have done all these heinous things. You know, when the shoes put on the other foot, they have to say, oh yeah, I guess everybody's got embarrassing people who embarrass them that would agree with their outlook in general or more particulars. Secondly, you need to point out I'm not here to defend Christians any more than I could defend my own sins and inconsistencies, whether they're notorious like Jim Baker's or not. I'm here to defend the Savior that promises salvation to people like me and Jim Baker and others. And he, you cannot indict him, you cannot indict me. You could. And these others. And so you want to again show that we're not talking about people, we're talking about the system that is believed, the system of truth presented. Well, I want to add one last thing here, and this is not going to help you so much deal with that. I think the first two things are the most effective things to say to people. I would get off of that real quick. Don't start counting how many horrible things Christians have done over against how many horrible things unbelievers have done. In my debate with Dr. Stein, you may remember in passing, said something about that. I said, people can bring up the Spanish Inquisition and it is embarrassment professing Christians. But then again, I can bring up the French Revolution where the Goddess of reason was set up as the supreme being in authority there. And what is it, one month, 40,000 people were guillotined. Robespierre, who was the leader of the revolution, was arrested by his own colleagues and was beheaded. I mean, don't tell me that atheists don't have their embarrassing illustrations too, and then get off, just say, we're not going to get anywhere with that. But the last thing I wanted to say, and this doesn't help answering them, to be very honest with you, people have sometimes asked me just recently, someone asked me, what do you consider the hardest thing to answer? The best argument? None of them are valid or sound. But what is the best argument or the most challenging argument against Christianity? And I think it's this one. If there's anything when Satan is doing his job on me that is more effective in making me doubt the truth of the Gospel is why doesn't it make a difference in people's lives any more than I see? And that's a sad thing. In the end, it is not relevant that I fall short of the glory of God. It's not relevant to whether Jesus is who he said he was. But it does bother me. And I'll bet it bothers you, too. I think it bothers all of us when we look at the church. Why is the church in such horrible condition? If the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation in the way that we expect, wouldn't you expect Christians to live better lives than they do? One of the things we could all do to improve our apologetical success is to get our own ethics houses in order. And I don't just mean on the notorious things, you know, embezzlement and adultery and things like that. I mean, we should be the kind of people that are not such easy targets for that sort of thing. One quirky response to the charge of hypocrisy. Former pastor of mine say, why don't you join us? There's always room for one more. All right. With that, we'll end tonight's lesson. And I will tell you that I'd like you to read chapter 19. If you didn't do so tonight, for those few of you who might not have, and then also chapter 20. Next week we'll be studying this matter that one must believe in order to understand it. Faith precedes the ability to reason correctly. Yes, sir.

There was some confusion about your assignment. I distinctly heard you say chapters 13 and 14.

Yes, that confusion I had meant to address and apologize, and I do offer that sincerely, I meant the next section. And because I had got my count wrong as to how many things I had done, I think I told you the first. First two chapters in section three. It should have been the first two chapters in section four. And for those of you who did, do the others, you obviously don't have to put up with the teacher's sarcasm tonight.