Dr Greg Bahnsen - Introduction to Apologetics: Foundations II (Part 2)

All right, we're in. Our second lesson having to do with a Biblical Introduction to Apologetics. And I want to begin this evening by provoking a little bit of review on your part from what we did last week, and then I'll try to get through the first two chapters I'm going to review. Too long. I won't make it. But the title of the syllables is A Biblical Introduction to Apologetics. I spent a lot of time just working on the title of the syllabus because there's significance to it, and we can ask why we should have a Biblical introduction to Apologetics, and I emphasize the word biblical. Why should there be a biblical introduction? We're starting on the basis that all of our knowledge, all of our e, come from a biblical standpoint. Okay. If we assume that all knowledge assumes a biblical foundation, then knowledge of apologetics would assume a biblical foundation as well. But now apologetics is supposed to show us why we should trust the Bible as God's word. Apologetics lays down the foundation for that sort of thing. So isn't it a little bit unfair to study apologetics from the very beginning as though we'd already accomplished the task at the end? I mean, isn't it like kind of going in a circle, assuming what you're supposed to be proving? Well, that's supposed to bother you, though. Everything in a circle is not supposed to be going on. But in essence, we're never neutral, so we always have a standard, even if we admit it or we don't. Sure, that's right. Neutrality is impossible. And if it turns out that we have to reason in a circle when it comes to apologetics, that's a necessity of the circumstances. That is just in the nature of the case. Knowledge itself has foundations, and so knowledge about knowledge already assumes the foundation for knowledge. That's a little abstract. Let me put it this way. Do you think that a person could ever prove the reliability of a human eye without using the human eye? Would it be possible to show the reliability of the human eye without using the human eye in the process of proving it? No, just can't be done. Now, is that reason of a circle that just shows the necessity of assuming the reliability of the human eye? You just can't get beyond it, can you? You have to use the eye to disprove the reliability of the eye, as a matter of fact. So as human beings, we're going to point, necessarily trust our senses, at least in the general sense. That doesn't mean the eye never misleads us. We never have Illusions. It just means that even in the disproving of an illusion, we have to use the eye to show that there's something wrong. Okay. So that's why we have a biblical approach to the defense of the Bible. And if the Bible is the foundation of knowledge, the Bible is the foundation of the knowledge, of how to get knowledge and how to defend the Bible as well. Now, what is wrong with an extra biblical introduction or approach to apologetics? What is wrong with taking an approach that does not assume the Bible but goes outside of it? Extra biblical approach. We've really kind of touched on this already. But someone else see if they can put an answer to yours. We have to have the best rules for evaluation. If we settle for an inferior evaluation, inferior set of ground rules, we're going to come up with an inferior argument. Yeah, that's a good way of putting it. If we go outside the Bible, we're going to have a less reliable, in fact, I think, unreliable foundation for knowledge. And so we're of necessity going to have to use the Bible as our foundation. But there's something else that I'm looking for here, and I'm not sure how to put the question, so I don't give away the answer. But what would be wrong with using an approach to human knowledge that does not recognize the ultimate authority of Scripture in order that we might prove to someone the ultimate authority of Scripture? Do you have a presuppositional bias to offend? If knowledge is based on Scripture, then assuming falsely of some neutrality of knowledge by starting with that assumption, you set up a situation where you would come to the wrong conclusion. Almost identical when you do have a false bias. That's true. No, look for something else here. If the Christian faith declares God's word to be the ultimate authority. Listen to me, the ultimate authority. Authority. And I use some other basis to prove the ultimate authority of Christianity. What am I doing wrong? There can't be another ultimate authority. So what I've really done is I've said Christianity is not the ultimate authority. For a while, something else will be the ultimate authority. And then I'll throw that away. Then I'll become a Christian, kind of like crawling up a ladder to get to the roof and then kicking the ladder away and pretending you never had a ladder. You use this authority for a while. Now that I've reached the plateau where I want to go, then I'm going to use that. And I also have a different approach. Here's another way to put it. What's wrong with an extra Biblical approach to apologetics, it is inconsistent with the faith that we are defending. That approach is contrary to the conclusion that we're by the truth. I've got to tell people Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority in life. And I'm going to prove that by, for a while having you assume Jesus Christ is not the ultimate authority in life. So that means I'm defending the faith in a way which is inconsistent with the faith defended. Now, what is the sacred secular dichotomy? Anyone who was here last week, what is the sacred secular dichotomy that we refer to? We got a really diligent student here. I'm going to call on her unless someone else gets a hand up. Okay, Cindy has the sacred on one side and the spiritual on one side, the opponent reason on the other side, or spiritual and natural. What do we mean by on one side and on the other side? Methodologies of looking at apologetics. Well, you can apply to apologetics, but this applies to everything in life. Some people say that you take one kind of approach to spiritual things using the Bible or revelation and faith, and then you take another approach to secular things using reason and nature of interpretation. What's that? Okay. Or you have a division in your method of interpreting human experience where you say certain areas of experience, the spiritual or the sacred areas, are approached one way, and then other areas of experience, like our physical life, natural world, and so forth, are approached another way. So you have a sacred secular dichotomy. We split reality and all of human knowledge into two watertight compartments. Do we? Like a secular dichotomy? We call it a unitary view. That's right. We hold a unitary view. Or if you will, we hold the view that there's one authority over all appliances. So can someone give me five lines or can you all work together to come up with five lines of biblical proof to show this distinction to be false? What is it that the Bible teaches us that would suggest that dividing life into a spiritual realm and then the non spiritual and having different authorities and methods is not true to teaching the Scripture? I need to get five. Okay, Stacy. Okay. One of the questions I had last week was what is the scope of life and thinking that's supposed to glorify God? And Stacey has quoted 1 Corinthians 10:31 that tells us that in whatever we do, we're to glorify God. So it turns out that you can't have a secular area where you don't have to glorify God. Somebody says, well, but when I'm Playing basketball. That's secular. Or when I'm paying the bills and I'm at the door of my God, when I'm driving my car, or when I'm going to the doctor. All these things pertain to life in the world that everyone shares. And commonly believers, I don't have to glorify God there. But Stacy point out verses, do even eating and drinking unbelievers eat and drink. They don't eat and drink to the glory of God. So even their eating and drinking is sinful. Which points us to the doctrine of total depravity. This way, totally. Everything the unbeliever does, totally, is displeasing to God. That's not a popular doctrine. But if you do believe in total depravity and the Bible teaches of unbeliever, that will affect your approach to apologetics, because that means the unbeliever's way of reasoning is not pleasing to God either. You know, I've often thought about this. When Christians or non Christians work in philosophy of religion, they devise these really sophisticated arguments for the existence of God. I sometimes wonder whether they really think God is flattered by that. They're using their minds independently as though they're a God to themselves, so that they might prove that there is God out there in the universe. You know, I really think, if you understand the prerogatives of God and the proud man, that God is not at all pleased or flattered. In fact, he doesn't need our help at all. We need his. Okay, well, that's only one, though. We need four more, Cindy. That we're to love the Lord with our heart, soul and mind, and our minds. We. The first and great commandment that covers everything is that we're supposed to love God with everything else, and that includes our minds. So we can't have a sacred secular dichotomy. Because I would assume that there's some area of life where my mind doesn't have to love the Lord, things being different. Okay, another one. That's two. Okay. How extensive is Christ's authority? 28. All authority or power in heaven and on earth is mine. Jesus doesn't have any neutral zones where it's kind of like a cosmic king's X, you know, this doesn't count religiously. Jesus in all authorities. Okay. Fourth. Tim. Oh, no. Now do I have to give my lecture as I get to the high school review before we come to class? Chris, How much of life is supposed to be holy? What does it say that? How does it say that? There's something else. That's the quotation from the Old Testament. Peter says, what? All manner of life. All manner of life. So that means my thinking has to be holy too. What does the word holy mean? Set apart. So my thinking should be set apart. I think you should love the Lord. I think you should glorify God. I think you should see the authority of Jesus Christ and everything. Then there was one more, wasn't there? Somebody had five things last week. Well, if you weren't here, you can't tell me. It was from wildly. That these verses will be used quite a bit to go through the towers. Every thought must be brought back. Let's just finish the review. What was the fifth area that we looked at? I trust you. We're talking about poverty, holiness, love, glory. Isn't there something else? The example of Eve, who was misled by the subtlety of Satan. Think. Well, I have to decide on my own authority whether God is right or Satan is right. And I suggested to you that if Eve had made the right decision, that is the conclusion that God was right but had made it for the wrong reason, she still would fall into. Because the point there was God's ultimate authority. I mean, in a sense, Eve would not have granted God the ultimate authority. He said, well, if God satisfies me, then he can be my ultimate authority. God doesn't need us to graduate in magna cum laude from our classes and courses and institutions to be worthy of our intellectual. Okay, well enough. By way of review, tonight I want to look at the error of neutrality. One more review question. We're going to look at three principles in this first section of the syllabus, and I've already given one away. Neutrality. What are the other two? I put them across the board last week. Neutrality. And then we're going to look at what principle of antithesis and the basis for knowledge. So tonight we do the first one. Neutrality. The attitude of neutrality, as you saw on the first page of your syllabus, comes to expression in apologetics, Christian scholarship and in schooling especially, where people have the attitude, you don't have to be a Christian to plant a peach tree. You don't have to be a Christian to understand the laws of logic or the chemical composition of water, or the place of Shakespeare. Truth is truth wherever it's found, so you don't have to be a Christian when you approach these things. We should actually be neutral as we approach questions of the truth, especially when we're trying to defend the faith, because otherwise people will say, well, you're just begging the question. You've got to take an I don't know, as yet approach to this. We'll both say we don't know what the truth is and we'll go looking for. And I suggested to you that this attitude of neutrality is sinful. This attitude of neutrality is unacceptable. But instead of just putting it out there that generally, let's look at points that are wrong with neutrality first is that it takes away the Christian's distinctiveness. In John, the 17th chapter, Jesus prayed that his followers would be sanctified by the truth. What does sanctified mean? Set apart, made holy. Okay, so we're different from others. We're distinctive. And what is it that sanctifies us? Thy word is true. Sanctify them by the truth. Thy word is true. And so what makes us different from everybody else, what makes us different from the unbelieving segment of the human race is that the Bible, God's word, guides us and guards us. Everything that we do is characterized by and controlled by the Bible. So if I were to be neutral and put aside my adherence to God's truth in order to defend the Christian faith, I would not be fulfilling Christ's prayer that I'd be set aside. I would lose my Christian distinctiveness for a while. While I'm defending the faith, I'm just like everybody else. And we will see eventually that everybody else is in a sinking boat. So what I'd say is, well, let me get in your sinking boat with you, Mr. Unbeliever, so that I can show you that this boat can be saved. Not many people do that if they are out on the open sea. And I trust we shouldn't do it when talking about intellectual disputes either. Okay, let's turn in our Bibles tonight to Colossians, the second chapter, verses 3 to 5, 3, 8. Colossians the second chapter, verses 3 to 8. Paul has just spoken of Jesus Christ, the last word in verse two. And he continues, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom, knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine sounding arguments. For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is. So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness, see to it that no one robs you through vain and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition. And the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. The second thing that's wrong with neutrality is that it will rob us of knowledge. Not only does it take away our Christian distinction, so we're not sanctified by the word of truth, but Paul says it will rob us. Now notice in verse three, he says Christ is the depository of wisdom and knowledge. Any sacred secular distinction, evident and false thinking. At this point he doesn't say all religious knowledge, does it? All knowledge pertaining to worship and Bible reading and evangelism. He says all knowledge, whatever there is to know about this universe that Christ himself created. He is the depositor. He is the basis of all knowledge. Now if that is the case, Paul says be careful someone doesn't rob you. The metaphor of being robbed. Actually the Greek word means be careful that you don't get mugged by somebody. Get robbed by somebody. Well, what are you going to get robbed of? What in this passage has mentioned anything that might be worth robbing you of? Treasures. Right. When someone robs you, their hope is they're going to get treasures. In this passage, Paul is referring to the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. He's be careful, you're going to give them up. You're going to have that taken away from you. You're going to be robbed of the treasures that are in Christ. And how will you be robbed if you give in pain and deceptive philosophy. I say something because at this point people say why you teach philosophy about philosophy? You got a PhD in philosophy. Paul says you're not supposed to study philosophy. Why Paul condemned study philosophy, Right? I actually have had people say that, say, well, but if you really want, if you really love the Lord, you wouldn't study philosophy. Bible says, well, let's, let's ask ourselves if that's the case, which is right there. You wear a philosophy. Well, I don't know if my grandma. As to where anyone cheating through plain philosophy. Yeah, there you have it. Well, that's just. I mean you can probably use a philosophy. Notice a few things. First of all, Paul does not prohibit anything. He says, be on your guard. This is not a prohibition passage. This is a warning passage. Look out, Paul says this happened to you. Beware. Secondly, what he is telling us to beware of is not philosophy in general, but a particular kind of philosophy. Right? And let's look at the kind of philosophy that we should be very wary of. Few Christians are. By the way, this verse has a real function in the 20th century. Other times too, Christians don't care. I mean Christians are. I won't use the sexual analogy that I was going to. You can figure it out for yourself. Christians are intellectually pretty loose, asleep around with just about any philosophy that comes down to pipe frankly and dumb stuff where, oh, what kind of philosophy? Vain and deceptive philosophy, hollow empty philosophy. And how do we know the philosophy that will deceive us and mislead us? It is. Look in your Bibles, tell me two things, okay? It follows human. All the philosophy I learned was based on these great thinkers said you're supposed to. You're supposed to find your own identity by whether you're a follower of Plato or Aristotle or Kant or Hegel or Chopinard or whoever. It may be thousands beware of that kind of idea that follows human traditions, not just big names and philosophy, but follows philosophy on the basis of human authority. And then also secondly, this philosophy is characterized by what? Well, that's a rough paraphrase. The world standards. What does the text actually say? The basic principles of the world. Greek sloitia, used elsewhere in the Greek language were the abcs of learning, the elementary building blocks of learning. Paul says, be careful of those whose. And I say presuppositions, elementary assumptions, basic approach to things is worldly human tradition, worldly presuppositions. Then he said in the master Christ. Here's the third thing. You see, not only is he cautioning, not prohibiting, not only is he cautioning against a particular kind of philosophy, but thirdly, Paul refers to a philosophy that is what after Christ. Beware of that philosophy. That's vain deceit and not after Christ. Paul doesn't say don't study philosophy. He says, make sure that you approach philosophy assuming the authority of Christ rather than the worldly presuppositions and human authority traditions. Now, if there is a Christian philosophy, Christian meaning what? Follower of Christ. If there is a Christian philosophy, then clearly that's what we should be working to achieve, to accomplish in our own thing. How many Christians can say self consciously, I thought through my understanding of reality and knowledge and behavior, and though I make mistakes, mine is a Christian philosophy. I'm trying to follow Christ in the way that I think as well as the conclusions I've come to. Well, if you don't stop, I think there's no, you won't know whether yours is a Christian philosophy or just like anything else Plato or Aristotle or Kant may have told you. Let me give you an analogy. What if a medical doctor, well, let's assume you were all in class, you know, at med school and the doctor who was supposed to come and teach shows up one day. I've been thinking about how I teach medicine. I'm going to change because I've been focused on, on negative things. I've been focusing on disease, broken bones and ailments of all sorts. And that's not what we want. What we want is healthy bodies. My interest is in good things to happen to people. So we're not going to study disease anymore. We're going to study healthy mistake. I mean, obviously the reason you study disease, broken bones and other kinds of ailments is to what to bring about health and healing. So if someone said, no, I'm going to ignore all the negative things in life, all the bad situations out there, who's going to look at good medical situations, you wouldn't be of any help at all. Likewise, if we intellectually are going to bring healing to our thinking and we're going to think in a Christian way and avoid the diseased thinking that's out there, then we better know something about disease. We better study broken bones and disease and ailments of various sorts in the intellectual realm. So I don't think Paul at all. This verse is turned and twisted and made to seem that way. Back to our point about neutrality. Paul says, if you follow worldly philosophy and you don't assume the authority of Jesus Christ, if you say, okay, Mr. Plato, you tell me your most basic assumptions, then I'll try to prove the authority of Jesus to you. What's going to happen? Paul tells you what's going to happen. You don't have to go to some fancy seminary or graduate school to find out. Paul goes to the back of the book and goes, here's the answer. You use worldly approach and you're going to lose everything. You're going to be robbed of the treasures of knowledge that are in Jesus Christ. And that's the second basic reason why neutrality is unacceptable and apologetic. And this is a tough lesson. I chose to deal with this first because if you can get over this pump, then you're going to be on the right track and the rest is going to be refining of what we should do in apologetics. But this is the basic fault of every other approach to apologetics. It just assumes you can't beg the question. You can't assume Christianity is true, and you're trying to prove that it's true. And I'm going to be arguing. As a matter of fact, that's the only alternative you have. If you don't, Paul says, you're going to lose all knowledge. You're going to be in same sinking ship as the person you're trying to rescue. Cindy, is this the kind of apologetic that is historical in the Christian church? Yes, there is precedent for this sort of thing. Let's look at the history of theology for a moment, then I'll come back to your question. If I were teaching lesson about the millennium tonight, most of you know I'd be teaching a post millennial interpretation of Scripture. Now if you raise your hand, you say, now is that historical? Have people taught that before? I could just in a categorical way say yes and move on. But to be more accurate, I should probably tell you, yes, that teaching has always been present to one degree or another. But as time goes on, the Christian church refines its understanding. And we see it, you see in John Calvin the seeds of this sort of thing, but not a completely developed system. By the time you get to the Puritans, they pretty much got that worked out into what we would call elementary post millennialism. By the 19th century, the Princeton theologians have got what we basically call post millennials. So it's been in the history of the church. You can go back to the church fathers and find that kind of expectation of victory for the gospel. You see it more in John Calvin, you see it more in the Puritans and even more in the Princeton theologians. So there's a development likewise in the polemic, one degree or another. But it has come to greater clarity, consistency of expression in the late 19, especially in the 20th century, in the work of Cornelius Mantill and others as well. I don't want to say it's a one man show, but man Till in particular has done a lot to kind of systematize and draw together the song. OJ Is going to get through this tonight. So I'm going to. Okay. First thing that's wrong with neutrality takes away our Krishna distinction. The second thing that's wrong is it robs us of knowledge. You're going to lose if you take that approach because the knowledge you're supposed to come to at the end, you're going to preclude at the very beginning. If you take the neutral approach, the world for the approach. Thirdly, I said in chapter two of the syllabus that neutrality is is wrong because it is immoral. Someone help me. Why is it immoral? What passage in Scripture might we use to show that it's immoral? Well, I'm going to use that for my last point. Reality is impossible. Okay, so we're going to really kick this up. I mean that's, that's the killer. Not only are you not supposed to try to do that, if you try, you're not going to be able anyway. It's impossible. But since we're on that point, that was going to be the climax. But I'll let. Jason says he who is about wisdom is against me. He says you cannot serve two masters. That's not just true when it comes to money, it's true of everything. You can't have two ultimate authorities. As Steve said, if you try to use an approach that doesn't assume the ultimate authority of Christianity, then Christianity is not your ultimate authority. You got another ultimate, you got another master Jesus. It's impossible to do that. Your final commitments and loyalty is going to be to one or the other. And so we have to ask ourselves what would it take for us to say the Bible's not coming? What kind of finding would it require for you saved the Bible? What if some scientists were to give you a very learned lecture saying it's impossible for a man to spend three days in the belly of a fish or a whale or whatever. It is scientifically impossible for that to happen. And maybe you've got a PhD in theory, you know, all those principles in natural science and so forth. I guess if I was wrong, is that what it would take? Would you give up biblical authority then? How about if someone said it's impossible for the dead to rise? People said that, that for a long time and they proved it to you scientifically. Dead people can't live again. I'm only getting smiles. I mean, what would it take? Think about it. What if your prayers weren't answered? Nothing. God is. So that's it. There are some people who struggle with whether they can continue but to have intellectual respectability because of the difficulties they found in the body. And I think we have to say of these people for their own benefit, not by way of self religious patting ourselves. We need to say that they're trying to serve two masks and they're not going to be hope that God in his mercy will continue to work with them and not let them take the final step of breaking Jesus Christ as Lord. But the fact of the matter is they are acting as though they have another Lord in life. They're respected scholars or their own personal feelings or whatever it may be. Neutrality is impossible. Jesus says when it comes to me, you're the formula against them. That also offends the spirit of our age, the Reichstag, American culture, because we like to believe that first no one knows for sure about ultimately no one really has the truth. And since no one really has the truth as it is that of the agnostic, the one who says, I can't say for sure there is no God, I can't say for sure there is. I can't say for sure say for sure that Jesus is not the son of God. No, I can't say for sure that he is. I'm just kind of in a wait and see mode. Jesus said, that's the thing. Jesus says, well then you've rejected him. Because my claim is that the credentials for who I am are so plain that if you even stop to say, well maybe yes, maybe no, you're reject my credentials. I want you to think that is offensive not just because of the spirit of our age, but Jesus is not who he said he was. That is arrogance of the most incredible degree for someone to say in every other case, you know, it's all right for you to say maybe yes, maybe no. But in case my credentials you're not have any question about it. You see the credentials. That's it. That's what Jesus said. Jesus at one point said when he disputing his teaching, he said that if you reject the word that I'm speaking, that very word will judge you in the last day. If you ran into somebody down here at the market who said I'm going to tell you something and if you don't believe what I tell you on the day of judgment, that very word that I told you is going to judge you. I mean really think about it. That's the kind of claim Jesus made. His contemporaries were. Of course the authority of Jesus Christ is not something that gives way to any higher authority. So it is impossible to hear the 4 meter instant the are getting down one level lower than the high point we just were on. The scientific impossibility generally can't be proven. But another approach to that is that it's impossible for the dead to rise, certainly must impossible for life to be created. The people who poo anything at this lower level have not come to grips with creation of the universe. That's true. They would probably reject the doctrine of creation equally and say we don't believe God creates life or brings life from the dead. Then of course then they created their own problems which we're going to talk about later. And that is, well, where does life come from? It's either eternal or by some accident, by some chance life came about before we stop and have our time in prayer. This Evening. I do want to give this last reason the immorality of neutrality we've seen in Ephesians 4, 17, 18. Ephesians 4, 17,18. I tell you this and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do. Now, don't read on. Stop right there. Paul is telling us something, the form of which is very common and understandable. He says, I am insisting that you stop living like Gentiles. Of course, Gentiles here being used with what? Those who are outside the covenant before God. He's not referring racially here, he's referring spiritually to those who are Gentiles. He says, stop living like unbelievers. Of course we're supposed to be distinctive, which was the apology of Christ. But look how he describes the way Gentiles live. He says, you must no longer live as the Gentiles do in the futility of their thinking. It says, stop being like the Gentiles in their feudal thinking. They are darkened in their understanding, thinking, understanding, and separated from the life of God because of what? Of their licentious immoral behavior? Well, that's true, but what he says is because of the ignorance that is in them. And then he adds, I mean, when Paul gets down, he hammers. He says, and what Hardness of heart and so futile thinking, darkened understanding, ignorance, hardened hearts. That doesn't look like Paul is ready to say, well, if you got a PhD and you teach at the local university, you must be hot stock. He says, if you don't follow Jesus Christ, that'll work for you. Your thinking is completely bogus. Your thinking is characterized by hardness of heart, ignorance, futility. Paul's analogy is, stop acting like that. He also tells us, you know, stop in your sexual behavior and your verbal behavior and your financial behavior, acting like unbelievers like that. But here he says, in your mental behavior, son, if we act like the world does, we are being immoral. The Bible forbids it. I don't really understand why this is, but I'll bet you've seen it in your life and the life of others. I've seen it repeatedly. For some reason, people take mental sins less seriously than they do sins of, you know, theft or adultery or whatever. It may be off at something up here and here. I'm not even thinking. Well, you might think, well, lust, people think that's bad. They see that too is the sexual charity. But when we talk about just the way we reason, the way we use our minds, and I suggest to you that can be Sinful. Most people don't layer. The important things are that we don't verbally lie or blaspheme God, or we don't sexually commit adultery or lust and so forth and so on. But Paul says, you're not thinking like the Gentiles. Well, that's an orderly that we have. And disobedience if we don't start learning how to think like Christians are supposed to think. So here's what's wrong with the challenge. Takes away your Christian distinctiveness. Jesus said, be sanctified by the word of truth. And we have removed that. We say, no, I want to be like everybody else. I want them to respect me as being just like that. Be violated. The purges takes away your. Secondly, it robs you of knowledge. Paul says, if you follow worldly tradition and human authority, the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in before you. Thirdly, it's immoral. Paul says, stop thinking like the Gentiles do with their futility and hardened hearts. Fourthly, it's impossible anyway. Jesus said, you can't serve two masters. He who's not with me is against. So as we approach apologetics and we're only at the most foundational point, but it's the crucial point, we are no longer going to be accepting a neutral methodology and attitude. From now on, we're going to say, well, what do we make of it? I'm going to beg the question. I'm going to assume Christianity is true while I'm studying how to defend the truth of Christianity and even while I'm defending Christianity with others. Always do this in school and let it guide my procedure. And well, don't trust me. Trust the word of God. You do have to do that. But later on in the course that I'm teaching, I'm going to show you why it doesn't matter. That's not a defect, but a real strength. And I'll give you a little hint. You're going to see that everyone has their own presumptions if they don't give up. No, it is neutral. And if you don't use the presuppositions we do, you're actually going to undermine the possibility of burning. And that's going to be our ultimate apologetic. It's unconditional surrender to Jesus for ignorance. What is the proof of God's existence? The proof of God's existence, Dr. Van Till said, is simply this or without it. For that.