Dr Greg Bahnsen - Loving God With All Your Mind: Questions and Answers (Part 6)

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute, where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

A few questions. Number one, as you have observed, many of our brethren in Christ embrace worldly presuppositions. Some of them have labored earnestly to do so. When do we rebuke and admonish them for their philosophical adultery? And when do we bear with them?

Well, it's hard to lay down general rules for that. I would think that in most cases, all things being equal, you should rebuke them at the very beginning. But now, what is the nature of a rebuke? You know, sometimes the rebuke may come in the form of a leading question that gently nudges somebody to go back and rethink what they have been saying. You know, they picked up something from the Oprah Winfrey show and they're passing it along to you, and you say, well, now, do you think that person was really trying to please the Lord Jesus in what they said there? Is that the source of that opinion? And maybe that's enough to get them to go, oh, yeah, I should have thought about that, and so forth. But in other situations where a gentle nudge is not going to do the trick, you need to say, you know, brother, I don't believe that. I'd like you to know why I don't believe it. But you take them back to the Scripture and say, I know that you're committed to the Bible like I am, and this is what I think the Bible has to say. How would you respond to that? But then there are cases, too, where your Christian brothers have not only imbibed some of this, but they've begun to live it. And they're applying it maybe in the way that they organize their workforce at work or what they teach as professors or what they're telling their children and so forth.

And.

And it has to go further than just a gentle nudge or a sharing of a different point of view. Then the time may come where you have to kind of point the finger and say, may the Lord Jesus rebuke you for your inconsistency, because you don't sound like a follower of Jesus when you do and say these sorts of things. You sound like somebody who's been raised by the world. Then bring them a text from Ephesians 4 or something. It shows the difference between the way the Gentiles think and the way we've been taught in Jesus and so forth. And I know that this is not the popular thing to say, but Dr. Bonson actually believes that there are some cases even beyond that, where you ought to go to the elders of the church and say, you need to visit this person. They are really compromising their Christian testimony and bringing reproach upon the name of Jesus Christ for what they're doing. And I don't want to see them just drift away from the faith because they've been licking this diseased sucker for so long. And I really believe that when the elders do that, that the day may come, praise God, that church discipline often turns sinners around. But the day may come where the person has to be told, you don't have any reason to think you're going to pass the day of judgment. And our loving way of expressing that to you is to put you outside the fellowship of the church, that you might not believe that you're in the company of the redeemed, that you might being turned over to Satan, repent of your sins and be restored to God. So you see, there's quite a continuum there, right? And when you ask, what should you do? Well, it all depends at what level of error we're talking about, how firmly entrenched that error is and so forth. But in all cases, I believe in tenderness and beginning at the lowest level of confrontation. But if you really, really believe that your Christian brother is compromising, I think you need to eventually bump enough and, and if need be, take it all the way to church discipline. If the church doesn't start disciplining itself, we cannot expect that it will ever discipline and reform our society.

It's your current lecture this week, maybe. Where does Islam fit within the map of the non Christian worldviews?

Okay, Those of you who have heard my introduction, my Biblical Introduction to Apologetics lectures will be aware that I have a certain outline. This is the way I like to think of world religions. And I tried to give an illustration of representatives in each category because I can't take the time to refute every possible. I'm not even sure I know about all the possible cults and variations and so forth. And in the same way that I have a chart of the non Christian worldviews that goes through what the basic possibilities are, monism, dualism, atomism, and so forth. I've got another chart of world religions, okay. And so we didn't actually deal with that in the chart that we went through this afternoon. And again, I can try to push these tapes. I hope that you'll pick them up and listen to them. You'll get a lot More detail on what you did here this afternoon, as well as if I had time, another outline that goes through the various world religions. Let me rehearse that for you real quickly. As I see it, world religions tend to fall into three categories. First of all, religions of transcendent mysticism, that is to say, worldviews that are like spiritual monism. From what you heard this afternoon, transcendent mysticism would be like Hinduism, which we did talk about, because Hindus emphasize that reality is beyond our common experience and is beyond rationality, because beyond understanding. You have to have mystical understanding to get in touch with it. But then there are also philosophies of life, religious philosophies that emphasize imminent moralism, eminent moralism, that is, religions of the here and now and the details of life, lifestyle, religions, Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, things of that nature. And what they emphasize is a way of living, a moralistic way of living. And I can give you a critique of that. You can imagine what it would be. All of them teach what it is people are to do, but none of them have any way of redemption when that way of life is not kept. But then there are religions that are biblical perversions. In my outline, you have transcendent mysticism, imminent moralism. And then those religions that in one way or another ape Christianity, they are perversions of the Bible. And in that third category, I hope you don't mind how excessively I outline things. But I think there are three categories of biblical perversions. You have, first of all those which are Unitarian perversions, polytheistic perversions, and then pseudo messianic perversions. Starting with the last category, a pseudo messianic religion that is a perversion of Christianity is the Moonies, the Unity Church, the Unification Church. What you have in that case is a false messiah. There will be elements that are anatomically analogous to Christianity, but of course, it's a perversion with its false messiah and all the rest. You have polytheistic perversions. Mormonism claims to be a Christian religion. I heard recently that somebody as a pastor who holds the view that Mormons are like another denomination, well, that's utter nonsense. The Mormons are polytheists. Many Mormons don't even know that. I've had Mormon, you know, missionaries come to my door. I always invite them in love to have a conversation, you know, and we get around to things. And they want to know what I think about the Church of Latter Day Saints. And I'll say, well, I would have a real problem Coming to your church because you're polytheist. And almost always they'll say, oh, no, we aren't. I'll say, oh, yes, you are. Haven't you read your literature? You read the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon, the Doctrines and Covenants and so forth. And then you have to pull this out and show it to them. They don't even realize it. But that's an example of an alleged Christian denomination that's polytheistic. But then there are Unitarian perversions of Christianity too. The Jehovah's Witnesses would be a prime example. They believe there is one God, Unitarian. And then Jesus is just the highest creature, the closest thing to God, but not fully God. Now it's in that category. Finally, to get around, to answer your question, it's in that category that I would put Islam. Islam is a Unitarian perversion of Christianity. Now, I realize Muslims don't like to hear that they're a perversion of Christianity. But you know, the Koran tells us that Islam follows upon Christianity. I have lectures. In fact, I even have a debate with a Muslim and an orthodox Jew that you can get from our TATE ministry as well. It's helpful if you're going to do Muslim apologetics, to read the Quran. It's a fascinating book. I think it's a silly book in many ways, and it's easy to criticize. But the Koran, you can actually see Muhammad reaching out, as it were, and trying to appeal to Christians and to Jews. At some points he'll say that the Jews are people of the Book and that they believe that Allah has spoken previously in the Law of Moses and in the Psalms of David. And then Mohammed reaches out and tries to touch Christians and he believes that Christians are people of the Book. And he believes that Allah, well, Allah says that Allah has previously spoken through the Gospels of Jesus. Of course, you also have contradictions about the life of Jesus and the character of Jesus. He was not born of a virgin. He did not get crucified. Judas got crucified in this place and all sorts of other strange things. He's not the Son of God. But the point is, the Koran itself says that the Law of Moses, the Psalms of David and the Gospel of Jesus are previous revelations of Allah. And so it's not just Christians who say this, that 600 years later you have Islam come along and apes Christianity and Judaism. Their basic idea of a personal God, one God who is sovereign, controls all things and created all things. The Koran itself tells you that. And so the way in which you deal with Islam is the same way that you would deal with other Unitarian perversions of the faith. Again, if you pick up the tapes, you'll get more guidance than I can give you. But the first thing that you're going to want to point out when you do an internal critique dealing with a Muslim is that since his holy book references the authority of your holy book, and particularly the law of Moses, you can go to the Law of Moses and say, it says here that any prophet who comes along that teaches you to go contrary to what has previously been revealed is a false prophet. The Koran is committed to that way of thinking because the Koran endorses the law of Moses. And then the next thing is, you need to show that the Koran contradicts previous revelation, so that on its own terms, the Koran must be rejected as a revelation of the living and true God. It's easy enough to show all sorts of historical errors, embarrassing historical errors in the Koran. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is confused with Miriam, the sister of Moses in the Koran, because the names sound alike. Muhammad, who was an uneducated man, drew them together. And then it's amazing the way in which you see Muslim scholars try to dance around that contradiction and so forth, come up with very creative interpretations and all that. You can show the errors in the Koran. But in the end, I think the most devastating critique that can be made of the Koran is that though it tells us that. That Allah will judge good and evil and has these standards of alleged righteousness and justice and so forth, the Qur' an makes utterly no provision that is materially adequate for the salvation of those who violate the law of Allah. There is no redemption in the Koran. And that in itself is an apologetical observation. It shows that the Koran can show us what's wrong. I mean, if it does show us what in fact is wrong, but it cannot show us how we can be made right with God. And so it's a materially inadequate religion. Well, now you got me off and running. I can say more. But that's the beginning.

If God is all love and righteousness, then how did evil come about?

I don't know. Oh, is that not adequate? I don't know. Because the Bible doesn't tell us how it is that God, who is perfect, nevertheless could create a creature like Satan that is imperfect. But I do know that man is not the same as God and that it is not at all philosophically disturbing to think that God could create a creature that is less than him and therefore not able to do all that he does, and in that sense, in that sense subject to doing what is evil. But if you want to know the psychological mechanism by which a man that was morally pure, like Adam, or in the first instance Eve, was able to conceive of rebellion against God and have a desire to do it, the Bible does not tell us how that comes about. The Bible does tell us, nevertheless, that you cannot make sense of evil apart from knowing that God is the ultimate standard and that it was introduced into this world by the rebellion of man and that only God can overcome it. The Bible tells us that God does all things well, so that even though Eve and Adam, following her, sinned against God and did that which was contrary to his revealed will, God's ordaining of it was not for evil purposes. God is not the author of evil, and God will use even the evil of men to bring glory to him and to accomplish good purposes in the end. And believe it or not, the Bible says that when the wicked are cast into hell, though they will be in torment, even they will acknowledge the justice of God, that they are getting what comes to them. Now, I can tell you all those things about evil and expound upon them, but the Bible does not tell us the mechanism psychologically by which a man who was unfallen was able to rebel against God. The Bible does tell us that we must trust God about this matter. Now, what are your options? You can just say, well, God, you either explain to me why you did this and how you did it, or I'm not going to follow you. Or you can say, no, I bow my heart and my mind to you and I trust you as an ultimate presupposition that you do all things well. And since it's an ultimate presupposition, it is that by which I evaluate everything else and I do not call you into question. Well, obviously the way of faith doesn't challenge the goodness of God, and so we don't have any problem there. But on the other hand, if somebody says to God, I will not trust you until you give an account to me, stop and think about the implication of that. That means the person who has issued the challenge to God says, I stand at the bench, and God, you stand in the dock. And when you make yourself worthwhile to me, when you vindicate your ways to me, then I will bow to you as God. You see, there's an internal contradiction in taking that approach, because what you were saying is, I will be superior to you authoritative over you. I will judge you. And if you pass my test, then I will grant that you are my maker and that I have to submit to you and that you're the superior one. Well, you can't have it both ways. Now, what happened in the Garden of Eden according to the teaching of Scripture? Well, what happened in the Garden of Eden was just a miniature microcosmic version of what we've just been talking about. Man standing in judgment over God. God had said to Adam and Eve they were to eat. They could eat of anything, but not of this one tree. Satan comes along and says, you're not going to die if you eat of that tree. God's hypothesis is wrong. And Eve makes the mistake of falling for the subtlety of Satan. And she decides that she'll make the ultimate decision here. She doesn't rebuke Satan. She doesn't assume as a presupposition the truth of God. She decides that she'll determine what's good and evil for herself. And that's exactly what people who challenge the goodness of God in allowing evil to come into this world are doing. They're saying, I will stand in judgment over you, God, so that you might eventually become my God. But anybody who is so defiant as to put God to the test will never really allow God to be God. And so what we are left with is an ultimate mystery here that calls for you to trust God, that he does all things well.

Time for about two more questions. Dr. Bonson, how do we respond to Catholic presuppositionalism? I think they mean Roman. A Catholic may argue that Church authority, his first principle, is true by virtue of the Church's authority. We can't argue that they maintain apparent contradictions because we in Reformed doctrine must do the same thing at times. For example, the Incarnation and the Trinity. This we dub a mystery as Catholics dub their quote, problems, quote ministries or mysteries. Mysteries.

Right. Although I think that there is more to be said for pointing out internal problems within Catholic theology than this question gives credit to, I do understand what the questioner is getting at when he or she suggests that if you try to go in and demonstrate that there are problems in Catholic theology, they can always make the general Christian response that, well, that's a mystery that the human mind can't fathom. But after all, there is good reason to believe both these things, so forth and so on. So then what you have to do is you press the Roman Catholic theologian back to his ultimate authority. And when the Roman Catholic says the authority is that of Church tradition, what the apostles allegedly taught orally and passed down through the Church. Then it seems to me you can do two things. First of all, you can point out that the authority of church tradition is by the Roman Catholic, based upon the tradition of the Church. Now I realize the questioner is right on target here, that they'll say exactly just like the authority of Scripture is based upon the authority of scripture. So we've got circular reasoning. You've got circular reasoning. Well, there's only two problems there though, and that is that their circle is destructive and doesn't stand in accord with the word of God and ours is not. First of all, their circle was destructive. When somebody appeals to the authority of church tradition, I like to remind them of this philosopher by the name of Peter Abelard. Now others could do the same thing, but Abelard has the reputation and the history of philosophy and of dogmatics as well, of having written a book entitled Sic et nan Abelard, who was a rationalist. And in that sense I'm not all sympathetic to him. Abelard was sick and tired of the way Roman Catholics would appeal to church tradition and the authority of the councils to prove their points. And so what he did is, and I forget the number, he went to like 48 different propositions and showed that on each of these propositions he could cite the authority of the Church for both a yes and a no answer to the proposition. And so when Roman Catholics say we have the authority of church tradition behind this, this is not just a smart aleck remark. You should say, oh, which church tradition are you talking about? If this authority is supposed to be self verifying, then we're going to have to ask which tradition among the various traditions is the self verifying one. But then secondly, the problem is that the Bible tells us that church tradition is not our authority. Scripture does refer to Scripture's own authority. There is a circle there of ultimate authority and warns us against those who would go outside the teaching of Scripture to the traditions of men. And so in one sense, when the Roman Catholic says I have a self authorizing church tradition, you have a self authorizing scripture. The Roman Catholic has done the very thing I want him to do as an apologist. And so I'm going to tell people, therefore you have a choice. You can go with the tradition of the Church or you can go with the word of God. And then the Roman Catholic says, oh, but the tradition of the Church doesn't contradict the word of God, but I can demonstrate that it does. And when people Start appealing to mystery. At some point I think I can embarrass the Roman Catholic polemicist that he's going to have to appeal to mystery after mystery after mystery, that the Bible clearly teaches one thing about merit and justification and the Roman Catholic tradition teaches the very opposite over and over and over again. And so it comes down finally to whether you're going to trust the claims of mystery and the unbiblical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church or you're going to touch the. I mean you're going to trust the self verifying and ultimate authority of God's word. Dr. Monson.

The Christian Research Institute just.

Recently did a magazine study called they Would not have a Support on the Call. Yeah, I know this is a touchy issue and I'm very sorry that the Christian research people have taken the position they have now. They think they're doing something by talking about, you know, what a perverted Christian tradition is and so forth. But I firmly believe what the Westminster Confession teaches us when it tells us that there are some former churches of Christ that have become so corrupt as to no longer be churches of Christ but synagogues of Satan. And in the original writing of the Westminster Confession, the illustration that is given elsewhere is of the Pope himself being the Antichrist. And though I don't believe eschatologically that there is an Antichrist and that the Pope is him, I do believe that the Pope is an Antichrist. Are you understanding me? He's one of the many Antichrists. And I don't believe that there is one and only Antichrist according to the teaching of Scripture. I don't believe that the Pope is the man of lawlessness, but I do believe that he is contrary to Christ. And I do agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith that we can no longer deem the Roman Catholic Church a true Church of Christ. Now this leads obviously to the question, does that mean everybody in that Church is lost? No, it doesn't. Because it's one thing to be in an organization that is not truly a church and another thing to. To not be a Christian. Now I happen to think it'd be very hard for somebody to be in the Roman Catholic Church, to hear its teaching, to believe its teaching, and to truly trust Christ alone for your salvation. But I'm not going to say it's impossible. I know people do inconsistent and strange things, but I would never approve of somebody who is a true Christian staying in the Roman Catholic fellowship. I think you need to come out from among them. Now, people will also say, but Dr. Bonson, you have to understand that the Reformers and the Roman Catholics, they had this big argument, but Roman Catholic theology has changed. I mean, haven't you heard of Vatican ii? As a matter of fact, one of my specializations is modern Roman Catholic theology. Yeah, I know Vatican II and a lot after Vatican ii. And I want to tell you something. Vatican II affirms the teaching of Vatican I. Now, that may seem strange to some people, but it does say Vatican I was correct. And Vatican I says it affirms the Council of Trent. And beyond that, even if they didn't say this, the Council of Trent, when it issues its decrees, declared that these were irreformable. Therefore, if the Roman Catholic Church has reformed what the Council of Trent says, then it itself has rejected its own church tradition. Of course, I wish it would do that and come to the Scriptures. But you need to understand it is not open to the Roman Catholic Church to disagree with Trent. Trent anathematizes anybody who would dare do that. And so the Catholic Church has not changed. I don't believe that it will change. And I believe with all my heart that what the Roman Catholic Church teaches will send souls to hell. I hope that's strong enough that you have some idea of where I'm coming from.

We'll end on this. We're just a little bit over time. Are there one or two verses that we can refer to as a solid starting point to answer each of the three presuppositional questions? Metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

Oh, my. I really don't know whether it would be wise to try to oversimplify the biblical teaching about reality, knowledge and ethics with just one or two verses. I mean, if we can do that, you might wonder why God gave all the rest. In fact, I'm going to resist doing that. I mean, I can think of some. But even as I go through my mind, like, which ones would I want to go? I mean, if I start talking about the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of God's predestinating sovereignty, those are important metaphysical truths in Scripture. But I'd also have to talk to you about the nature of God as being triune. Have to talk about God knowing all things. We'd have to talk about the nature of man being created in the image of God. There are many truths about the nature of reality that are taught in the Bible. The best way for you to master the Christian philosophy of life is to study systematic theology to learn what does the Bible say, what does the whole Bible have to say about God and about man and about the world? What does the whole Bible have to say about revelation and how we know God and about illumination and regeneration and those sorts of things? What does the whole Bible have to say about the kind of person I should be and what goals I should have and the laws I should live by? Those are the sorts of things that a systematic summary of Scripture will give you. And that's really your Christian worldview, like Paul at Athens, which you're going to take to the unbelieving world, is what God has delivered as our philosophy of life over against all the opinions of of human beings, all the unauthoritative and contradictory and silly opinions of human beings. So study systematic theology, and it's not one or two verses, but if you want to get a start, maybe you can go to the literature table and pick up my little summary of systematic theology called God's Good News, in which I try to just take Bible verses primarily and support theological propositions that summarize the teaching of Scripture. I'll recommend that you do that. And thank you so much for your attention today and giving me one of your Saturdays. I don't know who won the football game, but I do hope that you're better off for having not seen it.

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute. Duplication, sharing and distribution is encouraged. For more information about the life and Ministry of Dr. Greg L. Bonson, visit our website, bonsoninstitute.com where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.