Dr Greg Bahnsen - Mid-Level Apologetics: Apologetic Systems Pt 2 (Part 2)

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. Debating and say, well, reason tells us. And I want to say, which reason are you talking about? On the one hand, reason can be thought of as a tool. As a tool. When we think of reason as a tool, we're thinking of it as man's intellectual ability or his mental capacity. Taken in this sense as man's mental capacity, his intellectual ability. Reason is a gift from God. Reason is part of God's image in us. In Isaiah 1:18, God bids His people come, let us reason together. And so we see that just like God, we are capable of rational thought, we are capable of rational communication. God has given us our mental abilities to serve him and to glorify Him. It's part of the greatest commandment of all, the law, that we should love the Lord our God with all our mind. Matthew 22:37 and so if you think of reason as a tool, a God given tool, that is to say your mental tool, your mental ability or capacity, then we should embrace it. We should use it to the glory of God. Just like we should use our voices to the glory of God and our bodies to the glory of God and our emotions to the glory of God, we should use our reason to the glory of God. On the other hand, reason can be thought of not so much as a tool, but as an ultimate independent authority by which man judges all claims to truth. Reason can be used as the standard by which everything is judged. And when people speak of reason in this way, they think of reason as judging every claim to truth, including God's. And in this sense, reason becomes a law unto itself, as though man's mind were self sufficient, as though man didn't need divine revelation, as though man could on his own discover right and wrong, what is true over against what is false. Now when you take that attitude, it leads people very often to think they're in a position to be independent, to govern their own lives. And they will be the ones who judge the credibility of God's word. They will look at God's word and based on their own insight, based on their own rational authority, decide whether it's true. Now most dramatically, I think this attitude deified reason as the goddess of the French Revolution. I mean, we talk about reason as the standard. You can't get much more than that. When those who were the advocates of the French Revolution made the goddess reason the one that they followed. Paul put it this way, in Romans 1:22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. View of reason doesn't recognize God as the source of all of man's abilities and does not recognize the truth of God as the precondition for man's intellectual abilities. Let me say that again, does not recognize the truth of God as the precondition for using reason as a tool. When reason is your ultimate standard, then you don't see God and his Word as what is necessary to use retool. It is to operate on its own, as though it were its own final authority. This is just to say that reason no longer submits to God's sovereign prerogatives and to the character of his thought. In Isaiah 55, 9 we read, for as the heavens are higher than the earth, form my thoughts higher than your thoughts. Now, if nothing else, that tells us that our thoughts cannot be the judge of God's thoughts, can they? Our thoughts are in no position to stand in judgment over God. So we see that reason can mean at least two different things. Reason as man's intellectual ability is reason as a tool. Reason is the ultimate standard of what is right and wrong, what is true and false, and therefore the judge even of God's word is to use reason as a standard. Of course, when people appeal to reason, it's striking to me how people will think, well, reason is the ultimate standard. And then all you have to ask them is, well, who's reasoning and what kind of reasoning? If reason is the ultimate standard, why is it that all men wishing to use reason don't agree with each other? Why do all the people who are committed to the Goddess of Reason to be extreme here? Why do they come up with all these different approaches? To appeal to reason is in one sense to appeal to no reason at all. That that quip is worth getting in your notes, I hope to appeal to reason as your final authority is as good as having no reason at all. Because reason means too many things to too many conflicting schools of unbelieving thought. Now let's ask our question. Does apologetics use reason? Should Christians endorse the use of reason? And I can think of two equal but opposite mistakes that we might make in answering that question. On the one hand, we might recognize the appropriateness of using reason, meaning our faculty, our intellectual faculty, but then slide into endorsing reason as intellectual autonomy, that is, somebody who's convinced I've got to use reason as a tool, then without thinking, slips into thinking. Reason must be my ultimate standard. Therefore, those two are not the Same. Let me illustrate for you how widespread that kind of subtle mistake is. You have a book out on the market that endorses what's called the Ligonier Apologetic, written by three men who are solid Calvinist brothers in the Lord, well meaning, hard working people. They try to argue against the school of thought that I endorse in apologetics by saying you can't be against the use of man's reason. Obviously, anytime we argue with somebody, we're going to be using reason. Who wants to be irrational? Now just in that I don't know if you would have been able before today's class, but I would like to believe after tonight's class that when you hear that, you say, hey, hey, hey, you've made a real quick shift from one thing to another. It's one thing to talk about using reason, meaning we're going to be intellectual and saying that reason is our final standard. Yes, we use reason in apologetics. That doesn't mean we fall into the idea that man's reasoning is the final standard of truth. But there's a second mistake we can make. We can recognize the inappropriateness of using reason in the sense of intellectual autonomy, that if we want to reject reason as the ultimate standard and then mistakenly think that means we shouldn't use reason as our intellectual faculty. So you have people who will say, well, I don't want to dishonor God by suggesting that my mind is more authoritative than his or his word. And so I'm not going to argue with unbelievers. I'm not going to use logic and I'm not going to study history. I'm not going to do anything that seems like I'm trying to be intellectual. Now you wouldn't be in tonight's class if you were prone to that mistake. And so I fully understand the kind of, you know, how we might smile at that and think that's really silly. But that is a very widespread attitude. There are people who say I don't, you know, it's kind of a pietistic deprecation of intellect. We don't want to be people who to pride ourselves in our thinking, in our use of our mind. We don't need education, right? Well, believe me, education. If you mean by education, pieces of paper from institutions, no, you don't need that. They may help, they may not help. But the idea that I shouldn't be an educated, well read person, a person who thinks clearly, consistently, who's willing to put in some mental energy in being a Christian, that idea is not pleasing to God can't justify it by saying, well, I don't think reason is the ultimate standard. God is. Because the question is still, what does God want you to do with this tool he's given you? You know, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, right? You've all heard the commercial. Well, it's true, it is. It's a terrible thing to waste because God gave it. God expects us to use it to his glory. And so on the one hand, you have people that honor God's gift to man, but then dishonor God by being rationalist, making reason their ultimate standard. The other group honors God's ultimate authority and the need for obeying him in all aspects of their lives. But then they dishonor God by anti intellectualism. And I think you'll see in Colossians, the second chapter that the apostle Paul counterbalances both of those errors. Look at verse 3 of Colossians 2. In whom that is, in Christ are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden, or if you will, deposited. And because all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ. In verse 8 he says, Beware that no one robs you. Robs you of what treasure? Right. Okay, just so you see how Paul's thought is tied together here. We must beware lest anyone rob us through philosophy or vain deceit, which is after the tradition of men, after the elementary principles of the world, and not after Christ. Would you notice that that exhortation is not a diatribe against the use of reason, it's not a diatribe against the study of philosophy. I occasionally had fundamentalists tell me that it was wrong of me to be a student of philosophy. That was my major in college, and I went on to get a PhD in it. And I've sometimes had people say, well, the Bible says you shouldn't do that. So where's that? We're right here in Colossians 2, it says Beware of philosophy. I don't think so. Paul makes it clear that believers have the advantage of the best philosophy and the best reasoning because Christ is the source of all knowledge. He says all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ. And for that reason we want to be careful of philosophies that are not after Christ. He says. Now when he says beware of philosophy, that's not after Christ, what does he imply? There is a philosophy that is after Christ. That is according to the Lord Jesus Christ and based on his authority that is rooted in those treasures of wisdom and knowledge that he himself has. Christ is the source of all knowledge. So anti intellectualism throws the baby out with the bath. It destroys true wisdom in the name of resisting foolishness. But on the other hand, it is equally plain from the Same chapter, Colossians 2, that Paul does not endorse reasoning and philosophy that refuses to honor the ultimate authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is in Christ that wisdom and knowledge must be found, so that any alleged wisdom which follows the traditions of men, anything that follows those elementary principles of the world, as he puts it, rather than Christ, is rejected as dangerous and as deceitful. Be careful lest anyone rob you through his philosophy in vain. Deceit, which is after the tradition of men, after the elementary principles of the world, and not after Christ. And so here in Colossians 2, we see that the Bible endorses the use of reason as a tool in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ and rejects reason as an autonomous ultimate spot by which the Lord Jesus Christ is not honored and we don't submit to Him. The Bible teaches us that reason is not to be seen as some neutral authority in man's thinking. It is not a neutral authority in man's thinking. It is rather man's intellectual capacity with which God has created him to serve and glorify by honoring his ultimate authority. Now what are we doing in this class? We're sharpening our tools. Put it very simply, if I started there tonight, I don't think you would have understood that. But maybe now that will make sense. Why are we taking this course? Because we want to sharpen our reasoning ability in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ. As we speak with unbelievers, we want to sharpen our reasoning ability so that we can speak effectively to unbelievers. Reason needs to be used in the defense of the Christian faith. That's what Peter says. Going back now to 1 Peter 3:15. Peter says that we are to be ready to give a reason, a defense, to anyone who asks from us. A reason for the hope that is in us. A reason for the hope. We are to give an explanation. We are to give a defense to those who challenge the truth of our Christian faith. We are not to obscure the glory and veracity of God by answering unbelievers with appeals to blind faith or thoughtless commitment. Believe me, the Lord Jesus is not honored with. When someone says, I'm not going to reason with you, friend, I'm just going to call on you to have faith. Well, what kind of Faith? Would that be what kind of commitment? It would be a thoughtless, contentless, worthless commitment. 2 Corinthians 10:5 tells us better what we are to do. We are to cast down reasonings and every high thing exalted against the knowledge of God. Look at that. 2nd Corinthians 10:5. We are to cast down reasonings and every high thing exalted against the knowledge of God. And I want you to tell me from the reading of the verse, how are we going to do that? What is the precondition of casting down everything exalted against the knowledge of God? We must do what? That's right. We must bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. And interesting. We are told by so many people in the evangelical world today that if we presuppose the authority of Jesus Christ and His Word and apologetics, we can't do apologetics. Paul tells us, if you don't presuppose the authority of Christ, you won't cast down all that reasoning that's lifted up against the knowledge of God. The only way in which we can successfully do apologetics is by standing firmly on the lordship of of Jesus Christ in all of our thinking, not only in the exposition of the faith, but in the defense of the faith as well. Okay, back to 1 Peter 3:15. Notice Peter uses this expression, always ready, being always ready, being always ready to offer a reason for the hope that is in you. What the Lord asks of us is that we be prepared to give an answer in defense of our faith. Whenever anybody asks us for a reason, we're to be ready to do this, and we're always to be ready to do this. And that means that it is imperative that we know something about the questions unbelievers are likely to ask us and the kinds of reasons they have for not believing. That means we have to study and prepare to answer these sorts of things. We must have reasons for our faith when the faithless ask us. And so Christians have to sharpen the tool of reasoning, their reasoning ability. They must sharpen it so they can glorify God and vindicate the claims of the gospel. And I trust every believer wants Christ to be vindicated. They want to glorify God in all they do. They want the truth of God to shine, to be evident, to be manifest to all men. And that's why we're going to be doing this course, because we want to sharpen the tool that God has given us that we might glorify him in the defense of the faith. Now, I Think that there are three ways in which we can defect from the task of apologetics that I would like to warn you of right now. Three ways in which we fall short of doing what we've been talking about. I'll call these three inadequate alternatives to doing apologetics. When we study the objections of unbelievers and prepare to reason with them, we are taking what I'll call the high road of apologetics. That's the road of obedience to the direction of our Lord and Savior, who tells us we're always to give a reason for anyone who asks us. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6. And so the apologist responds to the objections of unbelievers in a way that shows the truth of Jesus Christ, the objective truth of Christ as the exclusive answer that God gives to men, the exclusive way of salvation, the exclusive truth of God. Apologists give reasons for belief, wanting to vindicate the truth of their perspective based on God's word over against all of the alternatives that are out in the world. But not all believers have taken the high road of vindicating the truth of the Christian message. It has often happened that those who speak for the Christian faith settle for much less. Not just in this century, but especially in this century. The challenge of the world has not always been met by means of apologetical reasoning. Many Christians have settled for much less than apologetics because they reject Christ. Christian commitment to subjectivism. Subjectivism. It is certainly true that Christianity brings us a sense of personal peace. It brings us confidence before God. And that inner experience of the faith being right, and that inner experience of our coming to be right with God cannot adequately be communicated in words. In Romans 8:16, Paul speaks of the witness of the Spirit inside us. However, though that witness of the Spirit is real and incommunicable, appeals to that inner feeling do not constitute an argument that should persuade others of the truth of Christianity. You are not doing apologetics when you say, I have had this experience. Trust I'm not telling you you've not had an experience. And in the case of those who are followers of Jesus Christ, I'm not saying that your experience is untrue or misleading. What I am insisting on is that that's not an argument. That may be a testimony. It may be biographical, but it is not something which can be put out there in the public arena that should tell people that they should believe the truth of the Scriptures. There is an important difference between having confidence and having Certainty, that is. There's an important difference between our subjective the subjective acceptability of some proposition and its objective truth. I might find something very acceptable to me. I might even be extremely confident that it's truth and yet it's not true at all. Isn't that right? Well, maybe not me, because I've got a PhD and we're not supposed to make mistakes like this. But I'm sure all of you have sometimes been very confident of something, and then you found out it wasn't true. Confidence does not mean that you have the truth. There are some people who are confident that you can fly to the moon. That doesn't mean that it's true. Confidence is a psychological property. It's the feeling of assurance that a proposition is true. But many people feel very confident of things that aren't at all true. Sometimes our confidence proves to be unreliable. So the best we can say in the presence of psychological assurance is that that assurance is not an adequate indicator that you possess the truth. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. So when a Christian says, here's what I say to the unbelieving world, I'm confident. I've had this inner experience to which I say, praise God, brother. But now what's your argument? Because that's not an argument. That's not evidence. The truth of Christianity is not simply an autobiographical quality. The truth of Christianity doesn't reduce to telling us something about its acceptability individual. You know, when I stand in the public square and I tell people I find Christ satisfying, people have a right to say, so what if we're interested in you? We're glad to hear about that. But you're telling us that you find Christ satisfying does not tell us anything about Christ necessarily. If the faith is to be defended, we must show that its truth has a public nature, open to inspection, independent of what anybody thinks or feels about it, positively or negatively. Apologetics cannot reduce to subjectivism because, you know, if my defense of the faith is Christ satisfies me, then inadequate answer is from the unbeliever. Christ doesn't satisfy me. And now we're at a standoff. Apologetics is not to be left in a standoff like that. So apologetics is not a matter of subjectivism. Secondly, there's another low road that some professing Christians take in the face of unbelieving objections to the faith. And that's the road of relativism. In many ways, relativism is a close cousin to subjectivism, but it is a distinct error in philosophy. You see, the Subjectivist suppresses or denies the public nature of Christian truth, but still distinguishes truth from error. If I'm a subjectivist, I might believe there is truth and there's error, and I know the truth through a subjective feeling that I have. I believe Christianity is true and I base that on unargued feelings that I have. And I believe that the non Christian view is untrue on my subjective feelings. Relativism, on the other hand, believes that all systems of belief, that all convictions are conditioned by cultural factors and individual biases in such a way that there isn't any absolute ultimate truth. The subjectivist could say, there is an ultimate truth and you know it by your feelings. The relativist says there is no ultimate truth if the Christian proclaims that God is a person, but Hindus teach that the supreme reality is impersonal. And if the Christian warns that all men will answer to God for their sins one day, but the master of some cult insists God would never punish anybody for their misdeeds. The relativist listens to all this back and forth and contradiction. The relativist says, you can't ever resolve all of that. So what's true is true for you, and what's true for you is not necessarily true for me. You love that. I bet you've heard that many times in your life, haven't you? Somebody said, well, that's true for you, or well, that's not my truth. That's not true for me. Now in a real important sense, that's a misuse of the English language. This expression true for you, true for me is a misuse of the English language. Truth is not something that is person relative. To say that a proposition is true for me is just a misleading way of saying I believe the proposition, I believe it. But to say that I believe it is not the same as it being true, but only for me. Because truth is not a person relative matter. Relativism is either hypocritical or self contradictory. Let me go slow here. It's very important that we catch on to this early on. Sometimes people play at relativism, but they don't really mean it. When the chips are down, they want to insist that some things are absolutely true even though other things are not. You talk to people and they say, well, you know, it's all relative. And then you'll find they are adamant about other matters. I remember when I was in college in the years of the sexual revolution and the counterculture and the war in Vietnam, and it was always an easy apologetical mark to talk to university students who believed because of the sexual revolution that everything's relative. You know, it's different strokes for different folks, right? And no one has the right to judge anybody else. And so if I were to give them my Christian perspective about, you know, premarital and chastity, you know, they just think that's just so much old fashioned, ha ha stuff. And then you talk to these very same people and they will utterly denounce the United States government for its involvement in Vietnam. And you have to tell these people, you have to play it out because obviously they don't catch it. You have to say, are you really a relativist or not? I mean, if you're going to be a relativist, play for keeps. Because if it's different strokes for different folks, then on your approach, even if the United States were doing something which is wicked and horrible, everyone has to choose for themselves what they like to do. Maybe some people like to beat up on other people. So war is good for them. It's true for them, not true for you. Boy, they hate it when you start throwing a bag at them like that, you know. So some relativists are really hypocritical. They think truth should be a matter of personal convenience, I guess. You know, it's like things will be absolutely true when I want them to be absolutely true, but then other people who claim to be relativists actually contradict themselves because they'll insist quite absolutely that there is no absolute truth. Okay? And we chuckle at that. But you want to get hold of that because that's going to be one of the most important tools, or hooks, if you will, to use in apologetics. When people reduce their system of thought to relativism, you need to really push that and the implications of it. When you do that, you're bringing them to epistemological self consciousness. Right? You understand that? You're saying, now look, you need to understand the implications of your relativism. If everything's relative, then you can't insist that everything's relative because your claim that everything's relative is relative too. And so if there are no absolutes, then there must be absolutes. I know you're going to have to stop and think about that for a minute. If there are no absolutes, then there are. There's the absolute, that there's no absolutes. Sometimes I've had discussions with Eastern mystics or Hindus and they want to argue for a while, but eventually they get tired of this Western rationalism. And you'll hear them say something like, well, I don't believe in logic. Well, from a Western perspective, you've won the argument already because you say, okay, speak up. In other words, to escape being a Christian, you've got to give up logic. Just tell people that. So that's the end of the apologetical witness. But with the person, I usually try to show them that they can't get out of it just that easily because they say, I don't believe in logic. I say, well, then you do. They'll say, no, I just said I don't believe in logic. I say, okay, if you don't believe in logic, then you do. Now I wonder if you can see why I'm on good grounds, why this person has given me the rope by which I'm hanging him. Because you see, if he doesn't believe in logic, what that means is I don't have to be consistent. I don't have to say things which comport with one another. But if you don't have to be consistent, then I have the right to contradict you. And I haven't done anything wrong because on your worldview, logic doesn't count. And so anybody who tells me I don't believe in logic, he has just proven to me that he does. Which is to say, I can contradict you because on your world, you logic about it is that, am I going too fast? Don't let me do that. Not just tonight, but anytime. I really love this material. So when I get into this, if I start cooking, you got to say, slow down. What are you talking about? When someone says they don't intend to be logical, then you can throw illogic at them, you can contradict them. And so the person who says I don't believe in logic, I usually say, okay, well, since you don't have to believe in logic, I'll just use logic with you. Well, that's contra. Ooh, I can't. The person, the Hindu can't say, that's contradictory and say that as though they're condemning me. I'll say, I'm just living according to your worldview. To give up logic, you're going to have to affirm logic. And so not all relativists are sincere. Some are hypocritical and others are just plain self contradictory. Christians do not claim that Christianity is relatively true. We teach that it is absolutely true. We teach that it is universally true. Moreover, we teach that it is exclusively true. And of course, this is the grand defense of the 20th century last week at Orange Coast College up in Orange County, I was part of a two day seminar where they brought in three resident scholars, one representing Christianity, one representing Orthodox Judaism, one representing Islam. And for two days we had what amounted, well, I would call it a dialogue more than a debate, but we had what amounted to four and a half hours of dialogue with each other. And I assure you that it was scandalous to these people for me to say Christianity was the one and only way, that Christ is the only Messiah, the only Savior of men. The audience didn't like that. My panel participants didn't like that. It is offensive in a pluralistic age. It's offensive in a democratic age. You'll hear people say everybody has a right to believe about God what they wish. Of course, that's not the point. Everybody has a right to believe what they want, but that doesn't mean everyone's right. Understand that everyone has a right, but that doesn't make everyone right. We have not defended the faith. If we become eclectic saying that everybody can pick and choose what they want as the truth. In Christianity, some religious perspectives teach that there's a variety of ways of reaching God. In fact, that's one of the things the Muslim wanted to say. The Muslim wanted to say, well, we worship the same God, but we've got the proper name for him. To which I would have to say, no, we don't worship the same God. Well, that's offensive. Japanese religion, going back many centuries has taught that there are many roads to the top of the mountain, the Mount Fuji illustration. And you see, so all these roads take us to the same God, many paths to the top. However, Christianity cannot be one of those roads because Christianity doesn't teach a smorgasbord approach to religion. God, as I said last week in the debate, I said God's under no option to present the truth in cafeteria style. No one has a right to lay upon God the requirement that he allow some people to approach him this way and some to approach him that way, and so forth and so on. Eclectic approaches to religion may wish to incorporate Christianity into their religious options. But in the nature of the case, Christianity cannot be assimilated to ecticism. Christianity claims that Christ alone is the divine Savior, claims that only through Christ can anyone be right with God, claims that what we believe about God is restricted to what he reveals about Himself. And therefore we have to exclude all human imagination, all human creativity, and simply submit to God's own revelation if we're to know the truth. And so, in answer to the unbelief in the world. It will be inadequate for us to be subjectivistic, saying, well, I've had this experience and that's all I have to say. It will be inadequate to say, well, it's true for me, even if it's not true for you. It will be inadequate for us to say, well, this is just one of many ways to God. Apologetics rejects subjectivism, relativism and eclecticism. If they are the low roads and what is the high road? The high road is sanctified argumentation. Sanctified argumentation. That's what we see in the pages of the New Testament. Christians respond to the objections and challenges of unbelievers with apologetical argument. The Truth of the Faith the early Christians pressed the claims of truth, and they were able to defend them. They clearly set the truth of Christ in antithesis contradiction to the erroneous ideas which stood over against it. And the people who did this, remember, were formerly fishermen, tax collectors, and in some cases academic students of the law. All of them were called upon to do the same thing. Not take these inadequate alternatives, but take the high road of sanctified argumentation. Acts 2:36 Peter proclaimed, Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah. Acts 9:22 Saul increased the more in strength and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that Jesus is the Messiah. Acts 17:2 as his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures. Acts 17:17 so he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace, day by day with those who happened to be there, including certain Epicurean and stoic philosophers. Acts 18:4 Every Sabbath day he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. One more example. Acts 19:8. 9 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God, and later reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. So when objections are raised to Christianity, it's our obligation to present reasoned answers and defense. We must argue with those who oppose the truth of God's word. And before we end tonight, I want to make very clear that you understand what an argument is. Offering arguments in favor of a certain conclusion is not to be confused with being argumentative. Offering arguments is not the same as being argumentative. Or to put it another way, offering arguments is not the same as being contentious in your demeanor. The Bible exhorts us to give arguments, but it prohibits us to be contentious. And if you can't draw the distinction between those two, then you're not prepared yet to be an apologist in the biblical sense. Presenting a reason for the hope that is within us does not demand that we do it offensively or arrogantly. When well meaning Christians say we shouldn't argue with people if we're going to be Christlike, they have something valuable to tell us, but they aren't telling us it in a clear and correct fashion. Arguing is not in itself wrong. Put that in your notes, please. Arguing is not in itself wrong. The apostles quite obviously engaged in arguments with unbelievers. However, the apostles also knew of a temperament and a way of communication that dishonors the Lord. And so in first Timothy 6. 5 you find this expression perverse disputings. Turn real quickly, before we end tonight to first Timothy 6. 5. Paul speaks in verse four, saying he is puffed up, knowing nothing but doting about questions and disputes of words. Whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil, surmisings, wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth. That in this translation wranglings can be translated perverse, disputing, or constant friction between men of corrupt mind. The categorical moral injunction to those who would be Christian teachers is that they must gently instruct and hope that God that God has put on his people. Apologetics is not something that is pugnacious. It is not a matter of persuading people you're not under obligation to change their hearts, but to close their mouths. And apologetics is not based on some other ultimate authority than we find in theology itself. Does apologetics use reason as a tool? Of course it does. As a final standard? No, because the final standard is the word of God himself. There are three inadequate alternatives to doing apologetics. They are subjectivism on the one hand, relativism on the other, or an eclectic spirit. Finally, and ultimately, what we tonight is that the New Testament gives us the illustration as well as lays on us the imperative to use the high road of sanctified argument with people. Not contentiousness, not perverse disputing, but the firmness and boldness that is born of the grace of God. And amazing when we know the grace of God, we don't become meek or retiring in terms of the truth. We become bold with respect to it. And yet our boldness is a humble boldness that we present the truth, the one and only truth which men need if they would be saved. What I'm going to try to show you in our next few class sessions is that if men would be saved, they will be saved. Not simply for all eternity, that is their souls going to heaven. But if they want to save any reasoning ability at all right now in this life, they need to be Christians as well. That Christianity brings the salvation of anything that's worthwhile in a man's life, both now and forever. And so I'll leave that as our final note and ask you to please read tonight's assignments so that when we come together next time, I can do a comparison of the two major approaches to apologetics, and you can see how they have been used throughout the history of the Christian church. And then we'll start talking about methods. Yes. Yes, I do. That's right. I have very unfairly assumed that you already read for tonight, but I was not so foolish as to lecture on the basis of that. Next time I will take it for granted. Any other questions? All right. Thanks for coming tonight. 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 bonsoninstitute.com where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.