Dr Greg Bahnsen - Reasoning with Unbelievers: Should We Reason? (Part 1)

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. It's cold this morning. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. I'm always sorry that my physical condition, it doesn't match up to my enthusiasm. I like to teach aggressively and with animation and I like to use my voice. But I'm going to have to be pretty subdued this morning and I'm sorry for that. But I'm very glad to be here to try to teach you how with good voice and good mind, you can better defend your Christian faith. As Steve said out on the street, where it counts. The title of our series today is Reasoning with Unbelievers. I'm going to take the first two sessions to deal with the question of should we reason with unbelievers and how do unbelievers reason? I'm going to write that down. Should we reason with unbelievers and then how do unbelievers reason? In our second session after lunch, we'll be dealing with the question of how should we reason with unbelievers? And we'll be looking specifically to find out how the Bible would direct us to do that. In the concluding session of the afternoon, we'll be trying to do some acting out of the procedure that I've been teaching. And I will encourage some of you to take the part of the unbeliever. Let me hear some of the sorts of things you hear and how I might possibly respond to it myself. And then maybe we'll put the shoe on the other foot that you've fallen and see how some of you might begin to put it into practice as well. We want this to be a very practical day. Going to begin then spring with aspect. Should we be reasoning with unbelievers in ancient Greece? The defense that someone offered in a court of law in answer to an accusation was called an apologia. The Socrates in ancient Greece. I think many of you will at least know the story if you've not read it yourself. Socrates was accused of atheism and corrupting the youth of Athens. Eventually the Athenian court sentenced him to die. Plato, who is the best student of Socrates and through whose writings we know what we do know of him wrote a series of dialogues and three of those deal with the last days of Socrates. The one that gives us Socrates defense of himself in court is called the apology. We need to understand this does not indicate that Socrates said, I'm sorry he didn't come. And here's my apology to you. It rather meant that Socrates offered his defense of his own integrity and of his actions. Now, Socrates is not the only one who in the ancient world came under accusation. I'm sure you're aware of that. Christians in the ancient world knew what it was to be accused of things. If you have your Bibles, we're going to be looking at the Bible a lot today, so let's have them out on our laps ready to go. We probably can't look up all these passages, but let's just see the sorts of things that were said about the Christians. We'll look up a few of these. I'd like to begin with Luke 24:11. Early Christians knew what it was to be ridiculed directly for their religious convictions and for their practices. Notice that both their convictions and their practices were ridiculed in Luke 24:11. What do we see? And these words appeared in their sight as idle talk, and they disbelieved them. The report of the resurrection just seemed like idle words. This couldn't possibly be true. It was just a tale. In Matthew 28:13, 15. It's not just idle talk. It's called a lie. Matthew the 28th chapter at verse 13 saying, his disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him and rid you of care. So they took the money and did as they were taught. And this saying was spread abroad among the Jews and continues until this day. Matthew says so not only does it appear that it's an idle tale, it appears to be a lie that people would talk about the resurrection. And in Acts 26:8 you'll notice that it's called an impossibility, or at least it is thought by some to have been impossible that a person would rise from the dead. Acts 26:8, Paul is appeared before Agrippa to give an account of the hope that is in him. You notice how he says, why is it judged incredible or being translated impossible with you if God should raise the dead? So if you look through the pages of the New Testament, it's immediately clear that the central message of Christ's resurrection was not well taken to. It's an idle tale. Some people said it's a lie. Some people said it's impossible. Other people said, you probably heard things like that yourself. People suggested to you that someone made up this story. But these are just idle tales that you read in the New Testament. These miracle stories are unbelievable. They're actually impossible things. Like that should happen. Early Christians were persecuted for believing these sorts of things and for preaching them. In Acts the fourth chapter, you'll notice Christians were arrested for preaching about the resurrection. In Acts the 17th chapter, verse 32, we read that when Paul preached about the resurrection, he was mocked by the Athenian philosophers. On the day of Pentecost, believers, because they acted in a strange way, were accused of being drunk. Stephen, in Acts the sixth chapter, was accused of opposing previous revelation. Paul himself was accused of introducing new gods. In Acts the 17th chapter, we also read earlier in that same chapter that the church was being accused of political insurrection. If you look at Acts 13:45, you'll see that Christians were openly contradicted by those who were considered the experts of their day. In Acts 14, those same experts prejudicially vilified the reputations of Christians. Is this sounding at all familiar to you? I mean, it's as though it could be written of our own day. It seems to me we have people who are being politically persecuted for their Christian convictions. Philosophers openly mock anybody who believes the Christian message we're being accused of. Well, we're having things said of an accusatory nature to account for our behavior. We're told that we oppose previous revelation, that we have new gods that were guilty of political insurrection. And of course, the experts of our day know much better. They think they can vilify our persons and they can prejudicially tell people that it's an unworthy thing to believe. This Christian message. Paul says openly in 1st Corinthians 1:23. Let's turn to that one, that to the Jews and to the Greeks, the Christian message is unacceptable. First Corinthians 1:23. But we preached Christ crucified unto Jews, a stumbling block unto Gentiles foolishness. Paul says the message that we present is going to be accused, it's going to be vilified, it's going to be rejected. Jews find it impossible. They stumble over this message. And Greeks, of course, they think it's utterly foolish. So Christians in the early church were opposed. They were accused for the things they believed and the things they did. But, you know, it's an interesting thing. And there's another feature to the way the Gospel was undermined in the early days of the church. Not only was it openly opposed or ridiculed, as I've said, it was also undermined. The early Christians had to guard against the wrong kind of positive acceptance of what they proclaimed. And in our day and age, that's something we should Keep in mind, sometimes people are willing to, to believe what we're saying, or so it seems. They're rather positive for the Christian message, and yet you don't want them to be positive in the way that they're being positive. The apostles, for instance, were confused for being gods. In Acts, the 14th chapter, pagan religion said, oh, well, you're just one of the other gods, you know, and someone might say, well, that's very possible. That's sure better than being ridiculed and told you're a fool. But can we accept that? I mean, if we go out and speak to New Age advocates and they say, hey, we're all gods, you must be a God. This is a great message you have. I mean, is that going to be something that pleases us? No, we have to be careful that the faith not be undermined by the wrong kind of positive acceptance. Soothsayers gave commendation to the apostles, a very unwelcome commendation in Acts 16:18. And in Acts 15 we see that the apostles had their message absorbed by heretical legalists. After all, it was no favor to the Christian church to have the Judaizers trying to give their own version of the gospel, which was no gospel at all. And so what I'm suggesting as we start this morning is that 20th century Christian believers should not get the idea that the development of human philosophy, the development of Western culture, the development of technology and science and all that has brought us to a day that is so much different from the New Testament that we can't receive help, the same sorts of things that we face when we defend the faith they faced. The vocabulary may be different, the illustrations may be different, the underlying issues are the same. Is it possible that God should raise the dead? Is someone lying when they say that sort of thing? These questions, along with the attempt of the cults, the attempt of Romanism and false understandings of the gospel to accept and absorb. But we say these problems that the apostles, the early church, face, we face today as well. Now, what kind of response then did the early church make to all this? These accusations, ridicule, being absorbed into the wrong kind of positive acceptance? Well, it's clear from the pages of the New Testament that the believers in the early church were not content to respond by being relativists. They were not content to be subjectivist and say, well, it's true in my heart of hearts, they were not content to be eclectic, saying, well, I've got something to contribute, you've got something to contribute toward this huge question that no one knows really anything about called religion. In the accounts of the opposition which I have detailed for you this morning, if you go back and look at them in context, you'll see that Christians are not there. Found Replying that nobody knows for sure about that is a very popular Christian response today. Well, I believe these things in my heart of hearts, but no one really knows. And so when you have your criticisms, you don't know and I don't know. And it's what we call out in California a Mexican standoff. No one can make any progress because no one really knows anything about it anyway. These are supernatural matters. We live in the natural world. So I mean, it's everyone's guess, right? But if it's everyone's guess, I have the right to my guess. You have the right to your guess. Kind of a relativism and agnosticism that is not at all Christian apologetics. People will say there is no absolute truth. So I guess everyone's left to believe what they want. Religious disagreements are not seen in the pages of the New Testament as irresolvable differences of personal upbringing or personal culture or perspective. You don't see the apostles saying things like, well, the Bible may be true for me, but it's not for you. I was brought up this way. I can't help but believe it. Nor do we find any willingness to make common cause with false religiosity. See, there are some people who say that Christianity can be accepted as one among many legitimate points of view. No, we don't find that in answer to accusation and ridicule and alternative religions. What we find in the New Testament is all apologetics, the apology, the defense of Christian claims as being the truth, not only true, but the truth, the only truth when it comes to religious matters. Just look in your Bibles at these passages as I go through them. Acts 2:36. Acts 2:36. Peter proclaimed, Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord in Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. It's amazing to me Peter does not like. Some modern apologists try to present a defense of the resurrection that says, very likely Jesus rose from the dead. Most probably he rose from the dead. This is the best hypothesis we have to account for the facts that we know. Peter says, let the house of Israel know for certain. There's no doubt about it. Peter doesn't back off because it's a miracle. Peter doesn't back off because it's an empirical matter. He says, I can tell you a certainty. Jesus rose from the dead. And the certainty he speaks of here is not simply an inner persuasion. You know, it makes you feel like, oh, I just positive that it must be true. Peter says, you may know it for certain. Knowledge is a public matter, not just a feeling. It's something which anyone can have the certainty about. Look at Acts 9:22. Acts 9:22. But Saul increased the more in strength and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ. You notice that Paul says that he can prove that Jesus was the Messiah and he confounded the Jews. He was so good at doing that. Turn to Acts 17:17, 18. Acts 17 at the 17th verse. So Paul reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and in the marketplace. Paul didn't just go to the religious centers and say, well, now they expect me to talk about religious here. I'm saved. He went out in the marketplace. He went out on the streets. If you were in Brooklyn, he'd be out on the sidewalk. He wasn't afraid of that. Let's reason. He says, not only that, he met certain, we are told, of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. Paul wouldn't worry about wandering down to the university and going into the lunchroom and finding one of the professors of philosophy and sitting at the table saying, let's chat. I have something to tell you. You're going to find this amazing. Now, would you do that sort of thing? Honestly, this morning, how many of you are going to go out on the streets of Brooklyn and just say, anybody I run into, I've got an answer for. I can talk to them. I can defend this faith that seems so incredible in their eyes. In fact, I'll wander right on down to the local university and not just talk to the students there who might be a little unsure of themselves. But I'll talk to these confident faculty members, too. I'll find the efficiency philosophers. I have something to tell them. I think I can speak with them. You're saying, oh, well, you know the apostle Paul, right? But wait till you find out that Paul and Peter say, you're supposed to do the same thing we're doing. So be thinking about that. Paul reasoned in the synagogue and in the marketplace every day. Those who met him, even the philosophers. Acts 26:2. Acts 26:2. Paul there says, I deem myself happy, King Agrippa, that I am able to make my defense before thee this day. That I am able to make my defense. The word defense in the Greek is my apologia. I'm pleased that I can be here to apologize for the faith, not say, I'm sorry for it. I'm glad I can be here to defend the faith. I've got something that's worth hearing. And one more passage. Philippians 1, verses 7 and 17. Philippians 1, verses 7and 17. Paul says, Both in my bonds and in the apologia, both in my bonds and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you are all partakers with me of grace. I am set for the defense of the gospel. And Paul says, you know what I rejoice in? You're with me in that. I told you, Paul's not going to let you off the hook. He talks to the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers and he says, praise God, you're with me in that you share in this grace. You too can do this. So those who were followers of Christ in the early church stood firm on Christ's own categorical claim. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life. Can you imagine some translations of that that would suit the modern mentality? Jesus says, I am one of the ways to God. You've heard that, haven't you? Krishna is one of the ways. The Hindus have their avatars, the Buddhists have their bahasadvas. Jesus is just one of many. Isn't that nice of him to include everybody else? I am one of the ways to God. Jesus didn't say that, though. Jesus didn't follow the modern democratic mentality. He said, I am the way. And then Jesus said, and I am the truth. Everyone wants to know Pilate. Remember, Pilate hears about this man. Pilate says, what is truth? Right, Jesus? I'm the truth. That sounds arrogant to the modern mind. If I were an unbeliever, I would find that offensive. I've studied enough philosophy. I'm an educated enough man. I'm learning enough in the ways of the world that that has just got to be arrogance on the part of anyone to think they know for sure what the truth is. Not only to know what the truth is, to think that truth centers on him. I am the way to God. I am the truth. And then of all things, at least Jesus can say, those who don't know the way to God and those who don't have the truth can live nice lives. He says that I'm the life. There's no life outside of me. What you're doing and your lifestyles apart from me are really dead. Styles, not lifestyles. You're just walking the ways of death. You're zombies. Not only do you not have it right up here. You don't have it right in terms of what you do with your lives. So the early church, when it defended the faith, did not lower the claims of Christ to the level of probability. They didn't lower the claims of Christ in some area of religious agnosticism or relativism. They defended Jesus as the one and only way and the truth accordingly. They proclaimed Christ in such a way that the gospel about him would be understood as objectively and exclusively true. You need to listen objectively and exclusively. By objectively, we mean that it's a truth that's in the public domain. It's not a subjective matter. Just in my heart of hearts, this hidden way there something I couldn't put out for public scrutiny. It's objectively true and it's not true just because I believe it. And the truth of it is not affected by whether you believe it or not. See, it's objectively cold out there, whether we're feeling cold in here or not. It's objectively cold out there. Whether someone goes out there, you know, in his swim trunks and says, nah, nah, it's not cold, it's objectively cold. The same way the gospel is objectively true. Yes, there are people saying, nah, that's not the case. Yeah, there are people who got themselves in a nice little warm house of their own philosophical making where they don't have to feel the cold. They think, but it's objectively true that the gospel is the one and only way, and it's exclusively true, the one and only way. Those who abide in the word of Jesus Christ, we are told in John the eighth chapter, shall know the truth, shall know the truth that sets them free. They shall not just have a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside that sets them free. Nor will they have some kind of distinctive religious experience that sets them free. Nor will they just know something that very likely is true that sets them free. They will know the truth. First century Christians were able to defend those kind of claims. After all, the truth is not clearly taught unless whatever contradicts the truth and whatever error stands over against the truth is simultaneously refuted. The early Christians did not simply give testimony to their belief in Jesus. They went after the opposition. They said, you're wrong, we are right, and we can show you that to be the case. Jude exhorted his fellow believers to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints. That's directed to you. He says, contend for it earnestly for it, and make sure it's the faith, the once and all settled faith, delivered to the saints. And notice Peter then made it as well, a moral imperative, not a suggestion, not a call to those who might be interested. Anyone want to sign up for a class in apologetics so you can take this particular course? Peter made it imperative for all Christians to be prepared to give a response, a reasoned response, for the hope that was in them. Notice first Peter 3:15 I know that you're aware of this verse. You probably wouldn't be here to study apologetics if you hadn't heard about it sometime. But I'd like to read it for you again. First Peter 3:15 Set apart Christ as Lord in your hearts, being ready always to give an answer to every man who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you. Yet with gentleness and respect, you need to understand that that first Peter 3:15 passage, in light of all the things we've looked at today, just not some kind of isolated call to apologetics. Sometimes people are teachers who suggest, well, the reason we do this is because there's one Peter 3:15. But I mean, the whole tenor of the New Testament is apologetical, isn't it? Look at all the verses we've seen that say the same thing. According to 1st Peter 3:15, the apologetics obligation that rest upon all believers, rest upon especially those who are called to lead the flock. In Acts 20 we are told that pastors have the obligation of defending those who are in their flock. 1 Peter 5 the shepherds are supposed to set an example for the sheep. That's why the pastors and elders are going to go first in our little humiliating exercise later on today. Thus, one of the New Testament requirements for those who would be ordained as elders or teachers in the church is that they be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to confute the gainsayers. Titus 1:9. I'm on the examining committee of my presbytery. When men come for ordination, I examine them in apologetics. Almost invariably the first question I ask is, why should you be here? Why should you have to jump through this little hoop to get ordained? Why should you have to defend the faith? And they sometimes struggle with that. They'll come up with, 1 Peter 3:15. They'll say, yeah, but that's true of all Christians. Not all Christians are ordained. Why do you have to be here and be put through this little exercise? Well, the answer is found in Titus 1:9, because one of the requirements is that not only be able to instruct in sound doctrine, but also confute those who oppose it. We can't avoid the conclusion, therefore, that apologetics has a strong warrant in the New Testament. From that standpoint, when we look at the turnout today, which is really heartwarming. But the fact of the matter is, when we see this and understand the number of Christians who didn't have time to study apologetics, we should be saying they must either know a whole lot more than we do, which in some cases is probably true, and praise God for it, or this place should be packed to impossible for people to get in because everyone's obligated to do this. How would you feel if I came this morning and suggested to you, well, there are certain special Christians who are supposed to love their neighbors as themselves. Others of us are supposed to be pretty rude and selfish. That's acceptable because there's really two kind of Christian lifestyles. There's a loving lifestyle, there's a self centered lifestyle, but it's equally Christian. So you'd say no, wait a minute, Dr. Bronson, here's this command in the New Testament, love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus quotes the law, we're supposed to do it. Well, let me tell you something. Here's this command in the New Testament. You defend the faith. You go down and talk to the Stoic Epicurean philosophers. You stand with Paul and the apostles in defending the faith once for all, delivered to the saints. It's an obligation that's upon you. So don't come back and tell me, well, some are supposed to do that, you know, praise God. Dr. Ponce. So people think they pat me on the back when they say, we're sure glad some of us, you know, Christians have gotten PhDs and are out there doing this kind of work. That's kind of like saying, we're sure glad there's some Christians who think we're supposed to love people. All Christians are to defend the faith. All Christians are to be able to defend the faith to anyone who asks them a reason of the hope that is in them. Dr. Van Til defines apologetics as the defense of the Christian faith against the variety of challenges leveled against it by unbelievers, thereby vindicating the Christian philosophy of life over against all non Christian philosophies of life. He says it's the defense of the faith against the variety of attacks that come against us. And when we defend the faith against those variety of attacks, it should have the effect of vindicating the Christian outlook on life, the Christian worldview, our understanding of reality and of knowledge and of ethics. How we should live our lives. That worldview should be vindicated over against other worldviews that compete with it now. There are a large number of ways in which Christian truth claims come under attack in our day and age. The truth claims of Christianity have been attacked for being meaningless. The possibility of miracles is rejected. The possibility that a transcendent God, one who goes beyond our experience, has revealed himself, is attacked. The idea that someone could come from that transcendent realm in human flesh, the Incarnation is considered a myth in our day. Doubt is cast upon the deity of Christ, or at least the exclusive deity of Christ. Doubt is cast upon the existence of God. The historical accuracy of the Bible is attacked. The scientific accuracy of the Bible is attacked. Scriptural teaching is rejected. People say it's not logically coherent. People think that conscious life following physical death or everlasting damnation or the idea of a future resurrection are incredible. There are those who say the way of salvation is disgusting in the Bible. Why should God have to sacrifice his own son? There are those who say the way of salvation is really unnecessary. God could have just done it another way. The nature of God and the way of salvation are falsified by heretical schools of thought. Competing religious systems are set over against Christianity all around us. The ethics of Scripture is criticized openly even by some Christians. Sadly, the psychological and the political adequacy of Christianity is looked down upon by those who are active in the world, saying, I don't have time for your irrelevant religion. These and many, many, many other lines of attack are directed against biblical Christianity. And it's the job of apologetics, which is to say it is your job to refute them and to demonstrate the truth of the Christian proclamation and worldview. Now, if you're feeling a little weighed down, you're saying, this is way above me. Good. I want you to feel that way. You should. Because we all should feel inadequate before the task. If we do in the first place, we'll know it's the grace of God that makes us apologist. We'll know that it's the power of God that works through us and not our own wisdom. And that's a very good starting place to defend the faith, to know that. But I want you to feel that weight. Look at all the different sorts of things. And not only that, Dr. Bronson, you've taken away the idea that only specialists are supposed to do this. You're saying all of us are supposed to do it. And you've even taken away the crutch of saying we can do it by saying, very likely Christianity is true. You're saying we've got to show people that it's certainly true. Now, there are popular Christian apologists in our day, you see, who have the same kind of crutches that they're leaning on. People who want to present evidences to people and then say, well, very likely this shows that Christianity is true. There are people who do apologetics who say, well, now I specialize in theistic arguments, or I specialize in arguments for the Resurrection. I specialize in defending the Old Testament and its accuracy. Well, there's a room for specialization. I'm not going to deny that, but there's no room for some idea that, well, I only have one kind of apologetical problem to deal with and someone else will have to pick up the slack elsewhere. No, you need to be able to answer all of these questions in the face of any person who asks you and show that the reason you have is sufficient to demonstrate Christianity. Certainly very high demand. I'm going to suggest there's only one way you'll be able to do that. You got to master the heart of the issue in apologetics. And then you can branch out on the special problems of whether the King List in the Old Testament are consistent with each other or whether the accuracy of the New Testament about the Resurrection is something definitely you need to master the heart of the apologetical encounter. And that's what I'm going to try to teach you today. What we have seen thus far is that apologetical work involves intellectual reasoning. It involves argumentation, not just testimony, not just saying it feels good in my heart of hearts, objective proof of the truth of Christianity. Now, in many circles in our day and age, many Christian circles, there's a real loathing of intellectual argumentation. Many quarters of the modern Christian community find the use of intellect unhealthy. They'll tell you, don't you know that the intellect puffs people up? The intellect, you know, gets us into doctrinal problems in our churches and causes division and it's awfully hard. It doesn't feel real good. And so there is generally what I call a disparaging of intellect among Christians in our day. I'll start preaching on this if I'm not careful, because it's something that really distresses me. We are about to enter into another Dark Ages, although I'm not talking about the Dark Ages, but we're going to enter into another Dark Ages of anti intellectualism in the Christian church if we're not careful. Reasoning, however, is not an unspiritual activity argument does not mean that you're a contentious person. As Steve mentioned earlier, I have sometimes, I hope wrongly been thought to be a real monster of a personality. Because when you read my writings, I tend to be stringent in my debate style. I want to get down to what the issues are. I mean, we're going to take the gloves off and let's really punch this thing out. If you purchase the debate tape. When I debated the atheists out at the University of California, I think you will notice there, I hope you will notice that although I was courteous to the man, I didn't give him an inch. I wasn't going to let him get away with this sort of thing. I don't think that's in spiritual. I'm not saying that because that's what I happen to do. Although I will confess as much as anyone, there's the temptation, those who have intellectual ability to be puffed up, to be arrogant, to kind of bully their opponents. That's something we have to watch out for. But you need to be aware that the use of the intellect itself is not something that has to be balanced with love. So we have this idea that you have intellect over here, then you have the Christian life over here. And if you just get the right tuning, it's like the carburetor has the right amount of fuel and the right amount of air coming into it, then it runs nicely. Now, I'm not giving you some kind of carburetor approach this morning. I'm saying that if you love the Lord your God, you will love him with all your soul, with all of your strength, and with all of your mind. So I guess in a sense, this morning what we're asking is, do you love God? Do you love him with everything you have? Do you love him with your mind? There are probably people here this morning who, if your pastor asked you to crawl on tax to Disneyland to provide money for the poor, if he could be convinced that that kind of self flagellation, that kind of pain would do it, some people would say, I'm going to try to do that. There are some here who would give a lot of money, who would spend a lot of time evangelizing. There are some warriors of prayer here who will say, I will give an hour a day for this issue. I want to know how many here love God with their mind as well. How many of you will read an extra book? How many of you will go home and meditate on how I can better answer My next door neighbor, when he comes up with this, see, a lot of times I think we just kind of give up, right? We find that we didn't win the day or we didn't have the most brilliant response, and we say, oh, that's not for me. No good baseball players don't do that. You don't see a shortstop who misses, you know, the ball that's hit to him. He says, okay, that's it. Throws his glove down and says, I'm not a baseball player anymore. No. He says, more practice, more practice. You too, if you love God, you'll practice using your mind. You'll read books, you'll think things through. You'll improve your efforts. Now there is a use of the mind. There are scholarly procedures which are indeed proud and ungodly. And what does Paul say in Ephesians 4, 17 and 18? He speaks of those who walk in the vanity of their mind being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart. But you know, in that very same passage where Paul speaks of those who use their minds in a vain, darkened, hardened way, in that very same passage, Paul just as clearly affirms, you did not so learn Jesus. He says, you didn't learn Jesus this way. The vanity of the mind that characterizes the unbelievers, not the way you learned Jesus. Christians, he says, have been renewed in the spirit of their minds. They've been granted repentance unto the knowledge of the truth. Or as Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 2, still a passage that bowls me over as much as I've studied it. He says, we have the mind of Christ. That's the light in which we must develop a philosophy for dealing with worldly thinking and human traditions. Colossians 2, verse 8. Paul says, Beware that you not get robbed by that philosophy that is after the traditions of men and the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ. He says, you develop a philosophy that's a Christian philosophy, not a worldly philosophy, and then you won't be robbed of. Not if you're going to do that, then you must be willing to have everything in your mind obedient to the call that whatever you do, do it to the glory of God. First Corinthians 10:31. Now, when you eat your breakfast, do it to the glory of God. When you drive your car, do it to the glory of God. When you do your work, do it to the glory of God. And when you balance your checkbook, do it to the glory of God. And when you use your mind, do it to the glory of God. Love the Lord your God with all of your mind. It's clear, isn't it? God doesn't want our minds to be eradicated. Romans 12:1 2. Paul says, rather, our minds need to be transformed, not eradicated. Some Christians who want to suppress the mind have missed that. God wants our minds put back where they belong, transformed by his grace, made useful for his service. When we begin to use our intellect in the service of our Creator and Savior, are we going to want to use our best efforts? Are we going to want to give God the highest quality available to us? God doesn't deserve our scraps. He deserves our lives. And if I'm going to think in godly ways, God glorified me in a way that loves God. You want a big self. I want to be able to be proud, not of my achievement, but proud of the quality of my work because it's offered to God in all of life. His worship for God. Worship has served us in the way I think his worship will serve us. I had better be a good leader, a good reason, a good man. Gracious, we're rude. Of course, that's what ruins your family gatherings. If you got together and exchanged premises and said, now what's the evidence for this and what's the evidence for that? That'd be fine. Probably would build you up and edify your family. But that interpersonal spirit of hostility is what we don't like. Please don't use argument for hostility. That's contentious. Argument, on the other hand, means the offering of reasons that lead to conclusions that you believe are legitimate. And thus Peter, aware of the different ways an argument can be conducted, specifically reminded his readers when he told them to offer a reasoned defense of the gospel. He said, yet with gentleness and respect. There's no room for arrogance in Christian apologetics. It's one of the saddest things I've ever seen when some of the best known apologists of our day debate leaders of the opposition and people leave the debate saying, I sympathized with the unbeliever because the Christian was so rude, was so arrogant. You see, sometimes people can't hear our arguments because they can't get beyond our personalities. Please make sure you do it with gentleness and with respect. Paul put it this way. 2nd Timothy 2:24. The Lord's servant must not quarrel, but be gentle toward all. Apt to teach forbearing in meekness correcting those who oppose themselves. He doesn't back off from the argument. He says, they are opposing themselves. They need to be coming to the truth. But the way you do it, meekly, gently, do it in a way that doesn't bring disdain upon the Lord whom you serve. Engaging in intellectual dispute, where arguments are traded between proponents of conflicting viewpoints, can be done in a manner that leads to our being puffed up and arrogant. And Paul censures that in First Corinthians, especially look at First Corinthians 2, verses 4 and 5, he says, I need to be free of the lust of persuasive words and worldly wisdom. Them. However, there is nothing in the nature of the case which requires argumentation to be conductive in a proud and loving fashion. Apologetics can equally be done in humble boldness, a manner that displays true concern for the unbeliever who is going to hell for the way he is using his mind, a manner that shows love for the lost and above all, love for God who has, by his grace, put you in a position to help those who are helpless in themselves. We'll take a break and come back in 15 minutes. The subject for the first portion of the seminar which precedes this was should we reason? The next portion will cover why is Christian reasoning so weak? And how do unbelievers reason? Dr. Bonson, since I saw you last, we have some chalk and I have put up on the board the three things that we are considering this morning. Before our lunch break last session, we asked ourselves, should we reason? Should Christians engage in that sort of thing? And can you all tell me what was the answer? Should we reason? I mean, I was that bad. I did not get the message across. Should we reason? It's much better that way. Now I'm going to ask, as we begin our second session, why is Christian reasoning so weak, at least often? What is it that hampers the work of Christians in reasoning with unbelievers? You could write a whole dissertation on this subject, I'm sure. I'm only going to try to touch the highlights, but I'd like to suggest to you five reasons why Christians sometimes are weak in their reasoning with unbelievers. This is the sort of thing you want to look at yourself and say, is this why I'm not so effective in defending the faith? The first reason why Christian reasoning is sometimes weak is because of our laziness, our intellectual laziness. I will not take a lot of time to deal with this issue because, in a sense, I'VE already covered it at the end of our last session. But let me just suggest some of the ways in which our intellectual laziness shows itself. First is that we're unwilling to do research. We're unwilling to go look up things that we didn't understand or to look into matters. I am surprised at how often a Christian will run into some kind of antagonism or opposition, feel inadequate to answer it, but never goes to his pastor or to her pastor to say, what can I read on this subject so I'll be better prepared next time? Again, we just take it for granted that, well, I'm no good in that area, or I lost that one, so we let it go. Please get rid of that idea. I think this is the threshold that keeps people from doing apologetics so often, is that they feel discouraged and they don't go on. They just leave it where it is. Be willing to take some lumps. Be willing to go back and say, I need to bone up on this. Be willing to ask the right people, what could I read? How could I improve in this area? Don't be intellectually lazy. But our intellectual laziness is not just a lack of research. It's also a lack of reflection. Christians should be the best at reflecting on things. After all, we're called in the Bible to meditate. And we tend to think that word meditation applies to Hindu philosophy now or to a Buddhist outlook on life. Eastern people do meditation, right? No, Christians meditate. Well, not only can we meditate upon the word of God, we can meditate upon its application. You probably meditate upon. If you meditate at all, I won't ask you. I hope you meditate. If you have time where you just sit down and do not have the TV on, do not let the phone interrupt, don't have the kids running, and you say, this is my time to just be alone with God. Meditation is distinct from prayer. You can do it prayerfully, but I'm talking about just reflecting on the word of God and how it's to be used. You probably meditate on how it should be applied to your life, right? In your quiet time, you read this passage from the Bible. You meditate on it and say, now what should I do and what should I believe because of this? Well, you can also meditate upon the application of that to my talking to someone else. How should I explain this? How can I better defend the faith? How could I have last evening's conversation turned it around in a more God glorifying direction, meditation, research and reflection. We're unwilling to do those things. We are intellectually lazy. And of course there is. Thirdly, we've already talked about this, the fact that some Christians just don't want to be intellectual about anything, just want to give their testimony and let it go at that. The second reason why I think Christians are sometimes weak in their reasoning with unbelievers is that they do not see the moral dimension of their encounter with the unbeliever. They do not see the moral dimension of it. I feel entirely inadequate to communicate this point because I've been saying it for years and I still see people don't pick up on it. I'm not exactly sure humanly what words could be used to break through this. But you know what we tend to do? We see our apologetical encounter with the unbeliever as an intellectual matter. You say, well, Dr. Monson, you just told us to do that. Now you're telling us not to do it. No, what I'm saying is it is intellectual, but the use of the intellect is morally governed, and if you do not recognize that fact, you will never be an effective apologist. Now, what is that moral dimension? First, it's a moral dimension that pertains to how I think. How I think. What are some of the things we can do in this world? We can make lists of things we do. We can eat dinner. We can drive our cars, we can go for a walk, we can watch tv, we can read a book. We can go out jogging. There's all sorts of things we can do in this world. Well, one of the things we do in this world is we think. Don't overlook that. Thinking is not separate from the rest of life. Thinking is just one of the many activities humans engage in. But you see, if it's one of the activities we engage in, then it must be done in a way that pleases God, because we're servants of God. Tomorrow morning I'll be preaching on that. How God calls us to serve him and that means that we obey Him. Do you obey him in your thinking? Do you think using lines of reasoning, lines of inference that would be pleasing to God? Do you, when you talk to the unbeliever, constantly scrutinize yourself saying, am I being obedient to God? And the way I'm reasoning, am I doing this in a way that is going to bring glory to God or glory to me? You see, unfortunately, we so often engage in apologetics to vindicate ourselves, and I have to be a little pastoral here. I'm sorry, I can Keep this a nice clean academic matter. But the fact of the matter is, one of the biggest problems I see in my life and in the life of others I try to help is that when they engage in apologetics, they're far more concerned that they not be embarrassed than that God not receive the glory. The reason we should, if ever, get heated in our debate with unbelievers is not because we have been insulted, but because God has been insulted. That gives fire to my apologetic. But I'm afraid so often the fire comes from our own lust within. We want to be honored. I see this in Christian academic circles so often. We want people to respect what we can do. Look at the moral dimension, the way you use your mind. But there's a second part of that. Please realize that the unbeliever is reasoning the way he or she does because there's a moral dimension to their life too, and to their reasoning too. You need to understand that the unbeliever is first of all, above all, not mistaken in his thinking, mistaken in his heart of hearts. He's not right with God. He lives his life unto himself. He's self centered, he's unloving. He does not give glory to God. What does Paul say in Romans 1 in the midst of that glorious passage where he talks about how unbelievers become vain in the reasoning, he says they didn't give thanks. When you talk to people, you need to talk to them as people who are ungrateful to God, who do not glorify God, who do not love God with all their heart, soul, strength. You need to talk to them. Not down to them necessarily. You need to talk to them like you talk to a parent child. You know, when you talk to your children and they have disobeyed you, it's not purely academic, right? You don't say. Now look, it would have been much better if you would have cleaned your room like I told you to. Here are the advantages to cleanliness and so forth. No, there's a sense of censuring when you talk to the child, right, because of their disobedience. Likewise, although you may not go like tad to the unbeliever, I would recommend you not. There is that attitude within us that says you are immoral in what you're doing. But it's more than just they are immoral in their thinking. Here's another dimension to that moral dimensional. Do you know why unbelievers oppose God? Do you know why they're grateful? Do you know why it is so important for Them to not believe in the resurrection of Jesus is because they are immoral in their own lives. That is the stimulus of unbelief ethics. You see, people didn't become unbelievers because they had bad training. They didn't go to the best schools, they were deprived of good academic opportunities. People are not unbelievers because they thought it all through and they just made mistakes in their mental homework. The Bible does not present that as the case. Why do people disbelieve the Gospel? Why do they flee from the light? Because their deeds are evil. You'd better be aware of that when you deal with the unbeliever. Man or woman or child, they've got skeletons in the closet. And they know that if they come to the light, if they grant that there is a God in heaven who sees everything, that there is a God who is just and who will judge them. If they grant that God is so just that his son had to die on a cross to make them right, if they grant that miracles are possible and therefore they will deal with this God, then what happens? They are exposed. And so what you need to do is not let them escape that exposure. Don't be afraid to suggest to them that they have an axe to grind, that they may look outwardly so intellectual, so indifferent, so objective in their approach. You need to bring a prophetic denunciation of what they are doing. You need to let them know that God knows and un to their things in their lives that they're ashamed of, and therefore they have a reason to not believe the gospel. They have motivation that has nothing to do with academic matters. I'll tell you, I think that apart from the intellectual laziness which I made number one, that may be one of the highest, most important reasons why we are ineffective, because we let this degenerate the intellectual chess. Your move, my move. Your move, my move. I need to be piercing to the heart and say, you know, the word of God is so sharp, it discerns your intents too. And you know what God knows? He knows that you're afraid to face him and you shouldn't be afraid to face Him. We're not just dealing with mental matters, we're dealing with moral matters. Thirdly, the reason why Christians are ineffective in reasoning with unbelievers, why they are weak and they're apologetic, is that they are, as I have already told you, rude and arrogant in their manner. They are, to be very honest with you, unconcerned with the lost condition of their opponent. In a sense, we've covered this already, but I make it a separate point. Our style is not gentle. Our style is not one that shows. The reason I'm doing this is because I don't want you to go to hell. It's because I care for you and the outcome of your life. I'm loathe to make myself an illustration because I know how bad of one I am in most cases. But I'm struck about one thing that happened to me once. A few years ago. There was a member of one of the cults, a Jehovah's Witness person who came to our door. You probably had that experience, right? She realized I had some convictions and that I was backing up these things up and so forth. And, you know, perhaps you've had this experience too. She realized she was wasting her time, and so she said, okay, well, I've got to go. I said, oh, please don't. We need to talk more. And she was flabbergasted. She said, why? You've got your convictions, I have mine. And I said, because it's a matter of life and death. And if you're right, then I'm in a lot of trouble. And if I'm right, you're in a lot of trouble. And if you love me, you'll stay here and make sure that I'm not in trouble. And if I love you, I'll stick with this until I'm sure that you're not in trouble. And she was just. I mean, she. She had been taught, don't waste your time on people who are Christian pastors and have these convictions. You know, you only have so many minutes in a day. Spend it on people who are not going to fight with you. But I told you, you can't let it go at that. I said, if you leave now and don't talk, it'll betray the fact that you don't think it is a matter of life and death or that you didn't come to my door because you cared for me. Now what do you do? So she stayed a while. But you know what? This is the interesting thing. She didn't have anything else to say. She stayed and I did the talking. What I'm getting at is if you show genuine concern, it may not be in the way that I've just illustrated, but if you show that you really are doing this because you care for the person you're talking to, that gives strength to your apologetic. Don't do it as a matter of scoring points, okay? You've got two good arguments. I've got Three. You know, you crossed me here, I counter you there. See, this is not a fencing match. It's not just a little game of chess we're playing. And so make sure that your attitude is being changed. When you're reasoning with someone, you're arguing with someone. Do you ever pray? Say, that's awfully hard. I'm trying to think about what they're saying, what I'm going to say, all that. Well, master that little technique, do a little intellectual juggling. I try to more and more as I'm reasoning with people about the faith. Be prayerful, say, God, help me to think the right thoughts. Help me to be faithful to you. Help me to be concerned, help me to be humble, help me not to be bullying this person. Pray that your attitude will be befitting of the Savior that you're trying to serve. The fourth reason why I think Christians are weak in their reasoning is because they often do not understand the nature of faith. They do not understand the nature of faith. I'm in Brooklyn. Let's say that I want to go to Orange County, California. How am I going to be able to get to Orange County, California, if I don't know where it is? If someone says, Dr. Bonson, we'll put you on a bus. Which way do you go? North, south, east, west from Brooklyn to get? I have no idea. I'm not sure. Let's just try anything. It probably, let's go north from here. Let's see if we can find Orange county by going north from here. No, you'd say it's ridiculous. When you are involved in a project, getting from one place to another, you'd better know the nature of that other place you're going. It amazes me that Christians do not stop to think, if I'm trying to get the unbeliever from point A to point B, I'd better know where point B is. I'd better know what faith is all about. Have you ever seen the number of ways the word faith is used in our culture? I mean, we have people who tell us we ought to have faith and faith in our culture. We have people who think faith is just a matter of trusting anything, being kind of a gullible person. Well, what is faith? If you study the biblical concept of faith, that will help you get the unbeliever from A to B, because you'll know what you want him to accomplish. One of the reasons that other Christian schools of apologetics, apart from the one that I'm presenting to you today, is not effective I think God uses all these schools of apologetics. Let me make that clear. You know why? Because he has to use imperfect instruments. That's all he's got here. We're not to heaven yet. Okay, so he uses my imperfection. And I'm sure he uses the imperfection of people who don't like what I'm telling you this morning, too. That only shows that God can strike straight blows with crooked sticks. Okay, that's fine. So even the mistakes these other schools of apologetics make, I think, are not going to keep God from accomplishing what he wants to accomplish by his sovereign grace. But my obligation is not to say, well, God will make up for my deficiencies. It's all right if I'm deficient, I'm going to try to be the best apologist I can. And if I'm going to be a good apologist, and I'm going to try to get the unbeliever from A to B, I want him to understand what kind of thing it is to be in position B. What is it to be a believer? So let's ask ourselves that question. What is it to be a believer? In Romans the fourth chapter, we read about Abraham, who is the father of all who believe. We read that we are to follow in the steps of Abraham, same way that father who goes through the snow makes these impressions, and his little son comes behind trying to put his feet in his father's foot. Prince. So we should follow in the steps of our Father Abraham. What was it for him to be a believer? That's what it is for us to be a believer. And that's what we're trying to get the unbeliever to be like. We're trying to get him from A to B. And so what was Abraham's faith all about? Turn to Romans the fourth chapter, and let's see how Abraham had faith in God. Romans 4, verse 16. For this cause it is of faith our salvation, that it may be according to grace to the end, that the promise may be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. As it's written, the Father of many nations. Have I made you before him whom he believed. Even God, who gives life to the dead and calls the things that are not as though they were. Now listen to verse 18. Who in hope believed against hope to the end, that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, so shall thy Seed be. And without being weakened in faith, he considered his own body now good as dead, he being about a hundred years old in the deadness of Sarah's womb. Yet looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to God and being fully assured that what he had promised he was able also to perform wherefore it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. A whole preaching series possible on this, undoubtedly. I'll try to make it a couple of minutes here. What did Abraham do when he was justified for his faith? Now the setting God had come to Abraham, said, abraham, you're going to have a son, a son of promise. Through this son, many nations will be born. You'll be the father of these. Abraham was about 100 years old. How many people do you know that father children at 100 years old? Well, that isn't the only problem, though. You see, God likes to work through miserably impossible situations. Even if Abraham had been a young man able to father children all sorts of places, he couldn't father them through Sarah because Sarah's womb was barren. All right, now, you're modern people, you know about genetics, you know about the birds and the beast. Abraham is 100 years old, his wife is barren, and God says, you're going to have a son, son. And God makes it clear. Not the way you tried it with Hagar. I didn't mean that it's going to be a son of promise. The Bible tells us that Abraham, in hope, believed against hope. Interesting expression, in hope. He believed against hope. He hoped in the promise of God, didn't he? But he did so contrary to hope. Now, what kind of hope is that? Second hope, the hope of the world. So imagine Abraham going around to some of the doctors of his day and saying, doctor, what do you think? Father or child? He goes, takes his wife to the ancient equivalent of a gynecologist, says, what do you think? Any probability that Sarah might have a child? No. The world would have said, no, Abraham, you can't father a child. She can't bear a child. You're not going to have any children. It's impossible. Abraham believed it against hope, against the hope that the world would give. Then you notice the faith here then was not a matter of trying to see how reasonable God's word was so the world could say, oh, yeah, very likely sort of thing that happens all the time. Why is it then that we, when we try to get unbelievers to believe the gospel, try to Reduce the gospel to something they can just believe on their own. Scripture strength is, oh, well, yeah, it just fits right into the way you think all the time. The gospel does not fit into the way people think. Then apologists who try to neuter the gospel, try to tame the gospel, try to reduce it to the dimensions of the thinking of the unbeliever. So they might then have faith in it. Don't understand faith. Faith is not believing what the world tells you is possible. Faith is believing against hope. Well, on what basis would you believe things that are unscientific? We proclaim the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why do you believe that? Do you believe that because you've been to a few funeral homes and every once in a while people get up and leave and they say, no, I think I'm not going to be dead for a while. Thanks. Have you ever seen a dead man rise? Why then do we try to make the resurrection something that's just easy to accept? Or that if you're just reasonable about this, you'd say that's the only. Let me tell you the truth. I have seen the arguments for the resurrection. I'm sorry this is the case. And I do believe there's a place for those arguments. You can get my tape on the use of evidence as an apologetic, and you can see that there is a place for that. But if I were an educated unbeliever, there's no way the arguments for the resurrection that are popularized in our day will convince me. You know why? Because in the end, the final question is, is it even possible? I don't want to know how likely the evidence is that someone really believed this. I don't want to know about human psychology. It's not likely that a liar would die for it and so forth. In the end, I'd say, well, those are interesting considerations, but I just know that dead men don't rise. That's the end of the matter. You see, you can't argue for what is impossible. And so we shouldn't try to make it seem all the more possible. We should say, that's right, it's not possible, except according to the promise of God. Isn't that what Abraham did? It says here that in hope he believed against hope to the end he might become the father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, Abraham said, the word of God says it. I believe it. Against human hope, I believe it. And being fully assured that what God had promised he was able to perform, Abraham was justified by that kind of faith. You see, Abraham transferred his hopes and expectations, his way of reasoning, from the ways of the world to the authority of God. He said, God says it can be. Now, you know that I'm telling you the truth about Abraham's faith because this is not just the. I mean, this is not the only illustration the Bible gives us. In Hebrews 11, Abraham's faith is commended. And I need to hurry up here, so I'll just kind of summarize it for you. Abraham's faith is committed because when God told him to, he is willing to sacrifice that son who was eventually born. I'm telling you, God put Abraham through it. He says, you're going to have a son. You're too old to. Your wife can't do it. You're going to have a son. Abraham believed it. And then once he had the son, God said, kill him. Do you really believe I'll keep my promises? Kill Isaac? Well, I'll tell you real room for reflection about those days when Abraham traveled with Isaac to a place where he might sacrifice him. Abraham is thinking, probably arguing with himself, what's God going to do? How can this be? God said one thing, it sounds like another. Humanly speaking, outwardly speaking, if I kill Isaac, that's my last chance. You can almost think Abraham would help God out and say, no, God, I'm going to help you. Keep your promise. I won't kill him. God says you kill Isaac. Show me that you are willing to bow your heart and your mind to me. You know, the Book of Hebrews says that Abraham willingly did that, believing that God could raise the dead. I love that Abraham said, if Isaac dies, and if he's the one, God will raise him from the dead. I believe God can do it. God brought this son by his promise in this world and by his promise, he'll give him life from the dead. To that is faith giving up human expectation and trusting the word of God on his authority. So when we do apologetics, we are so often weak in our reasoning because we don't know where we're going with the unbeliever. We forget we're trying to get them to renounce the authority of their reasoning, to renounce their human expectation in this world, and to trust God and God's word alone. That is the highest authority for them. And then the fifth reason I want to share with you that I think unbelievers are weak in their reasoning is that they sadly, in their own thinking, draw a sacred secular distinction. In their own reasoning, they draw a sacred secular distinction. Christians are very Much afflicted today with the idea that there are religious issues and then there are non religious issues in life. Now, I'm not here to talk about ethics. We see that, for instance, when Christians think, well, politics, that's dirty, that's part of the world, prayer, that's part of the church, that's good, the other is bad. Or we have this idea that, you see, God deals with some issues in life, but he doesn't deal with economics. And in that area, then I've got to follow my own lights. There is no distinction. All of life is religious. All of life is lived under the sovereign care of God. All of life is judged by his word. There is no sacred secular distinction. Well, those who have a sacred secular distinction bring that to application in their reasoning by drawing a faith and science distinction. Christians often think sacred matters are matters of faith, secular matters are matters of science. There is this parallel between the sacred secular and the faith science kind of dichotomy. Now, what happens when you reason that way? When you reason that way, you give the idea that faith is contrary to science. See, science is the use of the intellectual. Faith is just a matter of taking some kind of irrational leap, apparently. And so since we're called upon to defend the faith, if you have that idea that science is one thing, faith is another, what you'll probably do is you will assume that the scientist who is an unbeliever, he doesn't have a worldview or a religious conviction. He's just out there doing the secular work. And I've got to meet him on his own terms. I've got to go out there and be just like him, neutral, uncommitted. I've got to use his worldview and then show him that if he really is true to his own worldview, then he can take this leap over to the area of faith. No, that's not true though. In the first place, we are wrong to think that unbelievers follow science and we follow the word of God. They don't follow science. They are not neutral. Unbelievers have their own version of faith. What you have here is not faith versus science. You have one kind of faith versus another kind of faith and you'll never get through to the unbeliever because you'll be intimidated. If you think he's got science on his side, I've got faith on mine. You might say, well, praise God, I'm going to heaven. Faith is better, but in this world, science is pretty heavy stuff. I want to suggest to you that the person who is an unbeliever did not become an unbeliever through science. That his science is based upon a worldview and the worldview of the scientist, his understanding of reality, the theory of knowledge of the unbeliever, is not at all based upon science itself because his worldview is what leads him to do his science. So his science cannot be determined by his worldview. You rather, he has a faith commitment to a certain understanding of this world. He has a faith commitment to a certain understanding of knowledge. Every ideology that you run into in this world, no matter how well thought out it may or may not be, every ideology that plagues our modern society is based on a worldview. It's based on a picture of reality, a picture of man and how he thinks. And all worldviews in their most fundamental sense are religious. They are not determined by the principles of natural science. Let me give you an example. Carl Sagan says of the cosmos that it is all there is. And I'm sure he sincerely believes that from one standpoint. Well, what you need to see is that when this scientist, Carl Sagan, who popularizes this idea, stands up and tells the world on his television program, there's the cosmos and that's all there is. How did he scientifically determine that's all there is? Science cannot tell you the limits of science because science would have to get outside of science to look at its limits. Now, there are fancier ways of putting that, but I think you'll understand what I'm getting at. Science can't tell you how far science goes. Science can tell you about the things within its range, but it can't tell you whether there's anything outside it's really. And so when Sagan stands up and says, the cosmos is all there is, we need to say, how did you find that out? How did you learn that there's nothing more but the cosmos? You did not learn it scientifically. Well, if he didn't learn it scientifically, what is it then? That's his faith. That's his faith commitment. Carl Sagan may not go through acts of ritual and worship bowing down to the cosmos, although some of us especially respect. Maybe he does. I don't know whether he does, but it's still a religious matter for him. The fact that he doesn't go to the Church of the Cosmos doesn't mean that that is not his God, that is not his ultimate authority. He has a faith commitment in science, and science can do no wrong. Science can tell us all. You notice that the Qualities we attribute to God as Christians, he attributes to the cosmos. We were talking about this at dinner last night. You know, there's this crazy idea. Satan even hopes that out there in the cosmos there are going to be these messages from intelligent life that are coming. Maybe comfort us in the bleakness and coldness of the universe. I'm telling you, he's got a faith commitment here. Not everyone is as explicit as that. Your next door neighbor may not be able to say the cosmos is all there is, but he thinks that way. And when he does, you need to be aware that it's not because he's a scientist and you have faith as a Christian that you differ. It's because he has a religion and you have a religion. He has a faith and you have a faith. And what is coming into conflict here is your faith commitments. It's not science versus Christianity. It's one form of pagan faith or another versus Christianity. Please reorient your thinking. Think in terms of the categories I've given you this morning. Don't be intellectually lazy. See the moral dimension to apologetical work, both for yourself and for the unbeliever. Be concerned for your opponent. Not rude, not arrogant. Understand where you're trying to bring your opponent. Understand what true faith is. Finally, don't think in terms of sacred secular distinctions, faith, science distinctions. Understand that this is a matter of faith commitment versus faith commitment. We'll do those five things. We'll see a lot of the weakness. I don't really know, but I tend to feel in my heart of hearts maybe 90% of the weakness of our Christian apologetical work would be eliminated if we just follow those five things. Now, if I'm right about that, let's just say it's 80. Let's be humble about it. If it's only 80%, that would be improved. Stop and think about it. I have not yet told you anything that sounds philosophical or academic. Does it? To become a good apologist, you can improve your effort. Let's say 75% of your effort could be improved if you just do these five things we're talking about. And you all can do that. Well, before we talk about the more academic debate side, that is the actual content of our argument with unbelievers, which we'll do after lunch. I want to take just a few moments and finish up by saying, well, how do unbelievers reinstate? It will do you no good to argue with the unbeliever if you don't understand him. If you're going to Win dealing with an opponent. You need to understand your opponent, right? That's why boxers study so much. I don't know if you're aware of that. Maybe the boxers, their managers do, when they get ready to go into the ring, they say, I'll tell you what this guy's like. He moves this way. He's got a really heavy rifle. He's sluggish. Here, get him on the ropes. Don't let him get you on the ropes, whatever it may be. I'm not good at boxing. I don't know if they say those sorts of things, but there's something like that they say to these people. And the reason they say it is because they have films, right? Football the same way there's a lot of money that professional football teams spend on what, Sending their people around the country to film their opponents. They want to know what they do. They want to know what they do well, what they don't do well. They want to know their configuration well. Why aren't Christians just that adamant? Let's understand what's true about the reasoning of unbelievers. The best place we can turn to learn about the reasoning of unbelievers is to God himself, because no one knows unbelievers better than God. He made them, he sees through them. He's aware of everything about them. And so what does the Bible tell us about the thinking of the unbeliever? Well, first, the unbeliever is the image of God, whether he says so or not. And because the unbeliever is the image of God, he is inescapably religious. He must have a faith commitment. And of course, his idolatry, his sin, is that he directs his faith commitment towards something in the creation rather than the Creator himself. But you need to know that this man is religious. He was made by God. He was made to reflect God, and he's perverting that. He's distorting that. His heart testifies continually, as does the revelation of God around him that is so clear that God exists and he knows the very character of God. Romans 1 tells us that the unbeliever knows in his heart of hearts he knows God, and from the created order he knows what God requires of him. You know how thorough Paul's commitment is to that perspective. He says in verse 32 that even homosexuals know that they're worthy of death from looking at the world about them. Now, I'm not exactly sure. I think that happens without a lot of inferential reasoning. It's not like the homosexual goes out in the mountains on some nice clear evening and looks up and sees the wonder of the stars. Do you see that from Brooklyn? I don't know. You don't? You need to have that experience. Go to the mountain sometime and just cue sat for meditation. Take an hour. Don't let anyone talk to you. Just go out there and look up at the skies. Is phenomenal. I don't know that the unbeliever, the homosexual, goes out there and looks and then reasons from step one to step two to step three to step four and says, oh, I'm worthy of death for my homosexuality. I think it's probably more direct than that. He has an encounter with God through his creation that indicts his heart. But what happens when the homosexual sees God in that way, evidently displayed in the created order? Then he suppresses the truth. He doesn't want to look at that. He doesn't want to be told that he's guilty. You need to be aware of the fact that unbelievers nonetheless have it in their hearts. They know it. You are not bringing any information to their attention. Get away from the idea that what's wrong here is that they just. They've never heard these things. Well, they know the truth. No matter what they say, they know the truth. And so apologetics is going to be a matter if you deal with this kind of opponent, of not getting new information into him, but unmasking the fact that he knows it already. Remember that apologetics is an unmasking task. It's not an informing task. Secondly, the unbeliever exchanges the truth of God for a lie. Paul says in Romans 1, he is a fool who refuses to begin his thinking with reverence for the Lord. Proverbs 1:7 tells us that the beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. But fools despise wisdom and instruction. It's not good to call the unbeliever a fool. At least maybe not at the beginning of your discussion. At the end of my debate, I called my opponent a fool, but I tried to say it nicely. My point is that provocative language. But whether you use it verbally or not, you need to know that you're dealing with somebody who's a for all of his pretense, for all of his education. 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, bonseninstitute.com where we aim to bring into captivity, every thought to the obedience of Christ.