Dr Greg Bahnsen - Reasoning with Unbelievers: How Should We Reason? (Part 3)

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.

For your cultural accomplishments, your intellectual accomplishments, you may be ignorant, but in your heart of hearts you know God. And therefore, what has Paul called him to do? Verse 30. Again, God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now he commands men that they should all everywhere repent. Paul didn't say, add a little more information to your scheme of thinking. Let me add to your ignorance. Paul says, let me unmask that you know God and therefore you need to repent. The word in Greek for repent means to change your mind or to turn your mind around. Metana e' o, let the mind be turned around. Paul says God demands of you to change your mindset, to stop worshipping the creature instead of the Creator and now make God your ultimate authority. He demands a total philosophical change. He says you need to put one worldview aside and endorse another whole worldview, okay? Don't allow them to be arbitrary, prohibit them from arbitrariness, demand that they be consistent, offer evidence, if that's what's needed at the time. But basically the argument you want to present, the form of it, is demonstrate they are ignorant, they don't have justification for their claims. Secondly, show that they know God nonetheless, in their heart of hearts, they really know God, and that's the only way they can account for what they have accomplished. And thirdly, demand a total philosophical renovation, a mindset change, repentance. Of course, repentance is more than our minds. You understand hatred of sin and desire to please the Savior and all that. But repentance does start with, or at least entails a change of mind. How would you do that? If someone came to you and said, well, you see, my approach to the world is scientific. Anything I'm going to believe is going to have to be based on science. Well, first you want to show their ignorance, right? Isn't that what I said? The first step is how would you do that? Well, here's what I would suggest you might say, well, now science proceeds on the basis of certain assumptions, doesn't it? No, no, science has no assumptions at all. The appear of what was? Well, scientists prove every single thing that they believe, so they have infinite ability to generate proofs for everything they believe. Well, I mean, we let other people prove things and then we, we believe on the basis of what they say. We say. Oh, then you trust them on their authority, huh? Yeah. Well, in other words, sensation is not your ultimate Authority, then you'll be willing to accept the authority of some individual. And yet you're very upset with me because I accept the authority of God. You don't allow authority into your thinking, you say, but in fact, you do. You really are ignorant because you don't know that what other people tell you is true. And you haven't tested all of the experiments yourself. You haven't gone through every case of physics and chemistry and genetic engineering and so forth, have you? No, I haven't. Well, but you see, the problem's even more than that. What else do you assume in science? You assume that when you do an experiment that brings together chemical A and chemical B on Tuesday, that creates a third thing, C. That on Wednesday, when you bring A and B together, you're also going to get C. Yeah, he says, and all we know about are the chemists and the chemicals. I said, oh, no. When you say that what you do on Tuesday can be reproduced on Wednesday, you're assuming something else. You're assuming what? The uniformity of nature. You're assuming that there is consistency in the way that this world operates. You're assuming this is not just sound and fury signifying nothing. It's not just a chaotic random universe. You're assuming there's regularity in the world. Person stops and thinks about it. Some of your neighbors will have to stop and think about that. This is going to be a little tough for them. They've just assumed that the scientists knew what he was talking about. He'd say, but the scientist is assuming the regularity of nature, isn't he? Yeah, I guess he is. Okay, then how do you justify the regularity of nature since they have no justification? I assure you, they have no justification. So wait a minute, Dr. Monson. What if they say it's always been regular in the past, and therefore we assume it'd be regular in the future? I say, well, but you see, the question is, will the future be like the past? Is there regularity? And if someone says there always has been in the past, my question is, what I want to know is, will it be regular tomorrow? You cannot answer the question about regularity by just referring to the past. Because in the nature of the case, the question is, will the future be like the past? Will Wednesday be like Tuesday in terms of chemical exchange? They don't have an answer for that. Well, if they can't justify their belief in the uniformity of nature, then they can't justify their belief in the outworkings of science either. First point of my Apologetic year. Nonetheless, you do know God. You see, the sovereign God who made heaven and earth, promised that he would make nature uniform. Seed, time and harvest would follow one another in regular succession. That's one of the covenant promises he made to Noah. And we know that in our heart of hearts, we know that it's because of God that this world operates that way, that this is not just a chaotic universe. And therefore, knowing that, in our heart of hearts, we do go out and we learn about physics and about chemistry and about lions and tigers and whatever else. And so what I'd like to point out to you, my friend, is not only are you ignorant on the basis of what you are saying, you still know God. And it's only because you know God that you're able to do the work or trust the work of scientists as you do. And so what must happen? You must renounce that approach to knowledge that destroys everything that we might know and have a completely new mindset. You must honor not the scientist, not your sensation. Above all, you must honor the Lord Jesus Christ who made this world. And then science makes sense. So here you have the scientist. You know how to deal with him. Briefly, how about the person who says, I can never become a Christian. I can't stand the things that God is said to have done. In the Bible, God sent his son to the cross to die as a sacrifice. People find that abhorrent. They say God in the Old Testament called for the extermination of the Canaanites. I can't stand. Or, you know, God prohibits abortion, or God hates homosexuals, whatever it may be. So I won't be a Christian. How do you deal with that person? Say, first of all, you're ignorant. You don't say that. You want to demonstrate that and say, oh, well, since you are judging the ethics of the Bible, what I want to find out is what standard are you using when you judge the ethics of the Bible? Well, what seems right to me, I say, oh, it's arbitrary. You have an arbitrary ethic. But if you have an arbitrary ethic, God can be arbitrary too. He can say, wipe out those people if he wants. If arbitraryness is allowed, then you might as well believe what the Bible says arbitrarily. No, I didn't mean that. You can't believe whatever you want. Okay, well, what's your standard of ethics? Whatever works best in this world. Oh, whatever works best. Whatever accomplishes the best outcome, the consequences that are most suited to us. That's right. That's what determines right and wrong. You Say, well, then, what consequences are we looking for? Because if we're going to test ethical systems by their consequences, we better know what consequences we're looking for. They all have them. And if you say any consequence is just as good as any other, then you don't have any basis to judge. So now why do you want. What do they say? Well, whatever makes people happy. Say, okay, why should we want to make people happy? Because it feels good. So what? Why should we want to feel good? Well, because everybody does not. That doesn't make it right. The majority is not always right when it comes to philosophy. They might be in a democracy, but philosophy is not a democratic study. So why should we make people happy? You see, you are arbitrarily choosing Daddy. Others might say, we should do whatever makes me powerful. And if that means torturing you, it's good. Now, what would you say to that person? They don't have an answer. What's our conclusion? You wanted to judge the Bible on the basis of your ethics, but you're ignorant. You don't have any ethics at all. You don't know what you believe, what you do. On the other hand, you still know God. And that's why you condemn, as you see it, involvement in Nicaragua. That's why you even dare to condemn what God does in the Bible. Because in your heart of hearts, you know there is a right and there is a wrong. But the only reason you could do that, and the only reason that you're right as often as you are, although I happen to disagree with you on the points we're talking about, is because you do know this God. You perverted his truth, to be sure. That's why you make exceptions for yourself. That's why you're being arbitrary when we debate. But the fact is, in your heart of hearts, you know that it's wrong to steal and to lie and to murder. And since you think God was murdering the Canaanites, do you think that you can condemn what he's doing? But remember, you can only do that if you first had a reason to believe murder was wrong. And you can't believe murder is wrong unless you're hearing the word of God. So you can't turn around and condemn God when He says murder is wrong. Go kill the Canaanites. Obviously it's not murder when he commands. I realize I'm talking fast, and I don't expect you to try to memorize this, but what is the procedure? You show that you are ignorant, and yet you still know God. What you have accomplished in this area is only because you do know God in your heart. So what does God call for? Calls for you to stop trying to judge him. The only way you're going to get an absolute ethic is if you first bow the heart to Jesus. You're going to have to change your outlook on life. And then it'll make sense for you to ask about Nicaragua and homosexuality and abortion, whatever else it might be. But then you'll have to do it on God's terms, not your own. What if someone says, I don't believe that there's anything more to this world but matter? And even us as human beings, we're just kind of the cutting edge of the biological thrust reality. We're nothing more but advanced animals, and there's nothing to us like a soul that's going to go to heaven when we die. There's no immaterial part of man. Man is nothing more but body, you say. Oh, well, that's true. Then you're awfully ignorant. Don't say those words. Here's how you show up though. Show their ignorant. Say, okay, well, let me be a fool with you for a minute here. There's nothing to human nature except body. That's right. Nothing but matter. Well, that means that the thinking process that I'm now engaged in and that you're engaged in is just a result of brain activity. There's this gray stuff up here that some people can shake around. That stuff up there has electrochemical interactions, and that's what causes you to say what you do and what I do. That's right. That's what I believe. So in other words, you're saying there's nothing but matter because the matter in your head has these chemical interchanges that force you to say that? That's right. Oh, well then if you can't help saying that, I mean, that's just the way the gray stuff in your head makes you talk. Why should I believe it? There's no more cogency or truth to the outcome of the electrochemical interchange within your grave matter in the brain than there is to weeds growing outside. Weeds grow by physical principles. Your brain works on physical principles. They're not equal, it seems to me. Okay, you may not want to be a smarty about it, but that is what's wrong when a person says, no, there's only matter, only brain. There's no mind or soul or intellect. Demand you say, fine, you say that. Then you don't even have a basis for believing what you're saying. You can't help but say that. But on the other hand, you still know God. Even in that kind of ignorance. You know God because you wouldn't be able to be debating with me and exchanging reasons for what you believe and what I believe if you didn't know God in your heart of hearts. That's what makes sense of this debate. If you really thought there was only gray matter up there and that determines it, you wouldn't bother to come over and talk to me. Because why bother to talk to me when I can't help my gray matter does either? So you're debating with me because you know that I'm made in the image of God. You know that you can appeal to me to be reasonable, to look at the evidence and draw conclusions that are true. Hopefully, in most cases that means you're assuming a Christian view of man. So what do I call on you to do? Give up this materialism that destroys knowledge. Then admit what you know in your heart of hearts. Change your worldview completely. Change your philosophy. Bow the mind in Jesus Christ. I know we're running out of time here, but I have so many of these, I think you're going to want to hear them. So I'm going to take five more minutes. Can I. All right. There's someone says, I think everything's relative. You've probably run into that a lot. You know, you just believe whatever you want. You know, everything's relevant. No one can really know about absolute things. No one can really know about the supernatural. We're finite people. Everything's relative. Well, what do you say to the relativist? You say, is your claim that everything is relative relative? Well, no, it's not. Well, then not everything's relative. And if not everything's relative, it's possible that Christianity is true. We need to talk some more now. What's your reason for not believing? Well, then everything is relative. Everything is. Even the claim that everything is relative? Yes. Oh, well, then if it's relative, then I don't have to think it's true in this particular case. It may be in some cases true, but it's not true here. So now let's argue about this some more. The relativist destroys himself. Relativism undermines itself. The only hope for a relativist is to be arbitrary. Have his relativism applied in some areas, but not in the areas that he wants to hold on to. It's like the person who says knowledge is impossible. What you want to say to that person is, do you know that? Do you know that Knowledge is impossible. Don't let them slide away, these weasels. The relativist and the skeptics say you just want to put in your punch and then run. You want to say everything's relative and then take off. No one knows anything. Then take off. No, wait, let's. Let's talk for a minute more. Let me buy another cup of coffee. I'd like to hear about this fool. Let's see where your foolishness leads. And then you want to show they really do know God and they must have a change of mind. How about someone who says, if there's a God who is all powerful and all good, there would be no evil in this world. Since there is evil in this world, there can't be such a God. One of the biggest problems in apologetics. How can all good, all powerful God allow evil? Well, what I want to suggest to you is that that has force for you as a Christian and for the non Christian, because there are some personal and psychological and spiritual things going on there. I have a tape, in fact, you may be interested in, hearing, from which I survey some of the biblical answer to that. If God is good, why do evil things happen? But the problem is not really at that level. When the unbeliever says, I can't believe in your God because there's evil in this world, you need to say, what makes you think there's evil in this world? Let's just talk about that for a minute. Just let me run with your foolishness a minute. Well, here's this child that was tortured by its parents to death. That's evil. And I say, I agree with you. I think that's despicable. In fact, between you and me, I think a person should be executed who does that. But I have a reason for that. Why do you think it's evil? On what platform do you stand when you call that evil? Can you see where we're going? He's going to say, well, because it didn't feel good, and say, yeah, so it didn't feel good. Why isn't it all right to do things that don't make people happy? Well, it doesn't seem very nice. Why isn't it very nice? Push the person until they admit, well, I don't think it's the right thing to do and say, fine, Hitler thought it was. What's the difference between you and Hitler? He was arbitrary. You're arbitrary, huh? You see, when a person is a relativist, or when a person's an unbeliever and doesn't have a basis for absolutes. They can't say that is evil. So what you want to say is you can't even generate the problem of evil because you can't identify anything as evil on your way of looking at the world. It's different strokes for different folks, that's all. Some people get their kicks out of torturing children. Hitler thought he was saving the world by exterminating the Jews. You happen to disagree. But that isn't the way you get your strokes. You have it some other way. And so there is no problem of evil beyond that. The problem of evil says, what justification could God have for allowing evil? To which you can say, God does not have to share with us his justification. It's just a question of whether he has one. The Bible says he does. I believe the Bible. If it's the word of God, then God has a justification for it. Now would you please show me how you know that he doesn't have a justification for it? What would you have? What would the unbeliever logically have to be able to do to do that? He'd have to know everything. You'd have to be able to match wits with God, or at least what I'm projecting as God. So the unbeliever can't even generate the problem of evil. He's ignorant, yet in his heart of hearts he knows God. That's why he properly condemns Hitler and child abuse, just like I do. But I have a reason to do it and he doesn't. Therefore, he needs to change his mindset to make sense out of what he already knew. Well, I promised only five minutes brings us to a. I hope that today you've gotten some idea then of how you can and you must start thinking these issues through so that you can defend your Christian faith in a way that honors the lordship of Jesus Christ that says he is my ultimate authority. And in fact, that's what gives strength to my apologetic. I go out not to exchange piecemeal evidences with people, just to kind of banter back and forth and say, well, you've got your relative idea. I have my relative idea. I go out, point out that if you don't follow the Lord Jesus Christ, you don't have a justification for anything that you do know or believe. And therefore you need to change your philosophy of life. You need to change your outlook on reality. You need to become a Christian. Dr. Mantill put it this way, with this I'll close. Dr. Mantill said the only proof that Christianity is true is that without it, you couldn't prove anything at all. The only proof that Christianity is true in the end is that without it you couldn't prove anything at all. When the unbeliever attacks your faith, undermined what he's doing and showed that he could only be arguing if he already was a Christian implicitly in his heart of hearts. And so what he needs to do is to be unmasked, to come clean, to confess and to take that knowledge which is in his heart of hearts and now make it something that he professes with his mouth. And then he'll not only save himself for eternity, he'll save his intellect for right now. Thank you.

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonsen 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.