Dr Greg Bahnsen - Seminary Apologetics: Apologetical Argumentation (Part 5)

Well, we've been working all day on the concept of apologetics, and if we're able to accomplish this and look a little bit at the history of apologetics by the end of our session this next two hours, then we'll be right on schedule. I hope you will come to appreciate more and more the significance of these opening remarks, because the very concept of apologetics is part of the dispute that we have in. In the theory of apologetics or in meta apologetics. And the concept also has something to say about the practice and how we're going to pursue apologetics when all is said and done. We know what the term itself means. We see how it's been used in the Bible. We know that the Bible warrants and shows us the need for apologetics for all of us and especially for ministers. We've considered the contours of the apologetical situation, the faith that we defend, the person with whom we're defending it or to whom we're defending it, and the one for whom we speak while we do this defense. And then I've given you a definition of apologetics, and I think it'd be good to reread that as we get started. Again, apologetics aims to defend the Christian faith against the variety of challenges leveled by unbelievers, thereby vindicating the Christian philosophy of life against all autonomous philosophies of life. And with that definition in mind, I tried to give greater clarity to what apologetics is by showing its relationship to evangelism, ethical living, the other departments of the seminar, systematic theology, in particular, philosophy, more specifically, epistemology, and finally, evidences. At the end of our last session, I very quickly looked at the defensive and offensive nature of apologetics. We do respond to criticism. We try to give specific answers to specific challenges, but we can't be always on the defensive. We need to be on the offensive as well, giving a positive proof of what we believe and showing that those who will not follow it, in fact, are reduced to absurdity. Apologetics involves argumentation, and if I don't say a number of things about that at the outset, we're just going to get bogged down later. So I just decided to gather, you know, these various issues and questions and challenges together and to talk a little bit now about apologetical argumentation. The first problem that people are going to have with what I presented to you and what you're going to run into when other Christians know you're engaged in apologetics. So people are going to say we shouldn't argue. That's One of the most disappointing things that I hear when I'm out trying to teach these seminars and so forth, the people will say, but it isn't right for Christians to argue, is it? Well, there's a real misunderstanding at this point that I think can be cleared up if we distinguish between arguing and engaging in contention. Christians should not be contentious. And a synonym for being contentious in English is being argumentative. Okay, so we shouldn't be argumentative if we mean by that. Cranky and hard to get along with and contrary and of a nasty spirit, harsh, proud, self centered, uncharitable. You know what I'm talking about, right? But an argument is not the same as being contentious. An argument, strictly speaking, is the presentation of certain premises in support of another premise. That sounds real boring and abstract, but that's all an argument is. An argument is presenting certain premises that are supposed to give evidence for or lead to the conclusion of this further premise. Now if that's what an argument is, presenting premises as evidence or support for another one, then it turns out we can argue with ourselves, can't we? In fact, we often do argue with ourselves. We're trying to make a decision of some sort and we weigh the pros and cons. We go through the evidence in favor of this line of thought or this conclusion or in favor of this. You may argue with yourself about who to vote for, you know, for a particular political office. And that is an argument within yourself. You may not be convinced for a few days until you sort it all out and you compare the relative arguments and the strength and so forth. But now it wouldn't make any sense to say you're being contentious with yourself. I mean, unless you really do have psychological problems, right? I'm so angry at myself. I couldn't believe that I was going to support that guy for president. But I've changed my mind. I can. No, that doesn't make any sense. An argument is going through the steps of reasoning. These premises support or don't support this conclusion. So should Christians engage in argumentation? Well, did the Christians in the New Testament engage in argumentation? Let's turn in our Bibles to Acts, the 17th chapter, Acts 17:1. Now, when they had passed through Amphibious and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was the synagogue of the Jews. And Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three Sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures. He reasoned with them from the Scriptures. He went through a series of premises leading to a conclusion. He said, now look, here's this Evidence. And if you understand this, you. You must draw this conclusion. He reasoned with them. He argued with them. Verse 4 says, and when some of them were persuaded and consorted with Paul and Silas and so forth. And so Paul reasoned with a view to persuading people that what he was teaching was true. And then if we jump down in the same chapter to verse 16, now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he beheld the city full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons and in the marketplace every day with them that met him. And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. You notice there, Paul argued with people. He kept reasoning. And what I particularly appreciate about this verse is that it says he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons and, and in the marketplace every day with those that he ran across. And that included certain Greek philosophers. But the same word is used for both settings. Let me explain why that's important. Some people say it's one thing to go to the Bible and to base your arguments on the Bible. If you're dealing with a Orthodox Jew, this is what people usually say. They usually don't know what they're talking about either, about Orthodox Jews, I think. But they say if you're talking to an Orthodox Jew, then of course all you have to do is open the Bible and try to prove, you know, that Jesus is the Messiah. But you can't use that approach. You can't use the biblical approach when you're talking to people who are outside of biblical conviction and commitment, because since they don't accept the Bible to be the word of God, then you have to use a different kind of argument. Oh yeah, this verse says that what Paul did in the synagogue and outside the synagogue was the very same thing. He reasoned with the Jews and the devout ones in the synagogue, and he reasoned he didn't change his style. Same verb, he reasoned outside the synagogue as well. And then Luke does us the favor of showing an extended example of Paul's apologetic. And Acts 17, certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, what would this babbler say? Undoubtedly, Paul must have been thinking, well, now, since they insult me in my way of thinking and the foundation for my thought and so forth, and since they're so smart, I think I should probably switch over to their epistemology and try to show them the basis of their epistemology, that what I said about God is true. That seemed reasonable. Paul said I know where they're coming from. They think, by the way, the word babbler here technically means seed picker. Seed picker was a particular kind of gutter sparrow that picked seeds out of human feces. That's what they thought of Paul. He said, you seed picker, what you're saying isn't worth anything. Pardon me, it's crap. And that's all you're dealing in. They didn't have respect for Paul whatsoever. There's quite an antithesis, quite a hostility here. And then we read and some said, what would this babbler say? Others, he seems to be a center forth of strange gods. Why? Because he preached Jesus in the resurrection. Boy, that was encouraging. Here's Paul preaching about Jesus being raised from the dead. And they interpret that as two new gods, Jesus and Resurrection, the female God. And they took hold of him and brought him unto the Areopagus, the council that was in charge of evaluating and credentialing teachers in that day, saying, may we know what this new teaching is which is spoken by thee, for thou bringest certain strange things to our ears. We would know, therefore, what these things mean. Now, if you go on and read what Paul declares to the Areopagus, it turns out to be a lesson in Old Testament biblical theology. Paul doesn't come before them and say, now you have heard Plato say, and you know, Plato was right to a certain degree, and I want to agree with him in his premises, but I'd like to go to a completely different conclusion than Plato did. We all know that Plato was a noble man. I know that you all have respect for Plato and so what did Plato say about where we came from and stuff? No, he stands before them and declares the word of Moses to the philosophers. He declares creation and providence. He talks about the facts of the Gospel and Jesus being raised from the dead. But we don't find Paul standing before the Areopagus and say, oh, it wouldn't be right to argue. I'm a Christian, so you guys can just say what you want about me being a seed picker. And I know you're so smart and so forth. No, the Bible shows us. And if I had the time, we could go through a number of texts.

Especially in the Book of Acts.

The Bible shows us that the Christians in the earliest church were willing to engage in arguments. And at the same time, the Bible teaches us that they were never to engage in contention. That's a hard thing to learn ethically. It's a difficult part of progressive sanctification, because once we Learn to argue well, then we kind of enjoy the wrangling. We like to kind of, you know, knock people around a bit. Second Timothy 2. 23. But foolish and ignorant questions refuse, knowing that they engender quarrels. But the Lord's servant must not quarrel. But be gentle towards all apt to teach forbearing and gentleness correcting them that oppose themselves. But the servant of the Lord must not quarrel. And so we are to engage in reasoning and in argumentation, but we're never to do it in a quarrelsome way. A second problem people have with argumentation, not just a matter of whether it's contentious, But they'll say, my belief in God and my religion is such a highly personal matter. And because religion is supposed to be such a highly personal matter, then we eschew argumentation. In fact, you know, the social rule. I don't know if it's practice involved Brooklyn so much, but you know, the social rut. When you go to a party, you're not supposed to talk about religion or politics. Those are the sorts of things that get people riled. People don't get along when you talk about politics and religion, you know, and my religion is highly personal. I've actually known people who have said, I don't want to discuss it with you because I take this so seriously. It's such a sensitive thing to me. My religion is so personal, I don't talk about it. Well, it sounds to me like it's so impersonal that it's not part of your entire life because you can't talk about it. You don't think about it. You don't compare it to other points of views and consider the truth that may or may not be there. I do want to grant that religion is a personal matter, but not personal in the way that your choice of Bach or Bon Jovi is a personal choice. You see, that's the conclusion that many people, you know, take from it being a personal matter. It's a personal matter what kind of music I listen to and what kind of food I like to eat. And likewise, it's a personal matter what kind of God I will follow or what my religious convictions will be. As Christians, we need to, in our culture, especially today, stand up and say, religion is not person relative. It's highly personal, but it's not person relative. Religion is just as public and objective as any other thing. Now, if it's not a personal matter in that relativistic sense, then you need to understand that apologetics involves testimony. But apologetics can Never be left at the testimony level. If it's left at the testimony level and not incorporated into a larger world and life view that makes sense out of the testimony and challenges the unbeliever. Basically, all you've given is a piece of autobiography. I still remember when I was in graduate school, coming home one day from the university and studying in the afternoon, and there's a knock on the door, and it was one of our local Mormon friends doing their good work of trying to spread the bad news of Mormonism to me. And I forget what her lead in was, but I always take the bait and say, oh, yeah, I'd like to talk about that. I need to know about that. Well, so we had a long discussion, and lo and behold, it turns out that I wasn't convinced by what she was saying. And to her horror, I had some things to say against Mormon theology that she couldn't answer. And so she said, well, I don't know how to answer that. I need to come back. I said, that's good. But I said, I want you to promise to come because you said when you came to the door, you were concerned about my salvation, you know, and that I needed to get this right. Well, I'm concerned for yours, too. And so we mustn't just say, hey, it's different strokes for different folks. You've got to come back. And she did. She came back. She didn't really fare very well. I'm not being egotistical, but it was not all that difficult to refute what she had to say and to put her on the ropes again. Well, now she was frustrated and she wasn't going to come back. And she said so she said, it's just a waste of time. I'm not going to come back. I said, well, I'm not so sure you really care about me then if you're not, because I'm willing to keep talking, I'll talk to you as much as you need to and want to. Well, of course, that just put the guilt trip on her and so forth, but still, she wasn't going to come back. But this was her parting salvo. She said, if you'll just pray about it, then you'll never know that what I'm saying is true. And you know what devastated me about that is that that's what my Christian brothers and sisters say all the time. If you just pray about it, then you know that it's true. Hey, cults can use that approach. False religions can use that approach. Religion may be a personal matter but it's a matter of argumentation as to its truth. And if you only give a testimony, you know, my following Joseph Smith is. Made me the happiest person in the world. That only tells me something about you. It's autobiographical. It tells me nothing about the worthiness of belief of Joseph Smith or of Jesus of Nazareth for that matter. And so apologetics is a matter of argument, not contention. It is a personal matter. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the truth has nothing to do with our desires or our autobiographical and subjective feelings. Apologetics is not engaging in subjectivism. It's not enough to tell people you should believe because it made me feel good. I have no problem with telling people it made me feel good. In fact, I think that gives some flavor, some spice to our apologetic. Here's why you should be interested in it. It really has turned my life around. I have such peace and joy and confidence and hope that I never had before. So I would like you to consider this. But it's not a defense of the truth of our faith to say that we feel good because of it. Friedrich Nietzsche once said that he could not bear the idea of there being a God because he said, how could there be a God and I not be it? He was an amazing guy. He was so outspoken, so unvarnished. He went insane eventually, but nevertheless, before that happened, he said some very pungent things. And, you know, and that gets at the heart of it. If you're going to appeal to subjective considerations, what are you going to do with the Nietzsches of this world who say, no, I'm not going to believe that because it's inconvenient for what I want to do, it's contrary to what I have chosen in terms of my life and priorities and values. Apologetics looks to proof of the truth of the Christian claim and not just to personal considerations of desire and satisfaction and autobiography. It's a matter of argumentation, and therefore it is not relativistic. You are not doing apologetics when you say it's true for me. Many Christians think, well, that's about as far as I can get, and that's good enough to be faithful to the word of the Lord. But true for me is not a defense of the Christian faith. It's just a statement again of autobiography, isn't it? Moreover, it's a bastardization of the English language. The expression true for me has no meaning in epistemology other than I believe it because truth is not person relative. And so when someone says, it's true for me. That's just a long and misleading way of saying I believe it. And you say, well, why do you believe it? Well, I believe it because it's true for me. Oh, you mean you believe it because you believe it. That's all that's being stated there. And as Christians, we cannot be satisfied to say, well, what's true for me may not be true for you. Yes, it's a personal matter. And truly Christianity would have made Nietzsche miserable. He's more miserable now, you can be sure of that. But even though Christianity is a personal matter, it's not a relativistic matter. It may not satisfy everybody, but it's true for everybody. A couple of years ago, I had a doctor tell me some things I didn't want to hear. And the evidence, he said, pointed to my having diabetes. And I argued with him about that because I didn't to want. Want it to be true. And he didn't like my arguing over it. He said, you know, Greg, why don't you just accept, you know, I said, I'm a doctor. I said, I'm a doctor. Doctors can argue with each other, right? I specialize in debate. So you just have to put up with this. Well, so we go round and round and round and round. But, you know, we did achieve peace. We were able to be friends and to resolve this very amicably at the end, because when we got done, I said, well, my having diabetes is true for you, but it's not true for me. Doesn't make any sense because, you know, if I have diabetes, whether I believe it or want to believe it has nothing to do with the condition. And if Jesus is who he claims to be, whether you think it's true for you or not is irrelevant. Truth is not relative to a person. It's something that is objective and public and universally the case. Another thing that apologetics is not, and argumentation, therefore is required is eclectic. I didn't say electric, I said eclectic. Apologetics is not eclectic. It's not a fruit salad approach. Fruit salad approach to philosophy and thinking says, I take a little bit of this and a little bit of that and put them all together. It's like there's truth in everything. And so I can be eclectic. Take some of this, take some of that. Sometimes people will say, oh, I can accept Jesus, but I also like Buddha. You say, well, at least you like Jesus. That's good. No, that's not good. Because if you like Jesus and somebody else, that's like on your wedding day saying, to the woman that you say that you love? Yes. I promise to be faithful to you and to somebody else, too. Wait a minute. That's not the nature of this kind of relationship. I'm not asking you to be faithful to me and somebody. I'm asking you to be exclusively faithful to me. And so what we have to do, even though it's politically incorrect and awkward, sometimes inconvenient in our day and age, is defend the idea that Jesus is the only way to God. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me. Many Christians would be satisfied to say, well, he is the truth and he is a way to God. But don't repeat that last part about being the only way to God. That's what makes Jesus unacceptable at the cocktail parties in our country, in our society and culture. You see, people would be willing to accept the Jesus who had some truth to offer. But then we can also go to Cicero and we can go to Plato, and we can go to Buddha and go to Confucius and look at the dao and so forth, and we'll just kind of put everything together, makes sense. But Jesus says, all the rest is error, all the rest is darkness, and all the rest leads to hell. I am the only way to be right with God. I am the truth, not a truth. I am the one and only truth. And so we're going to have to argue against other points of view and not try to get along, you know, and just say, well, okay, you've got your point of view, I've got mine. There's truth in what you're saying, there's truth in what I'm saying. Let's just kind of accept it all. Another thing about argumentation, just to point out the obvious, is that if we're going to engage in argumentation, it's because we've been challenged by somebody to give a reason for the hope that is in us. Okay, so we give our answer, our apologetic, and offer a logos, a reasoned approach to the hope that is in us. And so the argumentation in which we are engaged assumes in the nature of the case. It assumes first, an interest in rationality on the part of our opponent. And assumes, secondly, an interest in objective truth. I didn't always make these observations when I was teaching apologetics, but over the years I've learned, hopefully, that there's some wisdom in doing this. I can illustrate why it's important I go through a course of apologetics, show the presupposition method, show the strength of the transcendental challenge show that anybody who wants to argue against Christianity ends up having to assume the Christian point of view in order to argue against the point of view. And I think that's a real strong sort of thing. And then I have somebody, in fact, who teaches apologetics in a reformed seminary say, oh, yeah, well, this, this is not. This is good, but it's not good enough. Because what about the guy who says, well, I don't care about argumentation, so what do you do with that person? Well, the first time I heard that sort of thing, I mean, I went through about a microsecond answer and put it away and said, what a ridiculous argument against presuppositionalism. That was the end of it. But I've had a number of the students of that teacher be in touch with me and say, well, every time we, we take this approach that you've taught us, Dr. Bonson, he's happy enough with it. But he says, what about the guy who says, well, I don't care about rationality. I don't care about the truth. I said, why didn't you just say to your professor then they're not engaging in apologetics. And yes, we have to keep witnessing to. And there may be certain things you might want to learn in an evangelism class about how to deal with people who don't care about the truth and so forth. But apologetics, in the nature of the case, assumes what somebody who has challenged you for an argument. Now, it may be the case that after somebody who challenges you for a reason of the hope that is in you gets that reason and didn't want it, he may say, okay, I don't care anymore. But even at that point, you can say, okay, obviously I have satisfied your demand and now you don't want it, you need to embarrass them in that way. But apologetics is not the same as persuasion. We aim to persuade. We want to be winsome. There's no question about that. But in the end, we will have done our job as apologists, regardless of the response of our hearer, if we've been faithful to the message that we're defending and if we have proven that it is true. So remember that when you're talking with people in an apologetical setting, you've got somebody who wants to be rational and believes there's objective truth. And his point is, and you're not rational, Mr. Christian, or you don't have the truth. But if you're talking to somebody who says, oh, I think truth is everywhere. That kind of person is not going to say, but you Christians have to be wrong. Or if they do, you're just going to say, I thought you said truth is everywhere. On your own assumption, you don't have any foundation to attack what we're saying. Only those who believe that there is objective truth and it stands over against everything that conflicts with it, and only those who believe that we can discover the objective truth through some rational method of study or technique of reasoning is going to engage in argumentation. So when someone tells you after you've learned this presuppositional method, well, but there are some people on whom it won't work. There'll be people who don't want to argue. They say, well, that may be true, but apologetics is only intended to deal with people who want to argue. Okay, you all see that point. I hope it's obvious. And now the toughest one of all. If apologetics means we engage in argumentation using some conception of rationality to show the objective truth of our faith, then people are going to ask the question, where then does faith come in? They'll say, Dr. Bronson, you're teaching us to follow reason. But the Bible says that Christianity is a matter of faith. The reason that people fall into this conundrum and have difficulty is because they have misconstrued the nature of faith and misconstrued the nature of reason. And if you have both of those wrong, it's not surprising that you'd be confused and want to ask, well, then how can it be a matter of faith if it's a matter of reason? Well, in the first place, we have to distinguish between reason and reasoning. We have to distinguish between the use of our intellect as an instrument and making the instrument of thinking our ultimate authority. So I have not said in any of this that reasoning, autonomous human reasoning, should be our final authority. What I have said in all of this is the that we should engage in reasoning, we should be using our intellect, we should be moving from premise to conclusion, looking at evidence, giving support, challenging the unbelieving world, reducing our everything in the world. But we're not talking about people who.

Self conscious engage in reasoning. But now all reasoning presupposes a certain kind of faith. A person who reasons along the lines of the naturalistic scientist has faith that you can trust your observations, that your senses are basically reliable. Now, can he prove that our senses are basically reliable? No, he can't prove that. He has to assume that. Why can't he prove it?

Well, he can't prove it because every.

Approach that he would take to demonstrate the reliability of our senses would itself depend on what the reliability of our senses. And so in the end, he holds.

That as a faith commitment, as a.

Self attesting, or so he thinks we'll see later.

But he takes that as his self authorizing starting point.

When all is said and done, you.

Get down to the basic level of observation. You can't go any further.

Observation is its own authority. You observe it, that settles it. So the reasoning of the naturalistic scientist is committed to a certain faith commitment, even as the reasoning of the Christian is committed to, to the Lord Jesus Christ as the ultimate authority. The issue here is not whether you will have faith. The question is which faith you will have. What will regiment your reasoning? What will govern? What will give the final standard or ultimate criteria for your reasoning and assessment and evaluation? The choice then is not between faith and reason reason. It's a choice between which faith will govern your reason. Now, what about those people who say no, reason is the ultimate authority? I say, well, fine, bring them on. That's who we want to talk to. That pretended autonomy of man's reasoning is the very thing we want to undermine and reduce to absurdity. But to the Christian says, you shouldn't.

Be engaged in reasoning because it should.

Be a matter of faith.

I want to point out, I'm not.

Saying that my human intellect is my final authority. I'm just saying it's an instrument God has granted to me and by his grace I should faithfully use it to glorify him and honor him and take his word as the final standard. There'll be plenty of people that are going to. You tell you apologetics doesn't recognize that Christianity is a matter of faith. I hope that this helps you see the confusion that's involved there. Is it a matter of faith? Well, absolutely, because God comes to me and I accept him on his say so, don't I? I accept him on faith. Now here's my defense of the Christian faith. My defense of the Christian faith is, and if you don't accept God at His own word, he won't be able to prove anything. So going back to this, what I'm getting at is without faith, reasoning becomes impossible. You say, do I believe this on the basis of reason or faith? Well, it all depends on how you.

Want to state it.

I believe it on the basis of faith, a faith which saves reasoning, and therefore it's the most reasonable thing to do. So that's my reason for Having faith is my intellect, my ultimate authority, then no faith in the word of the Lord is. And my reason for holding that is reason itself is destroyed if you don't. I hope I didn't go too fast there. I did go too fast. Okay, I plain with the word space and reading. So let's watch what I'm talking about.

Do you have faith or do you.

Have reason, Dr. Bonson, for being a Christian? I say, well, it's a matter of faith. It's a faith without which reasoning would be impossible. Now, since reasoning would be impossible without this faith, then ultimately the best reason according to reason is to have faith. And those who do not have this faith destroy reasoning. But that doesn't mean that I'm following Christianity because it satisfies my reasoning as the ultimate authority. Apologetics is a matter of argumentation. Now, caveat against anti insulect force. Although I've said things in our lectures today that would already dismiss the challenge of the anti intellectualist, I want to give it specific attention and go over some material again with him because I'm afraid that there is such a pervasive tendency in the Christian church to either say apologetics is not important.

After all, it's faith, not real, so.

We don't need to argue, or once people see what's involved in apologetics and that they have to exercise their intellect a bit, then they tend to say, well, that's for other people, not for me. In fact, I've actually had fellows studying for the ministry in a seminary setting come and complain to me saying, why should we have to study all of this hard material that you've assigned at your bottom? We're not going to minister to intellectuals. Why bother with critical analysis? One of my students once said, isn't that like picking through the garbage? Having a defense against the critics of Christianity is, even if it is a part of our calling, it's only a minor part of our calling, so why should we have to do this? And of course in that setting the pressure was on because it was more why should we have to pass this course? That gives it a little bit different dimension as you evaluate the critic at this point. But I'm not going to minister to intellectuals and critical analysis is just picking through the garbage. It's just a minor part of my Christian calling, if it's a part of my calling at all. And so I would like to offer a caveat against this kind of anti intellectualism. I want to observe first of all that anti intellectualism is the spirit of our age. Look at our school systems. Nobody wants to study hard anymore. Everybody wants the shortcut. Everybody wants it handed to them on a silver platter or fed to them, you know, spoon fed to them. The idea that you're supposed to actually do some reading and reflection and horror of horrors, use your brain and reason through a problem. It's just, it's not advanced, it's not glorified, it's not honored in our culture at all. Unless you're in the computer field, interestingly. But then what happens if you do excel in the the computer field is that you're automatically labeled what a nerd. In fact, computer nerd is almost well entrenched statement, a redundancy. If you're a computer expert, you're automatically a nerd. And who is glorified in our culture? Who is thought to be good and honest and so forth?

People who don't have a high IQ.

And don't have a lot of brain power and so forth. Now, I don't want to spend the time doing a cultural analysis of that movie because I think there's some real.

Interesting twists and turns in that.

But the fact is, in our culture, using your mind is not glorified unless you're a computer. We're a very anti intellectualistic age. Doesn't it then behoove Christians to take advantage of the situation to show that we have something the world doesn't? We don't tune out and float downstream, cut off our minds. But rather the best use of our minds is by honoring the Lord Jesus Christ and loving God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind. You say you're not going to minister to intellectuals. Well, I would say that the distinction between the educated man and the ordinary man is derogatory to both. To say that we have some men who are educated and others that are just garden variety ordinary people is derogatory first of all to the garden variety ordinary guy as though somehow he's less than an education exalted human being for not having this education. And it's derogatory to the educated man because he becomes the nerd, right? You're not ordinary. How often do people tell me because.

I have to do reading and writing.

And so forth as part of my calling? Well, you live in ivory tower, you don't live in the real world. It's derogatory to both, to break up the human race into educated and ordinary people. The Bible does break up the human race, but not according to educational accomplishments. The Bible breaks up the human race into covenant keepers and covenant Breakers. There's only one basic kind of man to whom we minister the gospel, and there's just different degrees of intellectual rebellion that we see. But all men are in intellectual rebellion against the gospel. Preparing to deal only with quote unquote uneducated people is really disobedient to the word of God. First Peter 3:15 has taught us we're to have an answer for any man who asks us a reason for the.

Hope that is in us.

That means we've got to include college professors in their church. 2nd Corinthians 10:5 says we're to bring every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God into submission. Even the reasoning of the unbeliever is something we've got to challenge and make captive to the obedience of Christ. Titus 1:9 says that those who would be men of God must be able to refute them. Those who contradict gainsayers.

To say that you don't need to.

Be an intellectual, you don't need to study apologetics is discriminatory. Deciding to minister to some people and not to others. Now I'm going to give you an alternative to this discriminatory approach. What if I were to say God hasn't called me to minister to black people? You know, even saying that by way of a hypothetical example, it shocks a Christian's sensibilities, doesn't it?

Where do you get off saying the.

Good news is only for white people?

Right?

We call that racism. But isn't it just as discriminatory as to say God has called me to deal with intellectuals? God's called me to to deal with everybody. The gospel is good news for everyone, and everyone needs it. I really believe that those people who say I'm not called to minister to intellectuals are not, when all is said and done, offering me a description of their calling. They themselves are prescribing what their calling will be. They're saying, I've decided not to minister to intellectuals, and so why should I study? Why should I exercise my mind? And so people choose not to be willing to minister to the educator or try to attract them to the kingdom of God. Moreover, I think it's delusive to think that the uneducated do not have the same basic intellectual problems and objections as those who are educated. The difference between those called educated and those called uneducated is just vocabulary and level of sophistication.

The quote unquote, uneducated man may not.

Be able to organize the argument against God's existence as well as the philosophy professor, but you Know, I haven't found any less inclination among uneducated people to say, how could God exist when there's war? How could God exist when my child died of cancer and so forth. The problem of evil comes up for the educated and the uneducated, and it's really only a matter of how they express it and how well they organize it. Why bother with critical analysis? Why bother with picking through the garbage? Well, first of all, who are we to call God's requirement that we understand the world and be able to answer it a minor matter? The defense of the faith that we have is not going to be credible if our defense amounts simply to this. I don't know what and why that unbeliever believes as he does, but I know it's wrong. Unbeliever comes to you and offers you the opportunity to show him that you've got the truth and he doesn't.

And you end up saying, well, in.

The end I'm not really. I don't understand this philosophy that you hold to. I'm not familiar with it and it won't do any good for you to explain it to me because I'm just, I'm philosophically inclined. But I know it's wrong. You know anybody who's convinced by that? Why would anybody be convinced by that?

You need to be able, when the.

Opportunity arises, to show by critical analysis what's wrong. Nor is our apologetic credible when it exhibits misunderstanding in misrepresentation.

I don't want this to be taken.

As a matter of self righteousness or pride. It's really, really not. But I cringe. Often I cringe when I see Christians trying to interact with the arguments of the world. Because I know there are arguments that Christians misrepresent, they oversimplify and so forth, and then they think they've done this wonderful thing and others even look up to them. I certainly don't want to compare other names, but there are a couple of people who have published widely in the evangelical world and are thought to be fairly philosophical. These are good apologists and I assure you that they would flunk out of their first course in graduate school. They are so bad in portraying their opponents. Now my point is, if you think Christianity critical analysis is just picking through the trash, then when you decide to finally engage in something like that, you're going to bring disfavor and actual disrepute upon your savior because you don't know what you're talking about. I thank God that there are different kinds of people in the church And I fully believe that Christ gives different gifts to different people people. So I don't think everyone has to.

Get a PhD in Philosophy and I.

Don'T think everybody has to use the vocabulary that I'm familiar with and so forth. But I do believe that when we defend the faith, God calls us to give our best sanctified efforts. Shoddy work is not any less embarrassing to the Christian when it's in the intellectual area than it is in our event evangelism in our worship, in anything.

Else that we do.

If somebody were to take this anti intellectual attitude into diaconal service and say, well, I didn't realize that she was freezing to death because the heat had been turned off, we'd say, well, you did really shoddy work. That's displeasing to Jesus.

Why is it then that it's okay.

To make that egregious a mistake when it comes to the way we reason and think and respond to objections? I think Jesus requires more than this anti intellectualism. I think he requires us to love him with our minds. Moreover, the scripture tells us we're supposed to know the wiles of the devil. Modern translations say the strategies of the devil or the evil one of Satan. Well, if we're supposed to know his schemes and his strategies, then it isn't.

Just picking through the garbage, is it?

Moreover, in First John 4 we're told to try the spirits to see if they are of God. We're not to ignore the spirits, we're going to try them. That means you better do some analysis of the garbage that's out there in the world. You need to have an answer ready. So as second Timothy 2 says, you can correct those who oppose the gospel. Proverbs tells us we should answer the fool according to his folly. Well, you need to know something about the folly of unbelievers and the way they think. If you're going to answer them and show where it actually leads.

I think.

Of with this, we'll get off this subject. I think of a doctor.

Or a.

Young man studying to be a doctor. If you ever watch your illustration who might say, you know, what I'm interested in is health. I want people to be healthy. And so what I study are models of health. I don't study disease. I don't study broken bodies. I study healthy bodies. Now how many of you who are diseased or wracked with broken bodies would be willing to go to a doctor who's never studied disease and broken bodies? But just somebody who says, but I know what Health is.

Oh, and I think it's a lot better than disease.

That's what you want.

Yeah, but how can you as a.

Doctor, help a person get from disease to health if you haven't studied disease, know something about what causes disease and how it can be cured and its symptoms relieve and so forth? And so apologetics is going to involve argumentation and it's going to involve intellectual critical analysis. And after this, I'm no longer going to be embarrassed and I'm not going to brook any kind of hesitation about it, but I'm going to say that's the way it ought to be. God wants us to use our minds and to use them to pick through the trash of this world to show that it's trashy, to show how people can move into the health and life that Christ gives. All right, let me change gears now. We've been on the concept of apologetics for long enough. I'd like to move to the second major part of our course, though it won't be nearly as long as this first one, and look at the history of apologetics. And we'll begin by asking why it should be important that we study the history of apologetics. This seems really far removed from the practice of apologetics.

Right.

You're probably all a lot more interested in just getting down to the nitty gritty of what are the objections and how can we answer them? I don't blame you for that, but I'm only going to be giving roughly an hour to this as it is. I do think it's important for the. For the sake of meta apologetics. We do say a little bit about the history of apologetics, if you'd like to pursue it further. I have an article entitled Socrates or the Reformation of Christian Apologetics that covers it, and I'm actually going to be using part of that in these remarks over the next hour, but you can get more detail and in the article. I have three noted other books that give fuller histories of apologetics as a science and the practice of apologetics in the Christian church.

But why do we have to bother with it?

Well, in the first place, those who are ignorant of history, as the old saying goes, are threatened to repeat it. Those who are ignorant of history are threatened to repeat it. We said just a moment ago that the church is warned against the strategies or wiles of the devil. You're not ignorant of his devices. Where do we learn about the devices of the Evil One? Well, we study history, right? We look back at the previous experiences of God's people. And so the value of setting the history of apology apologetics is because if we see a pitfall, in fact, we'll find many. If we see pitfalls in the way Christians have previously tried to defend the faith, maybe we can avoid falling into the pit with him. Those who are ignorant of history are threatened to repeat it. Moreover, the present practice of apologetics in our own generation is necessarily illumined by the struggles of the past. One of the things that's hard for students of history to get into their head is the rational reconstruction of the past according to errors is really a falsification of the living out of that period of time. A falsification because no one got up at a particular point and said, oh, the Renaissance ended yesterday, now we're in the Enlightenment. Nevertheless, when you read history books, you'll see the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and other ways of dividing things up. As a matter of fact, history, if I can give you different metaphors, like a river, everything flows, you know, and.

So where we are now and what.

We are doing in defending the Christian faith is in fact a affected by the struggles of the past, the most immediate past, first of all. But it goes back and back. To understand where we are and how we can effectively engage in defending the faith calls for us to clarify previous issues, look at the development of options that are there, note the weaknesses and gain some guidelines. For today, the same basic prompt problems continually recur throughout the history of Western thought. The Bible tells us that, right, there's nothing new under the sun. The only difference is the way it's dressed up. And so the problems that apologists had to deal with in the 2nd century and in the 16th century and the 19th century are basically, essentially the same.

Problems of life have today.

Almost nothing substantially new has arisen in the history of apologetics since the second century. That kind of surprising when you think.

About the advances that are made in.

Medical science, mapping the world, industry and all these sorts of things. It's kind of a sad testimony that in apologetics there has been very little development, very little advance in precision and effectiveness in terms of how we defend faith through the second century.

And as I go through a quick.

Survey of history, I will note what.

I think is the exception there.

I do think we see an exception in the Reformation outlook of John Calvin, and I think we see an exception in the development of Calvin's insights by Cornelius Van Til. They stand against the tide, against their day and their culture, to be sure, but at that, I mean, as much.

As I may want to Honor that.

There has been an advance in reformed circles. It's still true that there hasn't been nearly the kind of advance in apologetics as we've seen in other areas. Human intellect and thinking, other fields have gotten far further ahead from where they were in the second century than where we have. So the history of apologetics, I think, is helpful to us to see what the nature of the struggle is, to see the way the dispute has been pursued. And if we want to avoid the strategies of the evil one and avoid the errors of past UP apologists, we need to be aware of them. We don't have time to look at the whole history of apologetics. And so what I'm going to do is give you a sample of the history of apologetics. I'm going to begin by looking at the second century apologists. During the second century, all the major motifs in apologetical history were already expressed or at least foreshadowed. The second century apologists in the Christian church modeled their defense of the faith after two things in particular. First of all, the attempt of Hellenistic Jews to show the superiority of the Mosaic revelation to pagan philosophy, and secondly, the assaults of the pagan philosophers upon the polytheists. When you read the Christian apologists of the second century, their arguments look like they have taken in almost undigested and unreformed, the way in which pagan philosophers argue against polytheism and the way in which Philo and other Hellenists Jews argued in favor of the Old Testament. And that was to say the Greek philosophers are right, but we had it first. It seems hard to believe that that would appear persuasive. But in that day and age that carried a lot of weight. They said, well, we want to show.

That what we're saying is true. Then we have to go to what.

The world says is true. What the world honors if bows down to these pagan philosophers. And what we're going to argue is, well, that's what the Old Testament teaches as well, when we had it before Plato and Aristotle. The recurring themes of second century apologetics are illustrated in the letter or Diagnetus, The apology of Aristides, the apologies of Justin Martyr Athenagoras and his treatise on the resurrection of the dead. And in Justin Martyr's dialogue with Typho the Jew. Let me tell you a little bit about these letter of diagnosis, or to diagnosis, pardon me, attempted to.