Dr Greg Bahnsen - Seminary Apologetics: Foolish Unbelief (Part 9)

This message was delivered by Dr. Greg L. Bonson, Scholar in Residence at the Southern California center for Christian Studies in Irvine, California. Got a problem? If you've been listening to what I taught you thus far, you know that the unbeliever has a certain kind of mindset which is vain and foolish, futile, but hostile to what God has to say. And the unbeliever is going to interpret everything in his experience according to that mindset. And the believer has a completely different mindset. He hasn't so learned Jesus. The believer is now subject to the authority of God speaking in his word. And the believer is called upon to recognize the authority of Christ as the Lord over all of his reasoning. So what we have is the believer interpreting everything under the lordship of Christ and the unbeliever interpreting everything in hostility to Christ. How on earth can we make any progress apologetically? How can we possibly argue now with people? It seems like though the unbeliever is made in the image of God and there's a point of contact and he lives in God's world, this common ground, the fact is, because of the hostility of his mind and the fact that his presuppositions control everything and they should control our thinking on the opposite side, it just seems like it's not possible for us to present an argument in defense of the faith because an argument to be effective is going to require that each side agree to something. And so that's why we're going to have to call off our seminar early because it just turns out there's really nothing else to say. Right. Well, if you were to believe the critics of presuppositionalism, that's what we'd have to do. Well, you set it all up very nicely before lunch, Dr. Bobson. Here's this antithesis. Everyone's controlled by their presuppositions. There's this hostile mindset and this faithful mindset. That's the end of argument. That's why we get to the fun stuff. Now we're going to look at a method of defense D on the outline that's there on the board. The Bible, it turns out, also gives us a method for defending the faith. You say, well, if you're committed to these biblical theological presuppositions about the nature of unbelieving thought and the nature of believing thought, there couldn't be an argument. But you see, if you press the these points that I taught you, it turns out there's a ready made argument implicit in this already. Let me see if I can draw it out for you. Number what would it be? 1. I guess the first point under a method for defending the faith is that the Bible teaches us the foolishness of unbelief. The foolishness of unbelief. When we begin to witness to an unbeliever and then defend the faith when they've got objections or questions for us, we don't need to wait till the end of the argument to have an assessment of the way they're reasoning. We don't need to worry that, well, maybe we're going to run into somebody who finally does have a, you know, pretty good case against Christ, Christianity and can hold their own. I think most of you know that part of the ministry the Lord by his grace has given me is one of public debate. I've debated, you know, some atheists at secular universities and Jews and Muslims and things of that nature. And occasionally I'll have students or friends ask me, do you ever get nervous before a debate? And I have to explain to them that the answer I'm going to give them is really saying nothing about myself. I might have, you know, stage fright. Although you do it after a while, it's pretty much part of the territory. But I never have nervousness about am I going to run up against somebody. But it turns out finally did have a good argument. And I know that many people when they hear that, no, I'm not really worried about any opponent you bring along might say, well, boy, you're a pretty cock sure guy. You think you know a lot. Actually, I don't think I know a lot. I'm always thinking, man, I got to keep reading and learning more and so forth when I get ready to debate somebody. I was supposed to debate Michael Martin, who is probably the leading scholarly atheist in our country today, and he's written these books and I did a seminar on that. I felt like I had to do my homework. I just didn't walk in there and say, hey, piece of cake. So I really don't. I don't think I have any personal arrogance about that. But on the other hand, I have to be honest with you, I'm not afraid of anybody that's out there. Now, why is that? Because the Bible has taken me to the back of the book and given me the answers already. And the Bible has already told me the character of my opponent. Now my job is to unmask that or divulge that. And I might wish I could be better at it, and I'm always trying to be better at it. But the point is I never worry about my opponent having something finally that's going to, you know, set back the case that I have. And the reason for that is, number one, the Bible has taught us that all unbelief, all unbelief is foolish. First Corinthians 1:20. You will have heard this so many times by the end of our course that you will have to have memorized it as something of the motto of the presuppositional approach to apologetics. First Corinthians 1:20. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world? That's a rhetorical question that's not up for grabs. Paul is saying, God certainly has made foolish the wisdom of this world. So where is the debater of this age? Who do I have to worry about? Paul says, nobody, because God has reduced to foolishness the thinking of unbelievers the wisdom of this world. What the world is so enamored of is in fact foolishness in the eyes of God. Psalm 10:4, The tenth Psalm at the fourth verse. The wicked and the pride of his countenance saith, he will not require it. All his thoughts are, there is no God. Here's the way the wicked thinks. It's interesting, the way the psalmist puts up. All his thoughts boil down to this. There's no God. I will not be accountable. I will not be subject to anybody else's higher authority. I'm my own authority. I'm my own judge, therefore I'm my own standard. And all his thoughts are to that effect. I'm on my own. There is no God. So we know that the thinking of the wicked is committed to its own authority. It's committed to an atheistic outlook. That means the people who say they aren't atheist, but have not become believers in Jesus Christ, nevertheless, all their thoughts are atheistic. You know, there are people who say, oh, I believe in a God, but I don't think I have to follow Jesus, or I'm not convinced yet, or I believe in another God or what have you. I just believe some kind of God. No one knows who he is. The psalmist says, all your thoughts are atheistic. In all of your thinking, you assume there is no God. Now, is that right? Is that fair? Is that overstating the case? Dr. Van Til says that when the unbeliever asks whether there is a God, he has already denied the living and true God. Autonomous men don't appreciate that. They find that abhorrent that they can't even ask the question. But you see, in order to ask the question, you've already assumed what God says about himself in the world and ourselves. And then you turn around and try to defy what God has said. By even entertaining the possibility that there is no God, you are asserting your own authority is higher than God the wicked. All his thoughts are there is no God. Even when he's trying to search he thinks honestly for the evidence that there's a God. All of those thoughts are there is no God. In this process of trying to prove on your own independent terms whether there's a God, you're suppressing the truth and unrighteousness. Psalm 14:1. The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The psalmist is not engaging in name calling here. The psalmist is not saying, all those who oppose my point of view, you're fools. He's not using the word fool here as just a term of derision. Mr. T used to do that, you fool. But that isn't what the psalmist is doing. The psalmist is giving a description of a state of mind which he evaluates to be what? Foolish, futile, vain, and people who are atheists. That's why I think I have the right to a great deal of confidence when I go into debates with atheists. The Bible's already told me, I've gone to the back of the book. I know the end of this thing. The Bible's already told me your opponent's a fool. The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. Romans 1:21. What does Paul tell us about the nature of unbelieving thought? Because knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks. And then what happened to their reasoning? It became vain. So the Bible tells us, all of the thoughts of the wicked are there is no God. Those who say there is no God are fools. Those who, even though they know God, will not acknowledge that, become vain and futile in their reasoning. And back to Proverbs. Proverbs 1:22. Proverbs 1:22. How long ye simple ones, will you love simplicity. And scoffers delight them in scoffing. And fools hate knowledge. Here's God's view of things. You fools who want to be autonomous, who want to say there is no God, who want to be your own law to yourself, you hate knowledge. Proverbs 1:7. The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge. But Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:29. For they that hated knowledge. For that they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of Jehovah by not choosing to submit to God with reverence at the very outset. The book of Proverbs tells us, the unbeliever hates knowledge. He doesn't want to be in contact with knowledge. He's only delighted to hear his own opinions. Really, he doesn't want to gain knowledge. He's a fool. When you do an analysis of your opponent as you're engaged in apologetics, whether it's an informal cup of coffee, discussion or a public debate, you mustn't listen to your opponent's view of himself and then work in terms of that. You must not work in terms of your opponent's assessment of himself and what he's doing and what his good intentions are. To do so, as Dr. Van Til often said, would be like a doctor letting the patient prescribe what he needs. You don't listen to what the unbeliever says about his intentions and how he just wants them. How often have I run into this nonsense. People say, oh, I believe if just there were some evidence that God would show himself. I'm really quite willing to submit to God. But I never can be sure if there is a God. Baloney. Utter baloney. You're blowing smoke. Granted, the unbeliever probably believes that lie as so habitually said it, and rationalizes that he or she really thinks that's the case. But God says it isn't the case. They aren't seeking after me. You ever thought about that? Romans, chapter three. What does Paul say about the desires of those who are not submitting to God? Are they in fact willing to come to the evidence? If just that were enough evidence there. Romans 3, 9. What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise. For we before laid to the charge, both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin, as it is written. Now listen. There is none righteous. No, not one. There is none that understandeth. There is none. None that seeketh after God. They have altogether turned aside. Now the world will tell you we're seeking after God. Just give us the evidence. Give us good arguments. The Bible says they don't want to hear it. They're not seeking after God. They've already got their minds made up. All of the thoughts of the wicked are what? There is no God. I will not even entertain the possibility that I'm not autonomous. The wicked man says, I will not come to that conclusion. The unbeliever is not seeking after God. And so we don't let the unbeliever give us the assessment of himself. Especially when the unbeliever says, I'm very interested in knowing things. The Bible says no, they hate knowledge. They despise wisdom and instruction. That's a tough one because the whole university system is predicated on the delusion that these people who deny Christianity, deny the Bible are really intellectuals who want to find the truth and follow wherever it may lead. That is not a biblical assessment of man. And if that offends you, I don't think it does offend anybody in this particular class. But if that offends you and you say, I can't do apologetics on that basis, probably you shouldn't defend the Christian faith at all. Because what I'm telling you is what the Bible teaches. If you're unwilling to defend the faith in light of what the faith itself teaches about your opponent, then you really don't have much hope, do you, of effectively showing the Bible to be true? Because at this point you don't think the Bible is true. The Bible's overstating its case. Just too harsh. What is this total depravity stuff in your. You Calvinist right? That's right. We think that man is depraved in everything that he does. We believe that man is depraved in every aspect of his being. We believe that he's depraved all the time. And so in his thinking there's no exception made there. He's depraved in his thinking. He hates knowledge. All his thoughts are, there is no God and he is a fool. And he prefers his foolishness to acknowledging the evidence. He will not allow himself to come to the conclusion there is a God. Well then how can we answer the fool? Well, you're really way down the line when you recognize you're talking to a fool. Because what do you do when you're talking to a fool? You let the fool hang himself. Let him display his foolishness. In Proverbs 26, verses 4 and 5, the Bible tells us how to respond to fools. And this offers to us, I believe, a twofold apologetic perspective, procedure or strategy. Proverbs 26:4, 5. Before I explain that passage to you, let's remember that if we were to simply offer evidence from the world of science and history, observational evidence to the unbeliever, the unbelievers is going to, because of his or her presuppositions, because of their hostile mindset, reinterpret all the evidence so that it doesn't take them to the conclusion that they dread. On the other hand, when the unbeliever offers us evidence, allegedly of how the Bible's not true, we interpret it in light of the lordship of Christ, and we're not driven to the conclusions the unbeliever wants us to be driven to, at least if we're faithful. And so we've got two worldviews, really, two different mindsets and perspectives, two different ultimate sets of presuppositions. How can they ever argue with each other, since there's nothing in no man's land, in this neutral buffer zone to which we can go to settle the dispute between ourselves? Everything is going to be reinterpreted supernaturally or naturally, depending upon your beginning point, whether it's supernatural or natural. Everything, since everything's going to be interpreted in that way, how could we ever deal with one another? And the answer is, you've got to share, for argument's sake your opponent's point of view to see where it goes. That is, you stand, since you can't stand outside of a worldview and go to no man's land, land where you have the brute facts and your neutral reasoning, since that's impossible, then what you're going to have to do is stand together on one point of view for argument's sake, just to see what happens when you do that. And then stand together on the other point of view for argument's sake, and do your comparison in that way. And the reason why you want to stay stand on the unbelievers presuppositions for argument's sake, because you want to show him that if what he says is true, he couldn't know anything at all. That is, you want to unmask the foolishness which was point one in this part of the lecture. You want to unmask his foolishness, and then you want to invite him to stand within your worldview on your presuppositions so that he sees that given the Christian world, do the counter evidence and arguments he has are harmless, that they're really no problem for us as believers. Okay, now let's look at Proverbs 26, 4 and 5. You don't make a direct appeal to the evidence, you argue indirectly for argument's sake. Let's look at the autonomous point of view for argument's sake. Now let's look at things from the Christian point of view. Here's what Proverbs says. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. And then verse five, answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Is that a contradiction? Don't answer the fool according to his folly. Do answer the fool according to his folly. No, it's not a contradiction. I think it's two steps. There's two different things you have to do. First of all, you don't answer the fool according to his folly. Fool and folly are connected, right? You don't answer the fool according to his way of thinking. And why is that? Because if you answer him according to his way of thinking, you're going to be just like him. So let's say we're talking to the fool who says the only thing we can know from history is what has been observed with our senses and what is verifiable and repeatable. And somebody who's a Christian says, okay, now I'm going to take the approach that this fool does. And his foolish philosophy says you can only know things which are verifiable and repeatable. The Bible says if you try to convince him that he's wrong using his presuppositions, in fact, you're going to end up just like him. Once you've bought into his presuppositions, you have no place to go but where he's going. So you're going to be a fool when you get done as well, you get on an airplane in Los Angeles that's headed for New York. Don't be surprised that you don't end up in Dallas. You get on the unbelievers airplane, you're going to end up at the unbelievers destination. Don't answer him then according to his folly, don't even get on the plane with him. Because if you get on the plane with him, you're going to end up where he does and you'll be a fool also. So press the antithesis right. You've got a point of view, I have a point of view. And I will not submit to the authority of your point of view. I will not try to convince you that you're wrong by accepting that what you say is true. And from that I can show you that what I say and what I conclude is true. Don't answer him according to his folly. But now the next verse turns it around and says, answer a fool according to his folly here not by accepting the foolishness of what he believes as though it were the final standard that you hope to prove your conclusion from, but rather stand within the fool's point of view. Why? Lest he be wise in his own conceit, lest the fool think that he is intelligent, lest he think that he has something going for him, lest he be wise in his own estimation than answer him according to his own philosophy. Say, let me show you where your philosophy leads you. For argument's sake, I'll reason the way you reason, but I'll try to do it better than you do. Let's see if I can give you a quick illustration from philosophy. We want to get back to the Bible here, but. So we're talking to Jean Paul Sartre, right? He's this famous existentialist. And Sartre has a long, complicated philosophy of being and nothing by which he argues that we need to be existentialist, where we first exist and then we determine our own essence. Man's inner essence is nothingness. It is freedom. He has the ability to other being, that is, to stand apart from what is. He has the freedom to imagine, and therefore he has the freedom to be what he will be. He's not subject to being. He is his own nothingness. And, you know, you see these university students who don't have the ability to say, the king has no clothes, sitting there going, oh, wow, this is pretty heavy stuff. What do you do with this? You know, if I was talking to a disciple of Sartre or Sartre himself, and Sartre were to explain to me that the thing that I must be above all is free, and I were to hear him teach that if I think that what I do and say is really subject to outside influences, whether it be the priest or the policeman or the teacher or. Or my parents or what have you. If I think that I'm determined by my genetic makeup or my environment and so forth, Sartre says all of those excuses for what we do are really an expression of bad faith. Bad faith that says, I'm not free. I'm bound by other things. Sartre says, you are free, so you must not live in bad faith. You must. Must assert your freedom and be an authentic human being. If you had enough of this tripe. This tripe governs our culture today, by the way, you know, I'm free, the who said. And freedom tastes of reality. That's my reality. I'm free. I will not let other people tell me what to do. Now, if I were speaking to Sark or one of his disciples, and I. Now let me see if I understand this, Mr. Fool. According to your thinking, I'm not supposed to let anybody tell me what to Do. Because that would be living in bad faith. Yeah, that's right. Well, then I shouldn't be listening to you telling me not to live in bad faith. Right? Because if I let you tell me not to live in bad faith, then you're lording it over me and I'm living in bad faith. So in order to do what you tell me to do, I must defy what you tell me to do. That's a pretty bad situation to be in. So now the fool can't be conceited, can't be wise in his own eyes, because it turns out his folly is turned against him. Answer the fool according to his own philosophy. So I'll try to out Sartre. Sartre. I'll try to be a better existentialist than the existentialist by showing that his existence existentialism refutes his existentialism. Answer the fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. So here in Proverbs 26, it's not the only way we could learn it. But in the Bible, very conveniently, we have our apologetic strategy indicated to us. First of all, we know that we're talking to fools. The Bible says unbelievers are fools. They suppress the truth and unrighteousness, professing wisdom. They become fools. We're talking to fools. And the Bible says, don't go along with them. Don't reason as they do. You have your own presuppositions. But then show them where their presuppositions end up, lest they be conceited, lest they think they've got the situation wired epistemologically. And so rather than appeal to evidence or reasoning directly, that is somehow a neutral zone, a buffer zone between. Between unbelief and belief. We really have to reason within the worldview of belief and within the worldview of unbelief. And then compare the results. Second Timothy 2, verse 25. In context, I'll begin at verse 23. But foolish and ignorant questions refuse, knowing that they engender quarrels. The question that comes to you from the perspective of the fool, don't bother to deal with that, at least not on his terms, because that'll just create quarrels. Foolish and ignorant questions. When ignorant people want you to engage in their ignorance, the Bible says, just resist, don't answer that way. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all apt to teach, forbearing in meekness, correcting them that oppose themselves. If peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth. You notice that our refusing the question does not mean that we never say anything, because it goes on to say that we should correct them. Those who ask questions from the perspective of foolishness and ignorance need to be corrected. And how does Paul describe those who we are correcting? Correcting them that oppose themselves? Correcting those you see whose ignorance and foolishness and perspective leads them to be set against themselves? Some translations will say those who contradict meaning contradict the faith. But in the Greek, it's in the middle form, in the most natural translation is to have that reflexive sense who are opposing themselves. They're bringing that opposition against themselves, not just against the faith. And so the apologetical procedure that the Bible suggests to us is to recognize the foolishness of unbelief and then move to unmask it, to show that the unbeliever is contradicting himself and shouldn't be wise in his own eyes. The Bible would teach us to see the conflict between the apologist and the unbeliever as a conflict of entire worldviews and mindsets, not just a conflict over particular facts here and there, particular claims here and there. First Corinthians 1, 18, 20 indicates that we have entire mindsets that differ with each other, not simply differ over particulars. For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us who are saved, it is the power of God. You see, we look at things completely different, black and white. We see the same thing. The word of the cross, we say, that's the power of God. The unbeliever says, that's nonsense, that's foolish. Please turn the cassette over at this time. Colossians 2:8, we've already studied. I won't bother to read it again. But let me remind you that Colossians 2:8 says that we are not to be deluded by pointless and misleading philosophy that is not after Christ. That language suggests that there is a philosophy that is after Christ. We're supposed to be Christian philosophers is what that teaches. Ironically, many people in fundamental churches have been taught that that means you shouldn't study philosophy. Beware of vain philosophy. But it also says that vain philosophy is that philosophy that is not according to Christ. So by implication, there is a philosophy that's according to Christ. So you have two different perspectives. One, the ABCs of worldly learning, which is not according to Christ. And then you have the philosophy that is according to Christ and says, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in him. So we have a complete perspective or as we put it, a worldview as Christians and the unbelievers got a complete perspective or a worldview. And these two worldviews are in collision with each other. Second Corinthians 10:5. Paul speaks of casting down reasonings in every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God. And how is it that we're able to take that reasoning that's exalted against the knowledge of God and cast it down, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. Paul says, you need to be consistent with your worldview. I'm using contemporary language, but he says all of your thinking needs to be regimented, needs to be under the direction of Christ. As we've said before, Christ is the Lord of our reasoning. And if we bring every thought captive to the the obedience of Christ, then we can take our worldview, bring it against the worldview of unbelief, and cast down that reasoning that's exalted against the knowledge of God. And so there are worldviews in collision. Stop trying to merge your worldview with the unbelievers worldview. Say how much can we agree on? And then from there we can go on to decide who's right, who's wrong about God or the Bible and so forth. We want to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ and challenge the unbeliever. If you will not do that, you've built your reasoning on sinking sand. The wise man builds his house on the rock, the foolish man on the sand. First Timothy 6:20. O Timothy. Guard that which is committed, committed unto thee. Turning away from the profane babblings and opposition. I'm going to go on in just a second. Paul says, you need to be careful about the apostolic deposit, that which has been committed to you. Guard it and turn away. He doesn't say, you know, do a little negotiating with the profane babblings of the world. Kind of like you got a little bit of truth, we got a little bit of truth. Let's get together and work out the whole picture. He says, turn away from it. Be careful of that which is in opposition. Now notice how Paul describes the opposition. Turning away from the profane babblings and opposition of knowledge, which is falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Those who oppose the faith are in error. They've erred. And Paul describes this as the opposition of knowledge which is falsely so called. Literally the Greek says the pseudonym of knowledge. That which goes under the False name of knowledge. The Bible says fools and ignorant people, people who question the faith, oppose themselves. It also teaches right here that the knowledge they claim to have doesn't deserve the name. It doesn't amount to knowledge at all. In tomorrow's lessons we're going to see more of this, but again, a thumbnail sketch by way of anticipation. For someone to know a particular proposition, they need to have evidence to support it. You don't know something just because you believe it. You don't know something just because you believe it and it's true. You know something when you believe it, it's true. And you've got what justification for believing it? You've got evidence for believing it. Now Paul says when the unbeliever claims to know something by which he can oppose the faith, he doesn't even deserve the name knowledge because he can't justify what he's saying. It doesn't in fact qualify as knowledge. Unbelievers sometimes speak what is true and they use what is true. They attempt to use what is true to oppose the Christian faith. Faith. But what unbelievers are speaking here, even where it's true, they don't have justification for it. Somebody might say, well no, wait a minute. Unbelievers have justification because they've observed, they've done their research, they've gathered their information. Yes, but then the question is and why is observation reliable given the non Christian worldview? Why is memory reliable given the non Christian worldview? Why is the assumption of uniformity in the natural world reliable given the non Christian worldview? Yeah, they are living within God's world. They're living in terms of the perspective of God, though they suppress it in unrighteousness. They are able to come to know certain things, but what they know on their own professed precept suppositions they could never justify. A little bit over a year ago I debated an atheist lawyer, Edward Tabish at the University of California in Davis. He was a Jewish ACLU lawyer who had relatives that had died at Auschwitz. And so, I mean he had some real interest, know, slick audience pleasing put downs, you know, of Christianity and God sending people to hell and why was he at Auschwitz and things of that nature. And he suggested that Christians like poor deluded Dr. Bonson have an invisible friend. They don't have any evidence for their invisible friend. It's just they decide, you know, to play this mental game. And I wanted to show him that as a matter of fact, God has given evidence of his existence in every experience. We Have. He's not an invisible friend. We can't get around him. He's everywhere. He's always evident. Now, how could I demonstrate that? I said, I'm going to demonstrate that by showing you that in using your toothpaste tube this morning you knew God. That's very mundane. Experience. Experience. Hopefully everyone's familiar with using the toothpaste. Hopefully. So Mr. Tavish uses toothpaste, and he does any number of other things, too. But now, how is it that using the toothpaste tube proves the existence of God? Well, when you squeeze the toothpaste tube, what are you expecting to happen? You're expecting the paste to squirt out, right? And so on what basis could you believe that? On what basis can you know that if you squeeze the tube, the pace is going to come out? Of course, I love using this illustration because the unbelieving audiences are thinking, boy, that's easy. You know. You think it's kind of like, come into my parlor. I'd like you to sit down here and discuss this with me. How do you know that the toothpaste is going to squirt out, you say? Because I've observed it every time in the past. Unless we're out of toothpaste or there's something blocking the tube every time in the past, when I squeeze the toothpaste tube, it squirts out. I'll say, ah, that's good. That's a real good answer. It's only the start of an answer, but it's a really good start. Because what we're saying is we have experience to back this up. But now you have to remember the question had to do with how you know that it's tomorrow morning going to squirt out when you squeeze it. And what you said is in the past, it always has. And that's fine as long as one more premise can be added. And it's just one simple bridge from what you've said to what you need to prove. You've talked to me about what's happened in the past. I've asked you about what's going to happen in the future. Now all you need to do is show me how you know the future is going to be like the past. Now, how can unbelievers show that the future will be like the past? Or to put it in layman's terms, how can they show the uniformity of nature? Now, if you're an unbeliever, like the man I was debating, who says we can only know the things, things we observe Then I have to say, have you observed the future? No, answer the fool. According to his folly, right, he hasn't observed the future. So he doesn't even know the toothpaste is going to squirt out when he squeezes the most mundane experience in life, we might think. And he can't even know that. The unbeliever will probably say, well, it's always been that way in the past, and say, oh yeah, we've already granted that. But how do you know the future will be like the past? Well, in the past, when we asked that question, the future turned out to be like the past. So I say, in other words, all the past futures prove to be like the past past. But what I've asked you about is the future future. Will this future be like the past? And for this, the unbeliever has no answer. And yet any child that's grown up in a country covenant home knows the answer, right? Because God created the heavens and the earth and he regulates it in such a way that we can have dominion here. He's promised that seed, time and harvest are going to follow in regular succession. That's just the kind of God we have. I brush my teeth and maybe I don't think about God as I should in everything that I do, but I know the toothpaste going to squirt out. Because God didn't put me in a chaotic world. He put me in a world that he regulates so that I can glorify him and love him and know him and get along in this world again. A child will lead them. Children know if they're Christian children, why the future is like the past. And here's this educated guy standing in front of 1100 university students and he's just dissolving under cross examination. He can't give an answer as to why the future will be like the past. Now Paul says that those who oppose the Christian faith are opposing it with knowledge that doesn't deserve the name. Did my opponent know that the toothpaste would squirt out? I'd say he does know. He knows, but given his worldview, he can't justify it. And the reason why he knows is because he's using another worldview. His hands in the cookie jar and he's unwilling to admit it. He's really stealing from my worldview. God's worldview that graciously has been given to me. But he's stealing from my perspective all along. Wanting to do what? Use this uniformity of nature to prove that my perspective has to be false. And so here's the opposition of knowledge, but it doesn't deserve the name knowledge because it can't justify itself. So let me summarize the apologetic method that I think the Bible teaches us from the various things we've already seen in our outline. And this is chapter 18 of my syllabus, if you're following along. First, what does the Bible tell us about the nature of the apologetic situation itself? The controversy between the believer and the unbeliever is in principle an antithesis between two complete systems of thought involving ultimate commitments and assumptions. Even the laws of thought that we use and our method, along with all factual evidence, will be accepted and evaluated in light of one's governing presuppositions. All chains of argumentation, especially over matters of ultimate personal importance, will trace back and depend upon starting points that are taken to be self evidencing, self attesting, and thus circularity in debate will be unavoidable. However, not all circles are intelligible or valid. The unbelievers got his worldview, he reasons in a circle ultimately I've got my worldview. I reason in a circle ultimately. But not all circles are intelligible and thus appeals to logic, fact and personality may be necessary, but they are not apologetically adequate. What is needed is not piecemeal replies, probabilities or isolated evidences, but rather an attack upon the underlying presuppositions of the unbeliever system of plot. Fifthly, the unbeliever's way of thinking is characterized as follows. By nature the unbeliever is the image of God and therefore inescapably religious. His heart testifies continually, as does also the clear revelation of God around him to God's existence and character. But the Bible says the unbeliever experience exchanges the truth for a lie. He is a fool who refuses to begin his thinking with reverence for the Lord. He will not build upon Christ self evidencing words and suppresses the unavoidable revelation of God in nature because he delights not in understanding but chooses to serve the creature rather than the Creator. The unbeliever is self confidently committed to his own ways of thought. Being convinced that he could not be fundamentally wrong, he flaunts perverse thinking and challenges the self attesting word of God. Consequently, the unbelievers thinking results in ignorance. In his darkened futile mind. He actually hates knowledge and can gain only a knowledge falsely so called. To the extent that he actually knows anything, it is due to his unacknowledged dependence upon the suppressed truth about God within him. This renders the unbeliever intellectually schizophrenic. You may want to underline that because it's a key point we'll come back to. The unbeliever is intellectually schizophrenic. By his espoused way of thinking, he actually opposes himself and shows a need for a radical change of mind repentance unto a genuine knowledge of the truth. Moreover, we've seen that the unbeliever's ignorance is culpable because he is without excuse for his rebellion against God's revelation and hence he's without an apologetic for his thoughts. In Romans 1, where Paul says that the unbeliever is without excuse, the Greek is unapologetic, that is to say he's without. That's the alpha primitive. He doesn't have an apologetic. Isn't that interesting? How should we do apologetics? Recognizing the unbeliever doesn't have one. His unbelief does not stem from a lack of factual evidence, but from a refusal to submit to the the authoritative word of God from the beginning of his thinking. So this is what gets us into the apologetic quandary. That's the situation. That's why we're in this opposition, why we're answering questions. Well then, what does the Bible require of the apologist, the one who's giving an answer? 1. The apologist must have the proper attitude. He must not be arrogant or quarrelsome, but with humility and respect. He must argue in a gentle and peaceable manner. I told you in my first lecture that we don't have time to talk about that all week long. But I want you to keep it in mind that for all of the intellectual help this course may give you, you'll accomplish nothing if you don't have a sanctified attitude in the way that you argue with people. 2. The apologist must have the proper starting point. He must take God's word as his self evidencing presupposition, thinking God's thoughts after him, rather than attempting to be neutral and viewing God's word as more sure than even his personal experience of the facts. Let me stop at that point, because having read it, I realized we didn't look at this text. I want you to look at second Peter, verse 19 of chapter 1. Second Peter 1:19. In verse 16, Peter has said that we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. But were eyewitnesses of His Majesty. Verse 17 explains that he was on the mount of Transfiguration and he has seen the very glory of the Savior. Verse 18. In this voice we are ourselves heard, borne out of heaven when we were with him in the holy mountain. Verse 19 says, but we have the word of prophecy made more sure. Whereunto you do well that you take heed as unto a lamp shining in a dark place. Peter says, I've had eyewitness experience of the majesty of Jesus, but the word of prophecy is more sure. God's word is more sure than our own experience. In Luke, the 16th chapter, Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Rich man and Lazarus on the same day go to their eternal destinies. Lazarus to Abraham's bosom, to the blessing of God, the rich man into Hades, where he's in torment and cries out that even one drop of water would be put on his tongue, that he'd be relieved. And that's not possible. Well, he can't get relief for himself. And the rich man at that point appeals to Abraham, whom everybody with any literary sensibility knows is the spokesman for Jesus. He appeals to Father Abraham that he be able to go back to his brothers who are yet on earth, to warn them of about this terrible place of torment. And the answer given is what they have. Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them. God says, that's enough. I've revealed myself. They've got the truth. They don't have any excuse. Let them believe that. And now the rich man reasons with Abraham, with Jesus. Did you see the evidentialist apologist stepping right into his shoes? No, Father Abraham. But if one rises from the dead, then they'll believe. You give them the evidence of a miracle, give them observational proof, and then they'll believe. The irony of that, of course, is Jesus is the spokesman. And Abraham is saying these words for Jesus is that Jesus knew very well that one would rise from the dead. Did that make people believers? No. The Jews paid the soldiers to a lie, didn't they? And Matthew 28:17 tells us that even in the presence of the resurrected Savior, some doubted. So back to the story. Abraham is not willing to accept the epistemology of the rich man in hell. This man's theory of knowledge is if one rises from the dead, if they observe a miracle, then they'll believe. And here's what Abraham. Here's what Jesus says. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, though one rise from the dead. What an indictment of the Jews, right? They had Moses and the prophets. When one rose from the dead, they were not going to believe that either. And so the Bible teaches us that the word of God is more sure than a personal experience of the facts. The word of God is more sure than eyewitness testimony of the transfigured majesty of Jesus. The word of God is more sure than a man rising from the dead. And if people will not accept the word of God, then all these other experiences will not be accepted for what they point to either. Thirdly, the apologist must have the proper method. We said he has to have the proper attitude, humility, he must have the proper starting point. God's word is self attesting. Thirdly, he must have the proper method. He must work on the unbeliever's unacknowledged presuppositions and being firmly grounded in his own. The apologist must aim to cast down every high imagination exalted against the knowledge of God by aiming to bring every thought, his own as well as his opponents captive to the obedience of Christ. And so he stands on the unbeliever's position to cast down such imaginations. He stands within his own worldview to show bringing every thought captive you can save knowledge. And so the apologist must have the proper goal as well the proper attitude, the proper starting point, the proper method. And now the proper goal. Securing the unbelievers unconditional surrender without compromising one's own fidelity. The word of the cross must be used to expose the utter pseudo wisdom of the world as destructive foolishness. Christ must be set apart heart as Lord in one's heart, thus acknowledging no higher authority than God's word and refusing to suspend intellectual commitment to its truth. And then finally in the chapter, I have a summary of the procedure. Pulling out now in more detail what this method of defending the faith is. And what we're going to do is take a two minute break at this point. Please continue our thoughts. We're looking at the procedure for defending the faith. And I'm annotating what I have written in my syllabus, chapter 18. And we're now on the procedure for defending the faith. Now drawing all this to a head, number one, realizing that the unbeliev believer is holding back the truth and unrighteousness. And do we realize that that's going to be a key to everybody we talk to? We have to say, well, they know the truth and they're suppressing it. They're holding it back in unrighteousness when you realize that the apologist should reject the foolish presuppositions implicit in the critical questions and attempt to educate his opponent. That is, I look at what my opponent's saying, I realize he's suppressing the truth and there's some foolishness that's behind all this. And I want to draw out that foolishness, look at what he's presupposing, and re educate. And that means I'm going to present the facts within the context of a biblical philosophy of fact. Everything that he proposes to me as an objection to Christianity or a challenge to the faith, I'm going to say I have to understand that in the context of God being the sovereign determiner of possibility and impossibility, that one sentence, if you haven't studied philosophy, and even if you have studied philosophy and haven't been reflective about it, that one sentence is critical. I would call on you to meditate about this in your free time. We don't believe that it's possible that God doesn't exist. And so when the unbeliever wants to talk to us, he's going to say, well, you know, you have to entertain the possibility that God doesn't exist. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. And so now we have to go look at the arguments and the evidence and so forth, and we say, no, we don't work that way. God is the one who determines what's possible. So it's not possible that God. God doesn't exist. I know that's radical, about as heavy as you can get philosophically. You say God lies behind all possibilities. And so you can't put possibility above God, make him just one of the field of possibility, because then you have something that determines whether God can be or not, or whether God is true or not. God is the sovereign determiner of possibility and impossibility. So when the unbeliever proposes, for instance, that we really can't believe in the God of the Bible because we see all this wickedness and evil about us in the world, and clearly if God were all powerful, that wouldn't be there. If God were good, he wouldn't want it to be there. So the fact that it's not there shows that God doesn't exist. We say, no, first of all, this wouldn't even be possible if it weren't for God. What are you talking about? We're saying no, God actually sovereignly determined that these things happen. Well, just from theology and conflicts in theology, you know, people have a hard time swallowing that don't they? They don't want to believe that God predestines everything that happens, including the evil of this world. But from our perspective, there isn't something more ultimate than God. So if we see these bad things happening, we have to say that's God's doing. Not in the sense that God directly does evil things, but he does plan that men will do evil things. When you have a couple that have lost a baby, say in infancy to some childhood disease or maybe in childbirth itself, and you as a pastor have to go to the hospital to minister to them, it sometimes is tempting. I know many pastors think it's tempting to say God had nothing to do with this. And I have suggested many times that that is not good news. To say that this tragedy is not part of the plan of God. Because if God couldn't do anything about it, or he could and he refused to do something about it, then we really do have a lot to worry about. In fact, the only comfort is in this very hard doctrine of predestination that though it is not what we have chosen, God has planned it for his purposes and therefore it serves a good end. It's not futile. It's not nothing. It's not a sign of the frustration of God that Satan's in control of the world, or something like that. God is the sovereign determiner of all possibility and impossibility. So whatever the unbeliever offers to me, I have to tell him. You have to understand that I see that within the framework that God is the one who determines what can and can't cannot be. A proper reception and understanding of the facts requires submission to the lordship of Christ. If we will not honor the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, then we can't properly know the facts. We can't have wisdom and knowledge apart from Christ. Thus, the facts will be significant to the unbeliever only if he has a presuppositional change of mind from darkness to light. There's nothing wrong with presenting facts to the unbeliever. I've already hinted at this. I want to make it very clear now, and we'll come back to it later. Presuppositional apologetics is not against evidence. There's plenty of evidence. This message is continued on the next tape.