Dr Greg Bahnsen - Seminary Apologetics: Use of Term (Part 1)

This message was delivered by Dr. Greg L. Bonson, Scholar in Residence at the Southern California center for Christian Studies in Irvine, California. And so I'm glad to be doing that.

But I've been looking forward to teaching apologetics this time for some special reasons. Of late, I've been doing many conferences.

In apologetics, weekend conferences, church conferences, those sorts of things.

And I love doing that. I love seeing the people of God get interested in the subject. But the one frustration, if you love the thing, is that you just get.

Started and you have to stop, you.

Know, within three, four, five, maybe six.

Hours in a weekend, and then it's over.

And so this is going to be just tremendous. If the Lord grants it to us, we'll have 30 hours together. And so I'll be able to speak.

A little more at length about things.

Even then, you'll hear me complain from.

Time to time, there's not enough time, so forth.

But it's great to have this much.

Time to do it.

And I've been looking forward to teaching the course here because I know that the kind of material that I want.

To present is appreciated in this setting.

It's not a hostile environment. And, you know, if you want to do apologetics, you have to get used to a hostile environment.

I know that.

But it's also a great pleasure to.

Teach where there's a teachable spirit. And so I'm glad to be with you.

And then finally, I've really been looking forward to teaching this course at great.

Length with people having a teachable spirit.

In this year that marks the 100th.

Anniversary of the birth of Cornelius Van Til, this is not a course on Dr. Van Till. I recognize, and I don't want to.

Give the impression that I think apologetics.

Is all tied up with, you know, the kind of response and maybe approaching adoration that I had for this teacher of mine.

But I do believe, as objective as.

I can be about it, I do believe that what he taught us and presented in the last 100 years, he didn't start when he was born, but basically over this last century, is revolutionary in terms of the impact that it can have on the world. And of course, being post millennial, I believe it will have on the world. And so it's a great pleasure to be here.

Let's imagine that I'm sitting in an.

Airport, and as you know, in the airports we have a lot of religious discussions going on, right? Well, not always, but there are some groups that find the airport a convenient place to find people that are, pardon me, up in the air, just kind of a little jumbled up in their lives.

And so they like to evangelize out.

There, but they don't have what I consider good news. You know, they're propagating a religious point of view. Let's take as our example of Hare Krishna. Hare Krishna cult is a denominational variation within the Hindu religion. And so I have to wait for my plane. And this person who adheres to the Hare Ka point of view wants me to buy a book, would also like to talk to me.

And so I say, yeah, talk to me.

Tell me about the good news of Krishna. I'd like to know about this.

In the process, the explanation is given.

To me that in the Western world, and particularly in my own life, we.

Have the idea that things are separate.

From one another, that there are individual realities that have their own existence and they relate externally to other realities. So that I relate externally to you.

We as the human race, relate externally.

To the world of nature and so forth.

And it's explained to me this is the source of all of man's distress. Because, you see, as long as we believe that we are separate realities with an external relationship to everyone else and everything else, then we're selfish and greedy.

And we don't get along.

And greed and selfishness leads to warfare and violence. And so everything, it turns out, can be finally tied down to this idea that I have a separate existence. The human race, I'll be told, is raping nature. You know, we don't respect the environment.

Roundabout us because we don't recognize that that too is. Is part of us. And so he goes in for the kill. He says, don't you see? Really, reality is one, and that reality.

That is one is sacred. It's. It's the divine.

You Christians think about reality having a creator, but we know better that the.

Whole world is divine, is God, indeed is Brahma.

I say, well, that doesn't sound very good. What can I do about this problem that I have thinking that I'm separate from you? And in fact we're all together, as the Beatles taught us. He says, well, you need to learn to meditate and to do yoga, because when you meditate and practice the yoga, you will eventually rise above your separateness. And a moment in a flash of enlightenment will come and you will realize that you are nothing more but a drop of water that has fallen into the shoreless ocean of being.

Now you just have. For the sake of the illustration, you.

Have to bear with me at that point. I think most Westerners would say, and.

No, thanks, not interested in that. I don't know why I'd want to be, you know, in the shoreless ocean of being.

It just doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

But so I bear with him and I say, well, even granting that, that's.

Really what I need to do and that's what I want.

What will happen if I have this flash of enlightenment? He says, well, then you will enter.

Into a state that we call nirvana. It's not really heaven as you Christians think of it, but you will enter.

Into a state of blessedness and bliss and peace.

And there will be no disharmony anymore. Everything will be one and inside.

Even though the external world may appear to continue in its warfare and its.

Strife and all of the divisions and so forth, inside you will realize the oneness of all being. Well, but right now I don't realize the oneness of all being. He says, that's right. That's because you live in the world of Maya.

When you live in this external world and you look at trees as though they're different from you and other human beings as though they're different from you, that's really illusion. If you were to be enlightened, if you would have this flash of insight, then you would know the oneness of all things, and then you would enjoy Nirvana.

I said, well, now let me see if I understand this right.

According to you, there are no real distinctions. Every distinction, every separation, every division between things is Maya.

It's illusion.

It's unreliable, and I shouldn't think that way.

That's right.

And if I were to do the.

Yoga and meditate and so forth and become a good Hare Krishna like you.

Then eventually I'd be enlightened. And when I'm enlightened, then I'll enter into nirvana, where there are no distinctions at all. That's right. And so now, if I have it right, I'm not now in nirvana, right? I'm now in Samsara, in the world of illusion. Maya.

That's right.

He thinks, almost I have a believer. And then I say, well, but don't you see, given this worldview, you're telling me on the one hand there are no distinctions, and yet where I am now is distinct from nirvana. And so your own worldview contradicts itself.

And now the Hare Krishna who thought he had a believer on his hands is really frustrating. He goes, oh, there you go, you Westerners with your logic and that sort of thing.

I said, wait a minute, wait a minute. You mean you don't, you don't follow logic?

You don't think you need to be logical?

Absolutely not. Logic draws distinctions between things and haven't you been listening? Distinctions are unreal and therefore we can't follow logic either. I said, so you don't distinguish between what is true and false because that's a distinction then, right?

That's right.

I say, well then what you're saying, that you don't follow logic means that you do follow logic because you don't distinguish between the true and the false, do you?

He says, well, obviously I can't talk to you.

So he's been silent and I said, well now let me explain something to you. I'd like to show you how I see the world. I think your biggest mistake is that you don't see a distinction between the Creator and the creature. You want to treat created things like they had the prerogatives of the Creator himself. And so let's start all over again. Let's assume just for argument's sake, that this world in which we live and is so full of disharmony and problems as you've said, that this world was created by God and God is separate from this world. And this world answers to him not only to his sovereign will, but also will answer morally to Him. Particularly those who have been made to reflect his own character will one day answer to him for falling short of that. And that's what you're doing right now. You're falling short of his glory because you want to give his glory to the created order. And although there's a lot of sin and disharmony among human beings, the greatest sin is the disharmony between you and your Creator. He's very angry with you for what.

You are saying and what you are doing.

And the only hope we have to enter into a state of blessedness and peace is for God to make provision for us.

Well, you know the rest of the story. You don't need the gospel laid out for you.

I'm doing apologetics. What I'm doing is setting forth the Christian outlook on life over against the.

Competing options that are there.

In this example, however, we have a very well organized, even though it may not be well thought out, a well organized alternative to Christianity. It's Hinduism and specifically the Hare Ka.

Version of Hinduism that I've been talking about.

And we can run into people that have very self conscious views of man and God and this world and what's wrong with us and how we know what we know and those sorts of things. But most of the people with whom.

We defend the faith are not so.

Well thought out, they're not so systematic.

They'Re not so self conscious.

They have for the most part picked up their outlook on life and their.

Outlook on human, the aim of human life and how we're supposed to think and what is true about the world and where we fit into it and so forth.

They picked up these things, as Francis.

Schaefer once in the same way most people get the measles, they just catch it, you know, it's the environment in.

Which they live, they just breathe these sorts of things that even as in our own environment, so the intellectual environment in which most people are raised has a concoction of ideas that don't really.

Go together very well at all.

Most people, because they see others believing things, won't stop to think about whether it's true or whether it's credible, whether it's even cogent to hold a point of view or not. They just say, well, I mean, everybody knows this. And then they'll pick up something else.

In the atmosphere, another kind of disease.

And everybody knows this and they don't even know that what everybody knows on the left hand and what everybody knows on the right hand won't go together if you stop and think about it. And so both with self conscious unbelievers, Hare Ka, whatever it may be, and those who are not so self conscious, just kind of, you know, the run of the mill, garden variety unbeliever, you find that upon analysis in their thinking there's these elements which will not comport with one another. Now when we defend the Christian faith, in the end we're going to be doing the same sort of thing, as.

I've been illustrating with everybody, although obviously different ways. You don't want to use the critique of Hare Krishna that I gave you today, if you're talking to a Muslim or if you're talking to somebody who says, I don't believe in God or whatever it may be.

But in the end all apologetics will come down to this. A comparison of your way, your most ultimate way of thinking and the way you see things, which with what the.

Bible presents to us on the authority.

Of Christ and showing that the other way of seeing things is not only mistaken because it conflicts with the truth that is in Christ, but also destroys.

The possibility of knowing any other truth. Dr. Van Til taught us, and I think this is part of the brilliance and the strength of his system of.

Apologetics, that the unbeliever is not only doomed eternally, but the unbeliever is doomed intellectually as well, and that whatever leads away from the Christian gospel simultaneously leads.

Away from the possibility of rationality and science and morality and human dignity and freedom.

So apologetics, that's what I've been trying to illustrate, and I hope I've, you.

Know, got your attention on that.

What I've illustrated is what I'm going to call the practice of apologetics. And if I were to teach apologetics in the way that certain evangelistic outfits teach evangelism, what we would do is simply spend time giving answers that you.

Can, in this prepackaged way, hand out to people. Okay, I'm not trying to put anybody down. This is not personal. But you probably all have heard of the four spiritual laws, right?

In my own opinion, the people who.

Criticize Campus Crusade and the four spiritual.

Laws would have a lot more credibility.

If they spent as much time evangelizing as the people who they're criticizing.

But nevertheless, part of the criticism has to be heard, and that's that the four spiritual laws assumes that everybody starts.

At the same place.

And if you just take, I forget.

What Bill Bright says, four and a.

Half minutes or something, somebody shows an interest, then you keep with it. And if they don't show an interest, then you move on.

The point is, you have this prepackaged.

Product, you know, this religious point of.

View, and you share it and so forth.

We could spend 30 hours easily making a list of the objections that people.

Have and the computer, competing religions, and.

Why people should believe in God and so forth. And I could just talk to you about that, and I could share with you what I usually say when I'm.

In this situation and so forth.

And I don't think that would be.

A total waste of time, but I.

Don'T think I would have used your.

Time to the maximum effect if I just went over the practice of apologetics.

Sometimes it is helpful to stand back and look at what we are doing and asking why we are doing it, what lies behind it, what our aims are, what are the general strategies that we can use? There are some people who play baseball.

I'm not sure if they're going to play baseball this year, but there are some people who play baseball, and they do, you know, pretty good job of it.

But if they want to improve their skills at playing baseball, they don't simply.

Find out how a particular person swings the bat in a particular situation.

They learn something about the dynamics of.

Swinging a bat and of curveballs and fastballs and that sort of thing, so.

That they can handle a variety of circumstances, not just the particular one they've been put in. And imagine a baseball player who had a pitching coach who did nothing but throw him slow rotation curveballs. Maybe he gets very good at his a slow rotation curveball, but, you know, you put him in a game situation, is that all he's going to get is slow rotation curveballs? Absolutely not.

Do you know what a curveball is?

No. Okay, so I have to aim for more international.

Illustrations here for the sake of our Dutch students.

In baseball, we throw a ball. Person has a wooden bat, has to hit it, and there are various ways of throwing the bat ball to try.

To, you know, make the batter miss it and strike out.

We say, okay, so if the batter is going to learn only to hit a certain kind of pitch, he's not going to be as good a batter as if he had learned something more.

Generally about swinging the bat and how to hit a ball, so forth.

Likewise in apologetics. And that's why in a good course in apologetics, we don't simply say, here's a problem.

Here's an answer for that problem.

Here's a problem. Here's another answer. We go beyond the practice of apologetics to the theory of apologetics. You can think of the theory of apologetics as similar to the batting coach or maybe the sports writer who is commenting on the way in which the team is being managed and how they're.

Playing and so forth, and what their options are, what they might do and what they have in the doing.

So you have the practice of apologetics talking to the Hare Krishna.

Therefore, you have the theory of apologetics.

Which is, in a sense, a spectator looking at the practice of apologetics and saying, now how could we improve? What should we be doing? And then we could actually go another level and say that we have discussions of the theory of apologetics as well.

And I'm going to call that meta apologetics.

That which goes beyond stands behind the theory of apologetics. Well, let's look at it this way. The practice of baseball is down on the field, right? People throwing balls, running bases, swinging bats. The theory of baseball is the sports writer up on the first deck watching the game, saying, boy, they've got a lousy team this year. Whatever he wants to say, meta apologetics would be like somebody up on the third deck watching all the sports writers write what they do, and maybe even writing a history of how people write about baseball. So you play baseball, you write about baseball, and then you write about the writing of baseball. Okay, everybody with me. Simple illustration. But I want you to understand this because it'll give you some understanding why in this course we're going to be going over the things that we do. I'm going to be spending most of my time on the theory of apologetics. But in the process, I also want to get above the theory and talk about theories of apologetics. Because when you go out and pick up a book in a Christian bookstore or seminary bookstore on apologetics, you're not necessarily getting the same kind of thing with any other book that you pick up. There are actual disagreements among Christians about.

The theory of apologetics.

It's not just disagreements about what's the best answer to the Hari Christian in the airport. Maybe somebody else has a better approach.

He thinks, than what I gave you today.

But they're disagreements about what we are doing in apologetics and what our underlying assumptions are, are and how we should get there. And so if we're going to accomplish what I think we should in a 30 hour course, we want to do some meta apologetics, a lot of theory of apologetics. And then eventually at the end of this week, I will look at the practice of apologetics because in my own view of education, it won't do any good to give general concepts without particular illustrations. I don't want the particular illustrations to.

Be be the only thing that you take away from here.

But you got to put some flesh.

On these bones, you know?

And so that's really where we're going.

To be going this week. Okay.

On the right side of the board, I've made a list of what I'd like to cover with you real quickly. We're going to look at the concept of apologetics. And those of you who are already.

Presuppositionalists or have some idea of where.

I'm going to be going, will realize that the course is going to be.

Determined right here because I'm going to.

Be laying down our basic assumptions, our outlook, our very conception of what we.

Are doing that's already going to determine our method.

You'll appreciate that remark, maybe better at the end of the week when you say, oh, yeah, what we're doing. Oh, I've erased the when we practice apologetics. Well, that's what you told us the very first day. Well, hopefully it is. I want this to be a coherent course, but the concept of apologetics is crucial. I'm going to take most of today.

Probably to talk about that.

And then, though it could easily consume an entire course itself, I would like to at least sample the history of.

Apologetics to see what we can learn from what God's people have done in.

The past, how we can improve, prove.

And what we can pick up from.

And then biblical guidance for apologetics is something I consider somewhat unique about the presuppositional approach. If you understand presuppositional apologetics, you know that we think that God's Word is.

The foundation for everything that we think and do.

Now, apologetics is something that we think and do. If God's Word's the foundation for everything we think we think and do, and apologetics is one of those things they can do, then God's Word should be the foundation for apologetics, too. But you know, immediately the objection is going to be raised. Now, wait a minute. It's God's Word you're supposed to be defending, so you can't be assuming God's Word when you go to defend God's Word. And so apologetics has got to develop its method and its system and its philosophy out here in a way that is credible to the world. And then you use that credible method to show that the Bible, too is credible. And then finally you bow to it. And I've presented it in such a way that hopefully you're already uncomfortable with this.

You know, wait a minute, wait a minute.

We're going to develop something outside the.

Authority of God that will authorize the authority of God so that we can.

Give up everything and bow to the authority of God. Just doesn't make any sense, does it? And yet it is the reigning theory, the reigning approach to apologetics, that to say, oh, you can't beg the question, you can't go to the Bible for your apologetic. You've got to develop your apologetic in another way. And so I'm going to spend probably an entire day trying to show you that, lo and behold, the Bible itself teaches us so much that's important about our theory of knowledge, our theory of unbelief, and how people come to believe that it's a shame that people haven't minded before. And a syllabus that I've written that really only scratches the surface, but does.

A lot more of that than many books do, should be available to you soon. And I'm going to ask that you read that, that goes along with the course. It's a biblical introduction to apologetics.

Then we're going to spend some time. And this is where you're going to.

Cringe on philosophical guidance, too.

My professional training is in epistemology.

Theory of knowledge.

And I, and I was interested to.

Study the theory of knowledge because apologetics is, you know, something that I enjoy and I think God has called me to do.

We need to know something about the different theories of knowledge. And this isn't going to be as easy to listen to as the biblical.

Material, because you're familiar with the Bible.

And even the things that you're not familiar with, you at least respect the Bible. But it's hard for us to spend.

Time, you know, sniffing around in Kant and Hegel and things like that. We don't enjoy that sort of stuff.

And some of the material will be abstract and it will kind of push you intellectually. But that's good. You should be stretched. But the interesting thing is you're going to find that if we understand the biblical approach to knowledge and how we defend the faith, the best philosophical insights that are available to us turn out to support exactly what we would have expected. That the approach we should take is presuppositional can be shown philosophically as well as biblically. And then, of course, we'll get to what is the heart of the course.

And that is the presuppositional method. What really are we doing when we defend the faith?

How do we process that? What's the strategy?

So forth. And then at the end, as I've already told you, we'll look at some specific problems. How do you answer the Muslims? How do you answer an atheist? How do you answer somebody who doesn't have a worldview as far as they know, but they think that there's immaterial spiritual things, and they think they're material things as well. How do you deal with that kind of dualism?

And particular objections to Christianity will be.

Taken up, like the problem of evil. God is entirely good and God is entirely powerful. How is it that we have evil things in this world world to deal with? He should be powerful enough to eliminate them or to prevent them.

And if he's good, he shouldn't want them.

So if there's evil, obviously Christianity can't be true. Things of that nature, that's where we're going.

Everybody have a concept, the direction.

So now we begin then. Today we're going to talk at length.

About the concept of apologetics. And we'll start at the most minimal level. I just want to talk to you about the term apologetics itself. The term apologetics that we use in English comes from a Greek term, apologia. And this Greek term, turns out, has a very definite and almost technical meaning. The Apologia that someone offered was the defense he would make in a court of law in answer to an accusation. So if a charge was brought against somebody and they were hauled into court, when they stood up to speak in their own defense, what they offered was their apologia, their apology. But now you can see that the Greek concept of the apology and the English concept of the apology are really diametrically opposite in that in our way of speaking, if someone's going to give an apology, that's a way of saying I'm guilty and I'm sorry. Whereas in the Greek sense of offering an apologia, you're not saying I'm sorry because I'm guilty, you're saying I'm not guilty at all. This is my defense of my innocence. But nevertheless, in both cases, it's a response to an accusation, explicit or implicit. And in the response to the accusation in the Greek world, the person who stood in court and defended his innocence offered his apologia. A very good example of this is found in the Platonic dialogue entitled the Apology.

That's the translation in English, Apologia In.

Greek, Plato wrote about the last days of Socrates.

Indeed, three of his dialogues were on that. On the last days of his great mentor and teacher.

Socrates had disrupted the intellectual and social.

World of Athens because he dared to cross examine people, especially people who were.

Very confident, cock sure that they knew.

What piety was and what justice was and so forth.

And Socrates had a great deal of.

Humility, I think probably genuine humility about that.

He said, these are difficult subjects.

You obviously know a whole lot more than me. Could I ask you some questions? Would you help me to understand? And then, as you know from the Platonic dialogues, I don't know if it always was true historically, but in the dialogues it's always true that these cocksure people who know these concepts prove under cross examination to be blithering idiots. Socrates has them running this way, then running that way, then contradicting themselves, and then finally throwing their hands up and saying, I don't know.

Well, as you might guess, that didn't.

Endear him to people. This seems to be the lot of.

Those who have the ability to cross.

Examine other people and who want to, you know, engage in dialogue and so forth.

You'll find that people are glad to engage in dialogue as long as their conversation, you know, is always a revealing of itself.

It's always a finding of itself. As the Book of Proverbs says, the.

Fool loves nothing better but to pour.

Forth his own ideas.

But when you start cross examining people and you start showing weaknesses and so forth, then they tend not to like you.

Well, they really dislike Socrates.

And they disliked him all the more because by not accepting traditional notions of.

Justice and piety and all the rest.

Socrates was undermining the Athenian order. In the Greek world, the order of Athens was considered divine. It's in many ways hard for Americans.

To comprehend the Greek mentality when it comes to this.

To say anything contrary to the ways of Athens was in fact indirectly an insult against Athena, who was the goddess.

That founded the city according to their myth.

Nevertheless, Socrates was willing to question the traditional mores of Athenians and their ways of thinking. And as he cross examined them and earned quite a few enemies, he also.

Had people willing to say he was an impious or irreligious person.

And so the day came when an accusation was brought against Socrates that he.

Was corrupting the youth of Athens and introducing new gods. Gods, you know what the penalty was for that?

It wasn't you, you, you lose your.

University post and you're blackballed and can't be hired in other schools. They killed you for doing that sort of thing.

They took this very seriously, although even the Athenians found it hard in many.

Cases to carry out that kind of harsh sentence. And so many times if they had.

A teacher who was willing to recognize.

He was up against a very harsh reality, they'd convict him, threaten to kill him, and then they'd leave the back door open of the prison and say, listen, why don't you hightail it out of town, we won't have to do this, but don't ever show yourself again.

Curtiz was convicted in court. However, he had offered his defense.

His apologetic.

It's interesting that after he was convicted.

People felt, you know, rather bad about this and they said, Socrates will allow you to exile yourself.

And Socrates at that point then defends those who accused him and he says, no, no, it would undermine the order of the state. And it's far more important that you have order in the state than that I have my freedom. That's when you begin to wonder if there isn't a little bit of myth.

In this sort of thing, because we.

Just can't imagine somebody saying for a theoretical reason, I'm going to lose my life. But the Athenians would have let him go. He didn't want to go.

And so the day came when he drank the hemlock and that was the end of Socrates.

So Plato writes of the apology that Socrates offers. That's his apologetic now, interestingly, 400 years later, there's another man who is in Athens who is accused of introducing new deities. The new deities that he was introducing.

According to the really stupid hearing, dull.

Hearing of his audience, were the deities Jesus and Resurrection. Now, in Greek, Jesus is a male name, resurrection is a, a female term. And so his audience thought that Paul was introducing the new male and female deities for their pantheon. Jesus and Resurrection, you know, or sunrise Anastasia.

We have, you know, the word that comes down to us in Western literature.

The same way Paul had to defend himself. And he offers in Acts, the 17th chapter, his apologia, his apologetic for the things that he has been teaching. So this is what the term itself has to do with offering an answer in a court of law against an accusation. But now, in Christian circles, when we speak of apologetics, we're not thinking of being in a court of law. Not usually what we're going to study would apply to that setting. But more, more common would be the situation where you're in an airport or you're talking to your next door neighbor over the back fence, or to a colleague at work in the lunchroom or what have you. And they say, you know, we can't find what you're saying credible at all.

How could you have that kind of hope?

How could you possibly think that's anything more than, you know, a fairy tale, somebody has imagined this, or they say that's just nonsense. And so when people bring accusation against us, you know, that's unbelievable, that's nonsense, that's not historical. Then we offer our defense. We don't apologize for what we believe.

And say, oh yeah, I guess we're guilty.

We say, no, we think we're innocent.

Of those charges, and then in fact, you're the guilty party.

And so we'd like to offer our.

Answer to your accusation, to your objections.

So whether it's in a court of law or the informality of the lunchroom, apologetics is defending our faith when people.

Find it too hard to believe.

Secondly, I'd like to look at the word apologia as it's found in the biblical context, especially in New Testament texts, where it's found. I've warned you that what I'm teaching today under the concept of apologetics already begs the question as to what the method of apologetics should be. That it's going to be built right.

In, kind of like front loaded, what apologetics is all about.

And we'll begin to see that even now, when we just want to look at the use of the Word apologetics, the biblical usage. We're going to learn something about the very practice of apologetics and what we as Christians should be aiming to do and how we should be aiming to do it. I'd like to look at four passages with you this morning, so why don't you open your Bibles first of all to Acts 22.

In the first verse.

Paul says, brethren and fathers, hear ye the defence which I now make unto you. And this word defense is apologia in Greek, hear now my apologetic, which I make to you. And when they heard that he spake unto them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet. And he saith, I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Sicilia of Sicily, but brought up in the city at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of.

Our fathers, being zealous for God, etc.

Now, does that surprise you a bit, the way in which most people would approach the subject of apologetics and say, well, apologetics is different from an account of one's conversion. Apologetics is not just testimony, it's defense of what you're testifying. But here in the Bible, we see that Paul's apologetic turns out to be the story of his conversion. That is a defense of the faith in itself. Let me tell you how it came about. Now, we're going to need more than.

Just a conversion account. I know that.

But it's interesting to me that the conversion account is not thought of as separate from or different from apologetics. Sometimes when people say, how can you believe that? You can tell them, because my life's been changed. Let me tell you what happened to me.

Let me tell you about my life and what God did to me.

And there's really no other account for.

That but that God is real and.

What he says in His Word is true. Now I know what the comeback, possible comeback would be from people is, and.

We'Re going to say more than that.

But don't think of apologetics. If you're thinking biblically in terms of the way the word is used in the New Testament, don't think of apologetics as somehow an academic preface to my testimony. Apologetics includes my testimony. It's part of my life that I want to tell you about. And what I am defending should be.

Evident in my life.

Let's turn to Acts 25:16. Going to spend some time.

In this particular account.

Paul has been given a hearing before Festus. He ends up appealing to Caesar. And in the midst of this, in verse 16, we read. To whom I answered that it is not the custom of the Romans to give up any man before the accused, has the accusers face to face, and has had opportunity to make his defense concerning the matter laid against him.

That's exactly what the term apologia is all about.

The word defense in my translation is the word apologia. And it was the Roman custom that you were to be able to face your accusers, hear what they had to say against you, and offer your defense. And so this is what Paul is going to do. We know that Paul's now engaging in apologetics, and we have to turn to the next chapter to get the content of that apologetic. But if you look now at Chapter 26, beginning at the first verse.

And.

Agrippa said unto Paul, thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand and made his apologetic, his defense. I think myself happy, King Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before thee this day, touching all the things whereof I am accused by the Jews, especially because thou art expert in all.

Customs and questions which are among the Jews. Wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.

My manner of life, then from my youth up, which was from the beginning.

Among mine own nation, and at Jerusalem.

Know all the Jews having knowledge of.

Me from the first, if they be.

Willing to testify that after the straightest.

Sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.

And now I stand here to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, unto which promise our 12 tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. And concerning this hope I am accused.

By the Jews, O King. Now, just commentary. Before I continue reading.

You notice that Paul has given his testimony as part of his apologetic. But now here his testimony is integrated into a broader historical account of the Jewish people, and particularly of the hope in history that had been given to them. As you know, in a few moments.

We'Re going to eventually get to the Magna carta of apologetics. First Peter 3, 15.

Peter talks about giving a reason for the hope that is in us. Here Paul says, and now I'm. And concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews, O King. His personal testimony in the context of the historical account of the hope God has given particularly to the Jews. Why is it judged incredible with you if God does raise the dead? I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And this I also did in Jerusalem. And I both shut up many of the saints in prison, having received authority from the chief priest. And when they were put to death, I gave my vote against them, and punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues I strove to make them blaspheme, and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign cities. Whereupon, as I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priest, at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven above, the brightness of the sun shining round about me and them that journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language, saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. And I said, who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest.

But arise and stand upon thy feet, for to this end have I appeared.

Unto thee to appoint thee a minister.

And a witness, both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of.

The things wherein I will appear unto.

Thee, delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are.

Sanctified by faith in me.

Wherefore, O King of grip up, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision, but declared both to them of Damascus first and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and.

Turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance.

For this cause, the Jews seized me in the temple and essayed to kill me. Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day testifying both the small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses.

Did say should come, how that Christ must suffer, and how that he first.

By the resurrection of the dead, should.

Proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.

And as he thus made his apologia, his apologetic Festus said with a loud voice, paul, thou art mad by much learning is turning thee mad. But Paul said, I am not mad.

Most excellent Festus, but speak forth words.

Of truth and soberness, for the king knows of these things unto whom also I speak freely. For I am persuaded that none of.

These things is hidden from him, for.

This has not been done in a corner.

King Agrippa, believeth thou the prophets?

I know that thou believest and agrippa said unto Paul, but with little persuasion thou wouldst fain make me a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God.

That whether with little or with much.

Not thou only, but also all that.

Hear me this day might become such as I am, except for these bonds and a marvelous story. I mean, it's just thrilling to read it.

Here's Paul standing before people who have.

The power of life and death over him.

And repeatedly, I think three times we've seen in this text. The Bible says this is Paul's apologetic. Now, if Paul's apologetic doesn't look like the sort of thing that you read of in most books of evangelical apologetics, what should we conclude? That Paul was really kind of at.

A point primitive level of apologetics and didn't know what he was doing?

Or should we rather draw the conclusion that maybe what many people think apologetics is all about is misconceived? They have the wrong concept of apologetics at the very outset because the Bible says this was Paul's way of defending his faith. I want to draw out a few items for you. We've already talked about how unapologetic includes our own conviction, conversion background, verses 4 and 5 of chapter 26.

If you just want to put that in your notes, I'm not going to reread them.

Show us the background of Paul's conversion and then notice how in this defense Paul uses the authority of Scripture, the authority of Scripture as his foundation. Verses 6 and 7. And now I stand here to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, unto which promise our 12 tribes, earnestly serving.

God night and day, hope to attain.

And concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews.

O King.

Paul said, look, when, when all is said and done, these people are opposing the word of God because I'm standing here for the hope that was given to our fathers. I'm not telling you anything different than any good Jew should know. And the good Jews know this because they have the Scriptures, they have the oracles of God in their possession. And that's all I'm telling you. I'm just telling you what God said in the Scriptures. And then verse 27.

I love this part of the account.

King Agrippa believest thou the prophets.

I know that thou believest.

Paul says, how could. How could you doubt the prophets? But you see, the point is if the prophets support what what I'm teaching, and that's my defense, the tendency for us today is to say, well, why believe the prophets? Paul says, if the prophets said it. And King Agrippa, you've got to believe this too. King Agrippa, do you believe this? If so, you got to let me go. I'm only teaching what the prophet said. That's his defense. Thirdly, notice that the issue of credibility or informal philosophy, what we call the issue of possibility, what is possible, what is not possible, what is believable, what is not believable? That that issue is crucial. And Paul's apologetic verse 8, why is it judged incredible with you, if God.

Should raise the dead?

My translation says incredible, credible. Why do you. Why do you consider it unbelievable? Why would. On what basis would you think it is not possible that Jesus would rise from the dead? And why is it because it's God who is raising him from the dead? And so what determines what can happen or not happen? Now, if God doesn't exist, then resurrection is an open question, isn't it? Of course, ironically, if God doesn't exist, then anything can happen, happen. And resurrections could happen too, maybe in a chance universe. But the point is, if God does exist, then how could anybody say, oh no, Jesus couldn't have raised from the dead, so why not? I mean, if God created the world and he solemnly controls all things, then he can raise the dead. He can give life to the dead as well, right? After all, he gave existence to that which was not. Why couldn't he give life to that which was not? And so the whole question of resurrection, in terms of the philosophical attack on it, is settled by, first of all, knowing that there is a God who exists, and it's the God who's revealed himself in the prophets. Fourthly, you notice how the lordship of Christ is included in this apologetic and is crucial to it. Verses 13 to 15 at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven above, the brightness of the sun shining around me and them that journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language, saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. And I said, who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus, whom Thou persecutest. You know, this is not the Jesus of bumper stickers. Isn't that the Jesus, oh please give.

Jesus a chance kind of guy?

It's like, oh, won't you just think.

A little bit about me?

Try me. Now Paul says, you're the Lord, what do you want? It's the Lord Jesus Christ that he defends. Verse 19. Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision. See, the Lord called me to this. Maybe you're going to kill me for it, but what can I tell you? I'm not going to be disobedient to the Lord. He has the highest authority in my life. I don't renegotiate the Lord's commands. Verse 18 shows us that Paul understood that unbelievers needed not simply to be given persuasive arguments and more evidence, but they needed a complete change of mind. Verse 18 says that he was sent to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, in.

Order that they may receive remaining of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me.

Jesus sent Paul to turn people from darkness to light.

That's just not a very politically correct way of putting it now, is it?

How insulting. Because that assumes that those people who are opposing Paul are in the dark. And that's your problem. You've got a darkened mind. In fact, your eyes need to be opened. You're blind. And so all your arguments are coming from the perspective of somebody who can't see and can't think clearly. The issue is not. Well, you know, you got a little bit of evidence, I've got a little bit more evidence, and so my position is more credible. Paul says, you're in the dark, I'm in the light, you are blind. Jesus has made me see that too. Disturbs me when I look at evangelical apologetics. And in the 20th century, very few, if any, seem to be willing to put things in just that stark away. I want to say, well, you know, you're really all right as far as you go. In fact, you're a pretty smart person. I respect your logical ability and your.

Scientific insights and so forth.

And what I'd like to do is play your game, but play it a little bit better. I'd like to take the light that's already there and bring you to the greater light of Jesus. But the Bible sees an antithesis, a conflict between the way of thinking of.

The unbeliever and the way of the believer, right?

Darkness and light, blindness and sight. And so verse 20, not surprisingly indicates that a change of mind is called for, but declared both to them of Damascus first and at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they, they should just take things a little further in.

Their way of thinking, right?

Complete their way of thinking and come to Jesus. You see, the idea is, in much of the apologetical literature that's available, that people are thinking down a certain line, they're going a certain direction, and if they would just do it better, then they eventually reach Jesus. It's kind of like, keep going now, don't stop short. That's going to get you to Jesus. Paul says what? That they should repent. The word repent means turn around. We aren't defending the faith if we encourage people to keep thinking the way they've been thinking. We want to turn them around in their thinking. In fact, one of the Greek words for repentance means metana, means specifically a change of mind. We want them to think differently, to go a different direction, to turn to God and do the works appropriate to repentance. Verse 22. Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses.

That say should come.

I'm quite content to advance that point of view which is found in the Bible. That's all I need to say. Now, granted, I'm going to say more than just that. It's in the Bible. I'm going to ask things like, well, why would you think it's incredible that this God should raise the dead? But the point is, what Paul is presenting as his defense is patterned after what he finds in the Bible. That's why in our outline, I have a major place for looking at the Bible for guidance and apologetics. What does the Bible say about man's thinking about the truth, how we know what we know? That's what we ought to be setting forth, right? We're saying, here's what the Bible says.

You couldn't know anything if you didn't know God.

And so how would you have any position, you know, how would you have any authority? How would you have any credibility to attack what I'm saying thing? And then in verses 25 and 26, we see Paul asserting the truth and reminding us that there's plenty of evidence for it. But Paul said, I am not mad. Most excellent, Festus. Isn't that interesting? I already told you, the way of thinking of the believer and the way of thinking of the unbeliever are really.

In conflict with each other.

When Festus heard all this sort of stuff, he says, paul, you're crazy. Yeah, I mean, you've just gone off the deep end. Paul, you're nuts. How can you believe this?

He says, I'm not nuts.

You got it wrong. And then he embarrasses him. He says, not only am I speaking the words of truth, I'm speaking soberly. And the king knows that these things, and to whom I also speak freely, for I'm persuaded that none of these.

Things is hidden from him. These things haven't been done in a corner. Paul said, I didn't make this up. This is not a madman just, you.

Know, spinning out his own religion arbitrarily.

And that's what people sometimes say, and sometimes people say that's what presuppositionalism is all about. It's like everybody has the right to.

Spin out his own religion.

You start with your presuppositions, we start with ours, and then that's the end of it.

Paul says, no, I'm not going to.

Let it come down to that.

You can't dismiss me as mad. The facts support what I'm saying. I didn't make this up. You've heard this before. You know very well that what I'm saying is a matter of history, and no one has been able to say otherwise. Okay, well, we spent more time on.

This text that I want on the others.

But I thought it was important for you to see that this is what the Bible means when it uses this word, apologia. The biblical concept of apologetics is really much different than the practice of apologetics that we see so much in our day. Two more texts under the biblical usage.

That we can look at briefly.

Philippians 17. Philippians 17. Paul says, even as it is right for me to be thus minded on.

Behalf of you all, because I have.

You in my my heart, inasmuch as both in my bonds and in the apologia, defense and confirmation of the Gospel, you all are partakers with me of grace. That wonderful. Paul says, we're all one in this, and because of God's grace, we have all partaken of God's grace, we are united not only in the proclamation of the gospel, but also in its defense. And then in verse 17, Paul says specifically of himself, but the other proclaim Christ the faction, not sincerely thinking to raise up affliction for me in my bonds.

Now that doesn't look like what I want. Back up a verse. Verse 16, at least in my translation.

The one do it of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel.

Then verse 17. But the other proclaim Christ the faction.

Paul says of himself that he is set for the gospel and the defense of it. And then the word is also found in the New Testament in 2nd Timothy.

4, verses 16 and 17, 2nd Timothy 4, 16, 17.

Paul says, at my first defense, no one took my part.

But all forsook me. May it not be laid to their account. But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and that all the Gentiles might hear. And I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. That's pretty dramatic stuff. Paul knew that he might have been cast to the lions. And in this particular case he says, the Lord stood by me and he was delivered. The Lord stood by him.

But notice what all the other believers round about did. They abandon him. I wouldn't want you to think this entering into a lifestyle of apologetics is.

Going to make you popular.

And it will probably be most distressing.

When you find other Christians too will leave you using our expression, dangling in the wind. Paul knew that experience.

But his apologetic aimed, he says here in second Timothy four, at what end.

Of having the kerygma, the proclamation of the Gospel, more fully accomplished? It's good to give your testimony. It's good to put it in the context of Jewish history and the promise of God and what Jesus has done as the Messiah, the promised Messiah, and the resurrection of the dead.

It's good to proclaim the context that.

God is the Creator and that's why resurrection is possible, and so forth.

But in the end, Paul's aim was.

To see that the full word of God, the full Gospel, was fully proclaimed and accomplished in his life.

Well, that gives you some idea then.

Of how the word is used.

Let's look thirdly at the warrant for.

Apologetic and the need for it. According to the Bible.

The warrant for apologetics is stated explicitly in 1 Peter 3:15, 1st Peter 3:15. I'd like to place this in its.

Own context, however, so I'm going to read a bit more than that. We'll begin reading at the 13th verse. And through the 17th verse, 1st Peter 3:13.

And who is he that will harm you if you be zealous of that which is good? This message is continued on the next tape.