Dr Greg Bahnsen - Taking it to the Streets: Worldviews in Collision (Part 6)

Evolutionary theory is well captured in the title of Darwin's revolutionary book published in 1859, on the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored races in the struggle for Life. Right there in the title of Darwin's book, you notice that he incorporates reference to the means of natural selection. But we now understand after many years of analysis, that Darwin was not proposing a scientific theory at all. That natural selection or survival of the fittest proves not to be a testable hypothesis in science. It is rather a way of looking at the world that says those organisms that survived were obviously the fittest for survival. This is not a testable scientific theory. It is simply the statement of a tautology or a definitional truth. And therefore the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin and his followers turns out to be nothing more but a way of looking at the world, a certain philosophical perspective. Now, I hope this revolutionizes your way of thinking. It is very important for us to understand that the debate over evolution is not a debate in the field of science. It's a debate in field of philosophy. And what is it that I have been trying to teach you this weekend? I hope successfully that everybody has a philosophy of life. You have one, the unbeliever has one. And by doing an internal critique of the unbeliever's philosophy of life, you are able to demonstrate that he has no ground to stand on. He has no gun with which to shoot criticisms at Christianity, because without the Christian worldview, you couldn't do science at all. Evolution is a philosophy, and it's a philosophy that contradicts the teaching of God's word. But the teaching of God's word is necessary as a precondition of intelligibility for doing any science or using rationality. And in that sense, we can say the theory of evolution refutes itself. The theory of evolution standing over against the teaching of God's word about man, the universe, how we know what we know, and how we should live our lives, the theory of evolution undermines science and therefore undermines itself. TH Morgan, who was the Nobel Prize winner for chromosome mapping of the fruit fly, wrote these words. It may appear little more than a truism to state that the individuals that are best adapted to survive have a better chance of surviving than those not so well adapted to survive. Which was his way of admitting, I guess we're only dealing here in truisms or tautology's definitional truths. We're not dealing with science at all. We're dealing with a philosophical point of View, there can really be no question that Darwin had nothing like sufficient evidence that to establish his theory of evolution, no speciation and no evolution, that is macroevolution was ever directly observed in nature. There was no direct evidence that natural selection had ever caused any biological change within a species. Darwin himself said that the infinitude of connecting links between organisms was crucial to his theory of evolution. And yet he was unable to demonstrate even one connecting link. What I'm getting at here is we have one grand philosophical hypothesis. We do not have an observational thesis, we do not have a testable thesis. We simply have a philosophical point of view. In 1874, Professor J. Tyndall, in an address to the British association said, and I quote, the basis of the doctrine of evolution consists of not in experimental demonstration, but in its general harmony with the scientific thought. The day now he was an evolutionist, he was promoting it. But he admitted that the reason why we hold to evolution has nothing to do with experimental demonstration. This is something that expresses the scientific outlook, that is the philosophical perspective of our day. Perhaps even more damaging is the remark made by Stephen J. Gould in 1977 in the journal Paleobiology Volume 3 in an article entitled Punctuated Equilibria. That's very fancy sounding, but it might be worthwhile just to tell you briefly what Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria is all about. It's somewhat humorous. I think it's humorous because Dr. Gold is one of the leading antagonists to creationism in our day. He has written a number of things, he's appeared in court cases and so forth. In fact, a number of years ago, when the Louisiana case was getting ready for trial and depositions were being taken, those who were on the equal treatment side of that issue got in contact with me and asked if I would be the expert witness in philosophy for their point of view. And I said I was glad to do that. Well, Stephen Jay Gould was one of the people on the other side of the ledger and he testified, gave his deposition the same day I did. We happened to wander into the lunch area at the same time. Nobody knows anybody here. We're all strangers to one another. And he's just going off, you know, on how stupid these creationists were and so forth and so on. So I just sat there and listened to thought. That was very interesting. Toward the end of my deposition, I think it was about eight hours of testimony I gave with the ACLU lawyers leading this inquisition. The lawyers stopped the court recorder and said, okay, you know like this is off the record. And it was about 2:30 in the afternoon. I remember this one lawyer sitting and said, this is fascinating. I have never heard anything like this. Why hasn't anybody ever, you know, told us about this? And that's funny, because Here they're representing Dr. Gould and others and they didn't want it on the record, but they had to admit, we don't know how to deal with this. This is really something. Okay, what is punctuated equilibria? Well, I told you earlier that the fossil record does not support evolution at all. Not one piece of evidence in the fossil record for the theory of evolution. Well, now, if you're an evolutionist, and especially if you happen to be a paleontologist, as Dr. Gould is, that's got to be rather embarrassing. Your field of study doesn't offer any evidence for the theory that you're really advocating and evangelizing for. And so he wrote an article in which he attempted to explain why it is we don't have evidence in the fossil record for evolution. And it goes like this. He theorizes that evolution takes place in very short but intense spurts. That throughout the billions of years you'll go many, many, many, many, many, many, many years without any change. And then there'll be a real quick short period of transition and evolutionary change. But then you go many, many, many, many, many, many years and there's no real evolutionary change. And then it happens again. And so what you have is equilibrium, punctuated equilibrium, and in the course of evolution, and now if that is true, then what would happen is the fossil record would be made up of all those spans in between those many years where there's no change taking place. And then when change is taking place, it happens so quickly, so rapidly that there's no time for fossil sedimentation to take place. Now doesn't that sound pretty intelligent? And we call that punctuated equilibria. Well, I'll give you the layman's version of this. The evidence that evolution took place is that there could be no evidence for it. How do you like that? Because of the way evolution worked, you wouldn't expect any evidence in the fossil record because it was punctuated equilibria. Give me a break. It's like when your theory breaks down, you resort to, you know, absurd hypotheses to save yourself. Well, forget that. That was just an aside. In the article punctuated equilibria, I want you to hear what Stephen Jay Gould says about the theory of evolution. He says the general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism. That's evolution. The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance in embedded in the history of Western cultures. It is not a high order empirical observation induced from the objective study of nature. Now, there may be some words in there that you're not real familiar with. When he says it is a metaphysical stance, he's using a word that refers to the study of reality or the nature of what exists. To put it broadly, he's saying it's a philosophical stance. It's our philosophy of reality that we're talking about here. And then when he says it's not a high order empirical observation, empiricism is the view that our knowledge must be based upon sensation or observation. What we know is always based on what we see or what we touch or what we hear and so forth. So now, remembering that, here's what he admits, he says the preference so many of us hold for gradualism and is a philosophical, a metaphysical stance embedded in the history of Western cultures. It is not a high order empirical observation induced from the objective study of nature. Evolution is not a scientific theory. It's not based on the study of nature. He says it's our philosophical preference. And this is one of the leading defenders of evolution, one of the leading critics of creationism in our day. Okay, if I had more time, I would keep pumping this stuff at you, but I hope you've gotten the point by now. Evolution does not go to the facts and show that our philosophy cannot stand. Evolution is just one more philosophy, one more way of looking at reality. And so you can deal with the evolutionist in the same way that you can deal with any other opponent of Christianity that we've been talking about. Louis Bonoir in 1984 wrote in the Advocate, Benohr was the president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg, the director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, and then became the Director of Research at the French center for Scientific Research. This is no lackey here, and here's what he has to say. Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. Or Paul Westermeyer declared in the journal Chemistry in 1965, evolution is useful, but it is a myth. Evolution is useful, but it is a myth. It's not just religious people that have their prejudices that come out and say, evolution is a philosophy, it's not scientific. It's just one more way of looking at the world. It's the unbelievers who hold to evolution who think it's useful, but they're willing to admit you can't scientifically prove evolution. It's not that kind of theory. It's a philosophy of reality. It's a philosophy of man. It's a philosophy of history. It is not something that has arisen from a study of the facts. Well, one last point about evolution. Not only is it philosophical in character, but those who hold to the theory of evolution do so in a very dogmatic and prejudicial way. Why is it that I was involved in a lawsuit, a court case, having to do with equal treatment for creationism and. And evolution? Well, the state of Louisiana, it's not the only place this has happened. But the state of louisiana passed a law that said that in the public school classroom, if there is going to be any teaching about origins and the teacher wishes to cover the theory of evolution, that under those circumstances, the teacher must also cover creationism. It doesn't have to be a religious creationism, but the teacher has to study the evidences against evolution and in favor of abrupt appearance of life. And the aclu sued so that the state of Louisiana could not enforce that law. Now, let me ask you, why is that? Why don't evolutionists want the counter evidence to be presented? Isn't the scientific spirit supposed to be one where you look at all of the evidence and consider your hypotheses? Why do you think evolutionists are so quick to try to legally prevent the counter evidence to be heard? Well, because when your evidence is weak, what you do is you try to silence your opponent. Society for creation research out in southern California has a number of scholars who are able to debate evolutionists in public settings and university campuses and so forth. We find more and more and more that it's difficult to find scientists who will debate the creationist. Why is that? Why don't they want to appear in a public demonstration? Because they've seen the creationists at work and they know how the theory of evolution is whittled down and made to seem absurd very easily. And so what you do is you silence your opponent and you tell people we don't want to debate them because they aren't real scientists. So bad is this that you probably know this? In the state of California, the man who was the head of the department of education, he, by the way, has been indicted for a number of things and has lost his position. We're really sad to see him go. Paul honick actually went after those who were offering degrees and taught a creationist approach to man's origin and wanted it to be the case that you could not gain a degree in California if that's what you had been taught. Why is it that the evolutionists do that? I'll tell you why. It's because evolution is not just philosophical in character, it's religious in character. And the evolutionists, though they would never admit it or put the label on it, the evolutionists are acting like religious people are supposed to act. When they're trying to silence their opponent, they're trying to deal with heresy. The theory of evolution has become the reigning dogma in the scientific guild. Listen to this. In 1959, Julian Huxley declared, the evolution of life is no longer a theory, it is a fact. Can you imagine that somebody being so bold as to declare it to be a fact? It's not even a good theory, much less a fact. It's not even a consistent philosophy, much less a fact. And dedicated evolutionists are very intolerant, certainly as intolerant as they make religious fundamentalists out to be. Those who question the sacred cow of evolution are coincidentally blocked from graduate school admissions, blocked from graduate school success if you get in, not invited to present papers at colloquiums, not reviewed in the journals, and not hired to teach. Just coincidentally, it's the creationist, though they are successful in their field, who get treated that way. The scientific evidence contrary to evolution may not be taught, nor may alternative theories even be presented in most public schools in the United States of America. Here's an incident for you to remember. In 1981, the British Natural History museum presented an exhibit on Darwin's theory of evolution. And if you've been to a museum, you know an exhibit has any number of showings, and then there'll be little placards that explain, explain things and so forth. Well, on one of the many placards introducing this exhibit of Darwin's theory, it was said that Darwinism is one possible explanation. And it admitted that the concept of natural selection is not strictly scientific. Now, just that amount saying that it's not the only one and it's not strictly scientific caused such a sufficient anger and political pressure among evolutionary scientists that the museum was forced to remove any acknowledgement of problems in the Darwinian theory. Darwinism, Evolution is not scientific. It's philosophical. But it's not just philosophical. It's religious philosophy. And it is pursued and defended in a religious way by the true believers. Evolution, what we have here is not at all a scientific mentality. What you find is the theory of evolution is mythical and People who want to believe that myth are willing to fight. So you can't get a job, you can't have a museum display, you can't even hear in a classroom what the evidence against your theory may be. Philip Johnson, in his book Darwin on trial, published in 1991, wrote, what first drew my attention to the question was the way that the rules of argument seemed to be structured to make it impossible to question whether evolution is really true. He said that's what drew his attention, is that the debate seems to be set up in such a way the rules are structured so that it's impossible for you to question whether evolution is true or not. This is very simply a speculative religious commitment on the part of people. It is not scientific at all. Well, that really ends the long list of illustrations I wanted to give you, beginning this morning, on how to apply this method of defending the faith to various kinds of opponents to Christianity. And I know we've had to be rushed many times and sometimes the vocabulary might have missed some of you, but I hope that one way or another, you've caught on to this technique of seeing the unbeliever as promoting a philosophy of life, a philosophy of the nature of reality and how we know what we knew now, how we know what we know and how we should live our lives. That there is a worldview involved in every unbeliever's thinking. And you must go after that worldview. You must keep the unbeliever talking so that you can figure out what he or she thinks about the nature of reality and knowledge and ethics, and then show the arbitrariness, the self contradiction, the difficulties in that worldview. Basically, what I'm encouraging all of you to do is to be like that little boy in the parade route where the king was in his underwear. You remember how everyone was, out of deference for the King, saying what was politically correct that day. Oh, the king's looking really good. What a new set of. Boy, that robe is wonderful. Wow, doesn't the king look great? And there's this one little boy who hadn't learned yet, you know, to be politically correct and so forth. And he's sitting there on the curb, he's listening to all the adults saying this. And he says, what's going on here? It looks to me like the king's in his underwear. The king doesn't have any clothes on. Isn't that the problem in apologetics? That's what you need to learn to do, to be like that little boy. Let the unbeliever Say whatever he wants to say. You don't have to oppose him at every point. You don't have to refute everything he says, but keep him talking. And no matter how arrogant, no matter how confident he may be, no matter how sophisticated or educated it may sound, the unbeliever, if you allow him to talk, is going to finally expose his intellectual nakedness. That's what you are going to be counting on as a Christian, that though they profess themselves to be wise, they become fools. And so just ask the questions, keep it coming, and then show how they are not living consistently with their own philosophy. And then demonstrate that only Christianity provides the foundation or the preconditions for science, for logic, for rationality, for morality, for human dignity, for human freedom. The Christianity provides a basis for all of those things, and the unbelievers perspective does not and cannot do so. And so what you really have here is somebody without a gun trying to shoot bullets at you. Now I want to turn to the question of how to deal with your obstinate brother in law. Now I don't really know whether you have an obstinate brother in law and maybe it's not the brother in law in your family that you need to deal with, but basically the title of this lecture means that I'd like to talk about the style, the methodology that we use, the spirit with which we approach this debate. Because if you will stop and reflect on it, I think you'll see that what has been taught from last night through this morning and this afternoon's lecture really is nuclear strength. It really is potent material. It can deal with any philosophy that comes along. And basically you can blow the unbeliever out of the water. You can utterly silence the unbeliever, reduce him to absurdity. You say, well, that's it, Dr. Bonson, I guess that's all we need to know about apologetics. We got the weapons, let's go to it. And I want to stop you before you run out the door with these weapons and talk to you just a little bit about how to use those weapons just because they are so powerful. I'm afraid that many times we as Christians lose our audience because of the way we conduct ourselves in apologetics. So I want to talk to you about how to deal with that obstinate brother in law. You know, that's the member of the family when you're at Thanksgiving dinner who just can't overlook the opportunity to put in a snide remark about religion. You know, you fundamentalists, you fundamentalists, and the horrible things you've done to homosexuals. And just look at what happens down there in Waco, Texas, when people start reading the Bible and trying to take it seriously and so forth. You know, the obstinate brother in law who wants to ridicule your faith, who doesn't want to really hear any explanation of things, but simply wants to spout off and his religious prejudices because he thinks you're so religiously prejudiced. Enough of you are chuckling that I guess you know the brother in law I'm talking about, right? You've all run into people like that in your family and outside of your family. How should we deal with people when we're defending the faith? This is very important because in first Peter 3, verse 15, which we looked at last night, Peter tells us we need to set Christ apart as Lord in our hearts being ready to give an answer to anyone who asks us a reason for the hope that is in us. But Peter doesn't stop there. He says, yet with gentleness and respect. Peter recognized right then and there that the manner in which you defend the faith is very important if you're truly defending the Christian faith. I know that it is possible because I'm guilty of it. I've seen it in plenty of other people as well. It is possible to defend the Christian faith in a very unchristian manner. And now when that happens, when you lose your temper, let's go back to the Thanksgiving dinner table here for a minute. And your obstinate brother in law's, you know, putting in these jabs against religion and fundamentalism and Bible thumpers and things like that. And then you get involved with this person and you lose your temper and you say some things that really cut this guy down, even though he has it coming and so forth. Now, I want to ask you, what do you think the unbelieving members of your family are going to remember about what you said? I'm just asking as a matter of historical fact. You're nodding your head, you know, right. You may have had superior arguments, your academic points may have been sterling, but what they're going to remember is that you made a fool of yourself at the table because you lost your temper. All right? You can have the strongest academic arguments conceivable and still lose in terms of persuasion because you handled the instruments, you handled the weapons improperly. And so it's very important for us to know how to respond to people. Now. The way in which we enter into apologetical situations where we have to defend the faith is Varied. It differs from situation to situation. So let me go through various kinds of situation, try to offer you a little bit of practical advice about putting into effect what I've taught you already. First of all, when we are asked for a reason, when the unbeliever is saying, well, why do you believe that? And is inquiring of us first? Peter 3:15 refers to that, saying that we should be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks us a reason for the hope that is in us. Now, here you have somebody who says, I don't know why you believe that. Can you explain that to me? Peter makes it very clear that we are to respond with gentleness and with respect to such a person. That doesn't take away any of the boldness of what you are arguing. You can be firm, you can be confident, you can be bold in what you're saying, but you must present that boldness with humility. Now, why is it that we need to be humble when we present the Christian faith to others? How did you become a Christian? Did you become a Christian because of your superior intellect? You figure you kind of figured out everything and you finally came and said, well, if the Bible hadn't been written, I would have figured it out anyway. Of course I know these things are true. Did you become a Christian because of your superiority in terms of religious matters, your moral superiority? Were you just a better person than the people around you? That's why you became a Christian? There isn't anybody here that's really born again that's going to bite on any of those options. Because you know that you did not become a Christian because of anything good in yourself, even your good intellect. As true as Christianity is, and as obvious as it is when we talk through the arguments like we have been doing today, the fact is none of us became Christians because we intellectually figured it out. You know why we became Christians? Because God in His grace, took away our opposition. We were born unable to discern the things of the Spirit. We were born rebels against Heaven. And the hound of heaven came looking for us one day, and he took the stony heart away and put a heart of flesh in its place. He took away the darkness of our minds and enlightened us. He regenerated us when we were dead. That's how we became Christians. Now, if that is true, if everything that you have, even the treasure of the Gospel, the that is so philosophically defensible, if everything you have is by God's grace, and obviously it makes no sense to defend it in an arrogant fashion. One must learn to be gracious in talking about the grace of God. Isn't that horrible when Christians who know the grace of God don't demonstrate a gracious spirit in talking about it? Peter says you need to have humility, be gentle, and show respect. When you answer the question of the unbeliever, don't demonstrate pride, don't demonstrate a spirit of superiority. Now it's going to be hard not to do that because the arguments you have are superior. But you see, people will not distinguish between the superiority of argument and the superiority of the person doing the arguing. And that's why you need to go out of your way to demonstrate a humble spirit. Just because your weapons are so strong, you don't want people to take that as your own pushiness, your own intensity in argumentation. And so avoid when you're arguing with your unbelieving friends, avoid being shrill, avoid being agitated, and by all means avoid seeming angry when you argue. You know what happens when a person becomes shrill and agitated and angry when he's arguing? You know, it's communicated to people. Now, I do a lot of this, but I don't think you have to be a professional debater to have picked this up. You know that when people start getting angry and they start raising the volume, what they usually indicate is their insecurity, don't they? When the argument is weak, you got to reinforce it with other things. And they and that's why you get angry and you kind of, you know, want to punch out these points and you want to raise your voice and so forth, and so pray that God will sanctify you, that you might learn to speak with an even tone, to not lose your temper, to not become shrill, agitated, to seem insecure, and certainly not to seem superior or proud about what you have. If you want to get through to your obstinate brother in law or anybody else you're talking to you, it's important that you show gentleness and respect to them. But now there's another situation that might arise. It's not just an unbeliever who comes with apparently sincere questions about why you believe what you do, but two Timothy chapter two describes the situation when people are questioning you insincerely and are doing so in a way to lampoon you or to ridicule you. 2 Timothy 2, 23, 20, 25. But foolish and ignorant questions refuse, knowing that they engender strife. And the Lord's servant must not strive or quarrel, but be gentle towards all apt to teach forbearing in gentleness correcting them that oppose themselves if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth. Here Paul is envisioning a situation where someone asks a question, but it's a foolish question. It's not like somebody saying, I really want to understand why you Christians believe this. How can you believe in miracles? What about evil? Whatever. But you've got somebody else who's asking you questions. But there's a barb in the question. There's a put down in the question. They're trying to cut you low so they ask stupid and foolish things. You may have an obstinate brother in law at Thanksgiving dinner who says, well, what do you think? After dinner should we go get the baseball bats so you Christians can beat up the homosexuals, eh? The Bible says don't answer that question. Sometimes the best defense, the most persuasive thing you can do is to be quiet. Don't give in to these questions that are foolish, ridiculous and intended really just to bring you down here, silence is what is called for. That you might ignore the sarcastic attack. You might ignore the stupid question that has been asked. And Paul says, be forbearing instead. But foolish and ignorant questionings refuse, knowing that they engender question. Quarrel or strife. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all. Apt to teach forbearing, you need to avoid strife and quarreling. And when you answer a sarcastic question, you're just upping the level of strife and quarreling there at the dinner or wherever you may be. The interesting thing here is that though the Bible says you should ignore that question, that is not given into it, not play along with this sarcastic game. After doing so, it is appropriate at whatever time to give an answer. Because it goes on to say, the Lord's servant must not quarrel, but be gentle. Apt to teach forbearing. And now listen in gentleness correcting them that oppose themselves if peradventure, God may grant them repentance unto a knowledge of the truth. Truth you do answer, but you don't answer right. Then you wait for the appropriate time and then when you answer, you do it with gentleness. Now you may say, but Dr. Bonson, you don't understand. For the last 14 years I've been putting up with this from this guy at the table. So if I keep answering with gentleness, everyone in my family is going to say we Christians are wimps. We can't hold our own. Well, I think we probably worry too much about that. I'm not sure that Everybody does interpret it as being wimpish rather than being polite and courteous and so forth. But even in those few cases where people say, ah, see those Christians, they can't give as well as they take, they don't come back with the same kind of, you know, fire breathing dragon sarcastic responses and so forth. Even those people who may think there's something lacking in us will nevertheless be impressed by the way in which we are able to suffer silently. The Bible tells you that that is a testimony to Jesus Christ because Jesus suffered that way. You remember what Peter tells us in First Peter about how when he was reviled, he reviled not again. That is the good testimony that shows integrity. And even though he you may think people will continue to disrespect you because you're not fighting back with the same kind of sarcasm that the unbeliever gives you, you in fact are offering a testimony that will go to the heart and will be remembered. But Timothy tells us, or Paul tells Timothy here in Second Timothy two, that after you are silent and you ignore that sarcastic attack, there may be a time when gentle correction is appropriate. And when you give this correction, you must aim to offer insight into how the unbeliever opposes himself, to show how he's really arguing against himself when he has these complaints and criticisms of your Christian faith. But do it gently. Try to instruct him along the way. I know a situation where a young fellow who was a Christian joined the Navy, and he was in a particular unit where his testimony was known. And the people that were in that unit with him wanted to give him a very hard time. And the way in which they did that is that they would use foul language around him all the time, and especially they would take God's name in vain. It was very evident to him that they were trying to antagonize him. They went out of their way to take God's name in vain, hoping that it would get a rise out of him. I want to tell you the story because I think it's remarkable. I'm sure there are others like it, but in my experience I've rarely heard something quite this good. And this young man was given by God's grace, wisdom to know how to deal with this situation. He put up with it a long time. He didn't answer the barbs, he didn't deal with the sarcasm and so forth. He was just silent. And then one day somebody had taken the name of Jesus in vain, had been particularly blasphemous in the way that he had Spoken. And the young man finally responded. And when he did, he said, not with antagonism, not with a pugnacious spirit, but he simply said, very firmly but kindly, I guess you don't know him, do you? Because if you knew him, you wouldn't talk that way about him. You know, that's one of those cases where you take a feather and it knocks over, you know, a whole army. If he had come back, you know, with some kind of angry remark, then, boy, you can be sure they would have pounced on him. Maybe not physically. Well, maybe physically, too, but, boy, they would have said, great, now we're going to give it to him. But he didn't give him anything to hit back at. He simply pointed out that if you knew this Jesus, you wouldn't defile his name in that way. That's how you gently instruct those who are opposing themselves. That's how you bring conviction without having to lower yourself to the level of your opponent. And I don't by any means have that level of wisdom and sanctification myself. I'm loath to use myself as an illustration, but I remember one time in my own life when a similar kind of situation arose. I had been taken to the doctor, actually to the emergency room, with what I thought was stomach problems causing some distress for my heart. I had open heart surgery. My cardiologist wanted me to come into the hospital and just check it out. Well, it turned out when I got there that what I thought was stomach flu was actually a bleeding ulcer. And so they decided they wanted to go in that afternoon. And it's a horrible procedure. They put this thing down my throat and they're going to try to cauterize the bleeding ulcer in my intestine itself. Well, anyway, they went in and it was a very uncomfortable procedure. Not at all the sort of thing I would wish on anybody. But after the doctor was in there, he said, I'm sorry, Greg, there's so much blood in your intestine, I cannot find the source. And so we're going to have to do major stuff, surgery now. Because I'd been. I mean, I know the hospital routine. I've had open heart surgery a couple times, so forth. So I asked him, I said, so you want me to come back on Monday and check into the hospital for surgery? He said, no, if we don't get you into surgery within an hour, you'll be dead. The interesting thing is I had not wanted to go to the hospital, and I resisted doing it, saying, I'm going to Be okay and so forth. If I had done that, I would have died. So I do believe God controls the universe, and I give him thanks for saving my life. But anyway, when I had to have this surgery on my stomach, one of the things they have to do, and I don't wish to gross any of you out, but they put a tube in your nose, down through your esophagus into your stomach. And that's very uncomfortable. But not only is it uncomfortable when they first do it something, but after that tube has been in there a few days, all of the soft membranes in your nose and face down your throat have been irritated, and it just hurts like the dickens. To turn your head now becomes, you know, excruciating pain and so forth. Well, anyway, so I'm in the hospital recovering from the surgery, and I think it was the third or fourth day after the surgery. And the surgeon, whom I had never met because they, you know, put me under and took me into the operating room, and he came in and saved my life, but he was in, and he asked if there was anything that I wanted. And so I said it'd be nice to get rid of this tube out of my nose. And he looked at me and he said something which to this day, I still can't imagine one human being this cruel. But he looked at me and he said, oh, you can't just pray that away, huh? He had obviously noticed on my chart that I was a minister, okay? So he knew that I was a religious person. And in my pain, in my discomfort and simply asking, can we get rid of this? Pretty soon his comeback was, oh, you can't just pray that away, huh? Sarcasm. Now, believe me, it would have been easy for me to think it's time to punch out this guy's lights. What a nasty remark. Somehow God, however, gave me a sanctified demeanor and a response. And I simply said, it doesn't work that way. And it's because I did not pick up on his barb. And I was able to say, it doesn't work that way. That later I was able to testify to this doctor to explain to him what prayer is about the sovereignty of God, and that sometimes we are put through pain for God's good purposes. And so, yes, I can pray about it, but no, I can't automatically pray it away. But you see, I could not have done that if I would have given in to the foolish question, oh, you can't just pray it away. You have to ignore that. You have to ignore the sarcasm and wait for the opportunity to do gentle correcting. That's what 2 Timothy 2:23 25 tells us. Don't enter into the quarrel. Wait for the opportunity to do gentle Correction. Then Proverbs 15:15:1, I think, is a verse that you should take into account when you think about the methodology of defending the faith. Proverbs 15:1 says, A soft answer turns away wrath. A soft answer turns away wrath when you are pressed by somebody who is angry and insulting. The Bible tells us that you must respond with a soft answer. Don't give back what you have received. Don't retaliate. Don't revile when you have been reviled. You might look at Romans 12:14, 21 in this respect, because it is part of our Christian testimony that under circumstances like this that we respond in a gracious way. Romans 12:14 21 Bless them that persecute you, bless and curse not. And then jump down to verse 21 be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. If you really wish for your defense of the Christian faith to be persuasive and powerful, then much will have to do with your lifestyle, with your demeanor, with the way in which you respond to the questions, to the reviling, to the ridicule, to the charges, the challenges that are brought to you by the unbeliever. A soft answer will turn away wrath. And if you bless those who are persecuting you, that will be used of God to draw them to himself. It will be a testimony to his own grace that is powerful in your life. You don't overcome evil by becoming evil. You overcome evil by doing good. Then one last passage we'll look at and take a break. Acts the 17th chapter, shows us Paul dealing with the philosophers in the city of Athens, especially those of the Areopagus Council who were charged in Athens with dealing with those who were new teachers in the city, and especially those who introduced new gods. Acts 17 we can't look at the whole thing, but let me just consider verses 19 and 20. First of all, and they took hold of him and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, may we know what this new teaching is which is spoken by thee, for thou bringest certain strange things to our ears. We would know therefore what these things mean. Then verse 22 and Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that you are very and now we don't know how to interpret this word. Well, we do know how to interpret it. The problem is English doesn't give us the Equivalent of the Greek expression. The Greek expression says you are very religious, but not religious in a complementary way. Religious in the superstitious way. I see from what is all around me that you have a religious interest. But it's a very ignorant religion indeed. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription to an unknown God. What therefore you worship in ignorance. This I set forth unto you. Now this is tremendous. Notice Paul is respectful, though people have made fun of him. In fact, when they heard that he preached about Jesus and the resurrection, they thought that he was talking about strange God gods. The reason for that is because in Greek Jesus is in the in the male gender, but resurrection is female. And so the Greeks assumed that he was talking about a male. It was declared on the day of its founding that there is no resurrection. When the dust drinks up a man's blood, it was said there is no resurrection. Now here's Paul declaring Jesus in the resurrection. The they want to know about this. And Paul responds with dignity, with courtesy, with respect. But he's very bold. He gets right to the point. Having been challenged on this point, he doesn't react to their mocking. He doesn't react to their name calling. He says, you men of Athens, I see that you have an interest in religion. However, it is an ignorant interest in religion. In fact, so ignorant are you that you even have an altar to an unknown God. Have you ever stopped to think about that? Does it make any sense to have an altar to an unknown God? If you don't really know anything about this God, you don't know that he's going to be pleased with an altar, do you? You don't know how to approach him. And so on the one hand, notice the presuppositional analysis. On the one hand, you think you know about religious things, but on the other hand you admit you don't know what you're talking about. Which is it? You don't know? You do know, Paul says, what you do in ignorance, or what you do showing your ignorance, I declare with authority unto you. And Paul went on to set the Christian worldview over against the non Christian worldview of his hearers. He made the antithesis between them very clear. But he also indicated that none of them can escape guilt before God. They really do know God. In fact, he says, even your own poets have said we are his offspring. He says, you cannot escape knowing this God even though you admit your ignorance. And when Paul gets done, notice what happens. Verse 32. Now, when they heard of the resurrection of the dead. Some mocked boy. That's discouraging for the preacher, isn't it? He began with people who were mocking the resurrection. He offers his defense when it gets done. Some mocked. Would you please remember that so that you don't get discouraged after you've defended the faith and you see the unbeliever walk away with the same sarcasm, the same criticisms that he started with. That's what happens sometimes. But it's encouraging too, because the Bible says, But others said, we will hear thee concerning this yet again. There will be people who say, man, I don't know quite what to say. I'd like to hear more about this. And then. And thus Paul went out from among them. But certain men clave unto him and believed, among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damorus and others with them. There were many who mocked him. Some said, we'll hear more about this. But Luke tells us there were others who were converted because Paul took this approach. In fact, some of them were so well known that they are named for us in the text. Dionysius and and Damaris must have been prominent enough citizens that it made sense for Luke to put it in the Book of Acts. These are names that would be recognized. And so when you look at the outcome of your apologetical endeavor, don't adjust your message and don't adjust your God glorifying procedure, demeanor and manner on the basis of what you see in terms of consequences. Again, the Holy Spirit will see to it. If people are going to be converted by what you have to say, some will continue to mock, some will want to know more about it. But others, even prominent people, are going to be changed. When you approach things in the manner that we've been talking about, you set the unbeliever's worldview over against the Christian's worldview, and you reduce the unbeliever's worldview to absurdity. You don't really know what you're talking about. That's what Paul said to them. But I will declare what God himself has has said about who he is and about how you need to be right with Him. That's how you deal with your obstinate brother in law. Take account in the situation and remember that the message of Christianity needs to be translated into the method by which you communicate it so that God's grace is made evident in what you say and also the way that you say it. When we come back after a break, we'll talk about the apologetical implications for education and whether neutrality is even a possibility. Thanks.