Giving an Answer – Part 3. Knowledge; Biblical Examples
1 Peter 3:15

WeÕre not going to get into a Scripture per se until a little later on, but IÕm going to review it just a little bit. Our topic, as we see, is continuing. ItÕs our third lesson on ŌGiving an Answer,Ķ coming out of 1 Peter 3:15, that we are to give an answer for the hope that is in us.

 

That scares some people, and if it scares you, itÕs because you really havenÕt trained yourself to know the answers. ThatÕs really a problem. I think I pointed this out at the very beginning, if you were a Mormon or a JehovahÕs Witness or some other cult, you would be well prepared by Sunday School to always know all the answers. They roleplay; they do all kinds of things. I would say most—I mean 98%, 99%— of evangelical churches donÕt train people like that.

 

So they get caught in an elevator. You know, if youÕre in any kind of sales or motivation, you always know you need to have your elevator speech—youÕve got 20 seconds to make your case. Right? YÕall have heard that? YouÕre in an elevator and somebody says, ŌTell me why you believe in Jesus.Ķ Most Christians are just going to stammer and stutter, and then the doors are going to open and thatÕs it—lost the opportunity, because weÕre really not trained. We donÕt know what to say; we donÕt how to say it. And thatÕs really both the issues involved in what is known as apologetics—what to say and how to say it.

 

Now, interestingly enough, there are a couple of major release films that are out there that do some of this. One that is opening this weekend is based on a book by Lee Strobel, a Christian lawyer. ItÕs been out for a long time. HeÕs written a series of books called, The Case for É YouÕve got The Case for a Creator, and then he wrote one called The Case for Christ. ThatÕs the film thatÕs coming out this week. IÕve heard a little bit about it. I havenÕt seen it; I havenÕt researched it. I have read the book, and itÕs a very solid book on presenting the Christian evidence.

 

Now, Christian evidences, as we are going to see as we go through this, is a subcategory of apologetics. A lot of people think apologetics equal Christian evidences, but apologetics is the broad category and Christian evidences is something that is a subcategory of apologetics. ThereÕs a lot of debate, and I hope we get to that question that weÕve been going through some time tonight.

 

So thatÕs the first one, and the other film that was shown I think a week ago. It only has two showings, and itÕs put out by SamaritanÕs Purse—thatÕs Franklin GrahamÕs ministry—and itÕs called Facing Darkness. One time to see it—7 oÕclock Monday night; so IÕm not going to see it, because IÕm going to be out of town Monday night.

 

But it is the story of the doctor in Liberia who was infected with Ebola three or four years ago when they had that massive Ebola outbreak. We were talking about it this last weekend. When I was in Tucson last week I was teaching at Tucson Bible Church, which is where Dan Hill goes when heÕs in town. John Hintz is the pastor; Dan Hill goes there.

 

Dan and Pat were missionaries for a number of years in Liberia, and they lived down the street—four or five houses down—from this doctor who got Ebola. They were friends; they knew him personally; they knew the situation. In the Calvinist luck of circumstances, they were home on furlough that year, and so they missed all of that excitement—the infectious excitement of Ebola. ThatÕs just a couple things to pay attention to—presenting Christianity through film. That is one way to give a defense.

 

IÕve been going through this and trying to methodically lay out what apologetics is all about. It seems mysterious to some people. Some people have misconceptions. IÕm trying to logically lay that out.

 

We defined apologetics.

  1. What is apologetics?
  2. Why should we learn about apologetics?
  3. Why do some people object to apologetics? And weÕre still answering question three.
  4. The Bible doesnÕt use apologetics, why should we? IÕve heard that before.
  5. What is the difference between Apologetics and Christian evidences? I hope we will get there tonight.
  6. On what basis then do we defend, support, and argue that Christianity is the one and only TRUTH? That is a foundational question, as weÕll see as we go through this.

 

We look at what apologetics was, and itÕs from the Greek word APOLOGIA, which doesnÕt mean to make an apology, or to admit guilt, or something like that. It was a legal term, and it basically meant Ōto present a well-reasoned defense.Ķ This is from the Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Greek English Lexicon, and this is stated that it means:

 

  1. to make a defense or reply
  2. the act of making a defense

 

ThatÕs the basic meaning, how itÕs used, the noun or verb is used 17 times in the New Testament with either the sense of vindication or making a defense in each of its uses.

Now, along the lessons that IÕve gone through are posted two works that Charlie Clough wrote. One is called Giving an Answer. The other is called Theology and Apologetics.

 

Giving an Answer was actually the second edition under that name. He wrote that—itÕs about 41 pages, I think, double-spaced typed. ItÕs not long, but it is pretty compact, the contents pretty heavy. He wrote that in the middle to late 1970s, which was fortuitous because I got it, I think, right before I was taking a course in seminary on apologetic systems and that really helped me think things through.

 

He wrote a little more advanced article that appeared in a collection of works, and that article is called Theology and Apologetics. He says this: ŌAPOLOGIA describes a carefully reasoned defense in response to a line of questioning or wrongful accusation by recognized authorities.Ķ

 

SomebodyÕs going to ask you, ŌWhy do you believe what you believe?Ķ Or theyÕre going to say, ŌI canÕt believe you believe that,Ķ with a critical tone, which is automatically designed to put you on the defensive. So, immediately, youÕve got to make sure youÕre walking by the Spirit and you donÕt let them put you on the defensive. And we need to think about how to put them back on the defensive by responding, ŌAnd you donÕt?Ķ Things like that just to get it back on them. DonÕt be put in a position where you are answering their questions; flip it back on them so they have to answer the questions from their side. That way, youÕre going to find out if theyÕre just repeating something theyÕve heard or if they actually have thought things through, and then you can go from there.

 

Charlie also made this observation in these couple of paragraphs. He says. ŌFrom this we see that the definition involves the knowledge of facts.Ķ How do you know facts? How do you know itÕs a fact? WhatÕs a fact? Most of us just sort of assume that there is such a thing as what one apologist calls a Ōbrute fact.Ķ It is what it is, and itÕs obvious what it means. But those things donÕt exist. Every fact is automatically interpreted by the person who sees the fact.

For example, if you go to the Grand Canyon and youÕre with an evolutionist, youÕre going to see a fossil and heÕs going to see a fossil, and immediately youÕre going to make certain conclusions because you understand that that fossil was killed at the flood and he understands that it was laid down over millions and millions of years. The only fact there is that there are the remains of something that had died in the rock structure. ItÕs preserved—the outline, or form, or shape of it—not anything of the original organic material. It is shaped there, and immediately itÕs interpreted. Well, anything that is immediately interpreted has been run through some sort of interpretive framework or agenda and comes out the other end with a meaning. So, to have a meaningful discussion about it, you have to think about it a little bit and ask the right questions. ThatÕs part of apologetics.

 

Then I pointed out that some people say, ŌWhy do we need to learn about apologetics?Ķ I got a copy of ChaferÕs Systematic Theology; thereÕs no category of apologetics there.Ķ There is a big debate: Is apologetics something you do before theology, or is it part of systematic theology? Either way, I think that it should be part of systematic theology in some way.

 

But, actually, when you study any area theology, each area of theology has its own arena of giving a rational defense for it. You make a case for why we believe in a triune God. ThatÕs usually spelled out pretty well in the chapter on the Trinity. And that is part of an apologetic; it is a rational explanation of why we believe in a triune God, giving the biblical data.

 

Scripture commands that we do apologetics. Titus 1:9 I mentioned.

 

Also, because as believers it strengthens our own faith—that we havenÕt just believed something because it was something our parents told us, or because we grew up with it, or something like that. We come to understand there is a logical, rational, historical foundation for the faith, and it is credible.

 

Also, it will advance us spiritually. ThatÕs 2 Corinthians 10:4-5, that we are Ōcasting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.Ķ ThatÕs part of apologetics—destroying the arguments that are set up against Christianity.

 

It was important for the Apostle Paul in Philippians 1:7 and 1:17. HeÕs appointed to the defense of the gospel, and that leads to—same verses—the fifth point.

 

I pointed out that both thought and communication require it. So thatÕs why we should learn apologetics.

 

The third question is, ŌWhy do some people object to apologetics?Ķ

 

I pointed out several things. First of all, I think a lot of people misunderstand what apologetics is. They think itÕs apologizing for Scripture or something like that. Some people get the idea that youÕre trying to argue somebody into the kingdom with facts, and thatÕs not biblical apologetics because we recognize from the Bible that the problem isnÕt a lack of knowledge—although that may be part of it. The problem isnÕt a lack of intellection. The problem is ultimately one of volition, and we will see that as we look at some Scripture tonight.

 

Some people donÕt understand what apologetics is, and so they either misunderstand the concept or they have a fallacious epistemology. By that I mean they have a mystical way of knowing, and especially the mystics who are called fideists. IÕm going to explain these terms a little more tonight—they think that, ŌYou just believe!Ķ ThatÕs all, ŌYou just believe.Ķ You donÕt need a rational argument for the truth. We will talk about that as we go along.

They would say the Bible does not need to be defended. God canÕt be known by human reason. Natural humanity can understand. Jesus refused to give signs for evil men. But He gave signs for others—thatÕs the whole Gospel of John. ItÕs built around seven signs plus the sign of the resurrection.

 

The other reason I pointed out last time is that some people object to apologetics because they argue from a false or misunderstood biblical presupposition. In other words, theyÕve got some flaws in their own thinking. WeÕll look at that. ThatÕs where I ended last time.

 

I put this chart up, which is familiar to everybody; it is somewhat challenging, but you should be familiar with this. How do you know what you know? How the people were here for the Chafer Conference and heard David Roseland talk about Scottish Common Sense Realism? Scottish Common Sense Realism was really articulated by Thomas Reed, formally a Scottish Presbyterian pastor and then went into philosophy, and he basically is responding to David Hume and the skepticism in that stage of the Enlightenment. He is arguing, ŌWe may not be able to articulate everything, but itÕs common sense. We do know things, and we know them with conviction,Ķ and so thatÕs where that came from. I think part of his answer is correct. Because, remember, he came to this from a position of being a solid biblical pastor, so his thinking was grounded in the Word, and so the Word is still his presupposition. There were also some flaws with it as well.

 

But, basically, there are four ways in the history of thought that people have said that we come to know things. What is your ultimate authority? When somebody says, ŌWell, how do you know thatÕs true?Ķ How are you going to answer that? These are the answers that have been set up historically.

So, in the chart IÕve got the System, the Starting Point, and the Method. The first one is called rationalism and rationalism starts with the idea that man is created with certain innate ideas and that he has faith in human ability. PlatoÕs the example in the ancient world; Descartes is the example in the modern world. DescartesÕs famous statement was, in Latin, cogito ergo sum, ŌI think, therefore I exist.Ķ This is so important. He said, ŌHow do I know I exist? Maybe IÕm just a figment of GodÕs imagination, and God just sort of put this into my head to think that IÕm feeling and IÕm thinking; and I donÕt even exist. How do I know I exist?Ķ As he went through everything, he doubted everything that was around him. ŌIÕm not sure that exists. Maybe God is just giving me a mirage, or an illusion. Finally, he said, ŌIf IÕm thinking, if I have self-consciousness, then I must exist,Ķ and that became his starting point.

 

So, it is unaided human reason—thatÕs a starting point. I can build out a complete view of life and come to all knowledge just from that starting point. He believed in logic and reason, but itÕs unaided, itÕs independent of God, independent of any revelation. Rationalism always fails, because it operates within a closed system. It ignores the fact that itÕs an open system—the universe and everything is an open system—because GodÕs out there, and God has intervened in what people perceive as a closed system. And God speaks to that closed system.

 

ItÕs what Francis Schaeffer titled his third book in his trilogy. Francis Schaeffer is someone that you should know—difficult to read. I first started reading SchaefferÕs trilogy, The God Who is There, Escape from Reason, and He is There and He is Not Silent. That was the first one I read; I read it out of order, but it made sense to me.

 

I started reading Escape from Reason. It started bringing in a lot of philosophy and history of ideas and everything, and it was just over my head. It is a little 90-page book. ThatÕs where I learned that you need to read the last chapter first; when I got to the last chapter, everything else in the book made sense so I had to go back and reread it.

 

About that same time, Sherrill Hannish (Calvert), who comes to this church, was going to Texas Tech to Lubbock Bible Church, and she was back in town. I ran into her at the Camp Peniel headquarters, and I said, ŌHow is Charlie doing? How is Lubbock Bible Church? Because I hadnÕt heard much from Charlie since he had done his pastoral internship at Berachah in Õ67, I believe. She said, ŌGreat. IÕve got some tapes here. Why donÕt you take them?Ķ And she handed me his basics—not his first short basics, but a long basic series where heÕs talking through Francis SchaefferÕs categories. And I listened to Charlie and went, ŌAhh, now what IÕm reading makes sense!Ķ

 

When I go back now—and IÕve gone back several times the last several years to read Francis Schaeffer—I am amazed at how prescient he was. He understood that we had crossed the divide from modernism to postmodernism before anybody was even using that terminology. It is phenomenal to go back, because he is so insightful in whatÕs going on in our culture. But he shows that rationalism doesnÕt solve the problems. Neither does empiricism.

 

Empiricism is based on sense perceptions. ItÕs a foundation of the scientific method but still faith in human ability to properly interpret the data. It, like rationalism, is an independent use of logic and reason. But then thereÕs the rejection of rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism and empiricism are always followed by skepticism. Nnobody can live as a genuine skeptic, so they leap into the void of faith. What they identify as faith—thatÕs mysticism, and it emphasizes an inner, private experience. ItÕs based on intuition, ŌI just know what I know. I donÕt need logic or reason to know itÕs true.Ķ Again, itÕs still faith in human ability, but now itÕs based on something thatÕs not logical, not rational, and non-verifiable. ItÕs irrationalism.

 

WeÕve been living in a world dominated by irrationalists at the academic level since the early 20th century. If you donÕt understand that, youÕll never grasp whatÕs going on in our crazy world today. When you get up and read the paper and you say, ŌHow in the world can these people do these things? DonÕt they understand whatÕs going on?Ķ No! Because at a foundational level they have rejected reason and empiricism as a means to get to an understanding of the world and they are operating on pure irrationalism and mysticism. The only answer is revelation—God speaks into the closed system—objective revelation of God and the dependent use of logic and reason.

 

I go through this a lot, but I know a lot of folks just donÕt have the background. Every time I do this more light bulbs go off—those LEDs get a little brighter. Okay? But each of the systems of epistemology—of knowledge—has an affinity to a school of apologetics. So, rationalism has an affinity with classical apologetics, which says that the common ground between you and the unbeliever—whether heÕs an aborigine in Africa or whether he is a PhD from MIT or Harvard—is logic and reason. ThatÕs classic apologetics.

 

Evidentialism is the second approach. Now these are strategies, okay? These are three different strategies up here, and then weÕll see a fourth strategy on the bottom. Evidentialism looks at the common ground as being facts—facts of history, facts of science. We can all agree that facts are true. The problem is, there is no such thing as an uninterpreted fact; interpretation is where you get into a problem.

 

Mysticism says you donÕt need logic or reason to come to faith in God. You just need to have an existential encounter with God; you just need to have this experience.

 

See, a lot of this gets all muddied after Immanuel Kant. Mysticism really is existentialism. I remember when I had a blinding flash of light, about two or three weeks into my first semester in seminary, sitting around talking, and realizing that mysticism is foundational to, among other things, existentialism. And itÕs, ŌI donÕt need to have a logical explanation for anything; I just had this encounter with God.Ķ Can you name a group of Christians that just live on that street? Anybody?

 

Name a group of Christians that are functional mystics, epistemological mystics. DonÕt confuse me with what the Scripture says; I know it!Ķ Charismatics! Pentecostals! ŌDonÕt confuse me with reason or logic; I just know it! IÕve had this experience; IÕve had an encounter with God.Ķ And what IÕve said for 50 years now is if you are an existential postmodern relativist Christian, and you become saved—and you may be saved—and you go into a Pentecostal, Charismatic, feel-good church, you can go from being a Christian to being a feel-good existential Christian with an encounter with God without changing your worldview. All youÕve done is youÕve added Jesus and the cross to your worldview, but youÕre still a postmodern existentialist in your worldview; youÕre still basing everything on having some kind of emotional encounter with what you think is truth.

 

ItÕs not just Charismatics, but you have a lot of Baptists, a lot of Bible church people, a lot of evangelicals, who are soft mystics. A soft mystic fits right into this category. The reason they are absolutely dead in Christ—and IÕm not talking about spiritually dead—I mean carnally dead—they donÕt have any clue as to whatÕs going on biblically—is because theyÕve never changed their worldview.

 

What does Romans 12:2 say? It says weÕre to have our mind renewed by transforming—not be conformed to the culture. Well, the cultureÕs mystical. You were born a mystic, youÕve grown up a mystic. Though many of you may be a little bit older, so you have some modernist presuppositions and ideas; you also have a lot of postmodern relativistic ideas. You can go from being a postmodern relativist that rejects Christ to a postmodern relativist that accepts Christ, and you havenÕt changed your worldview. You are still conformed to the world, the zeitgeist.

 

What does Paul say? It comes after salvation. You are not to be conformed or pressed into the image of the—it uses AIONIOS, not KOSMOS, there—zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, and the spirit of the age is postmodern mysticism. ThatÕs why you have Christians today who are violating every moral code in the book because they are postmodern—they think that itÕs all relative, and theyÕve abused grace.

 

These, though, are your three approaches to apologetics that I think are ultimately grounded in human viewpoint thinking. We will talk about that a little more, but youÕve got to understand the vocabulary here or youÕll miss 90% of what IÕm going to say.

 

Revelation, though, gives birth to what is called the presuppositional school, which presupposes the truth of Scripture. Now IÕm going to go back and review this all again in just a minute, but that gives you the one sentence flyover of each of these views.

 

Now, having said all of that—it took 25 minutes to review here. These two verses in Proverbs are foundational, and they may seem like thereÕs a contradiction here. If youÕre like a lot of Christians, youÕll just read through them and go, ŌHmmm. I just donÕt understand that,Ķ and keep right on going rather than thinking about it.

 

What does it mean? Proverbs 26:4, ŌDo not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.Ķ Then verse five says, ŌAnswer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.Ķ ŌWell, wait a minute. It sounds to me like that violates the law of non-contradiction.Ķ Now, IÕll get there in a minute. The law of non-contradiction is your foundational law in logic that says something canÕt be both true and not true at the same time in the same way. Okay? In other words, a house cannot be both blue and green at the same time in the same way. ItÕs either one or the other. You canÕt contradict yourself.

 

But here it says, ŌDonÕt answer a fool,Ķ and the next verse says, ŌAnswer a fool.Ķ


ŌSee, I told you the Bible has contradictions in it! How do you understand this?Ķ

 

Okay, hereÕs how we understand it. Verse 4, ŌDo not answer a fool according to his folly.Ķ DonÕt answer the fool. How does the Bible use the word Ōfool?Ķ A fool is a person who presuppositionally rejects God. Psalm 14:1, ŌThe fool has said in his heart,ÔThere is no God.Õ Ķ He is not a fool first and then an atheist; he is a fool because heÕs an atheist. Because, ŌThe fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.Ķ So because he doesnÕt fear God, he is automatically a fool; he is not wise.

 

This is his presupposition. IÕm going to go back and forth up here. Here you have the believer, and heÕs talking to the unbeliever over here. The unbeliever overhears an atheist. He says, ŌI donÕt believe in God. I donÕt believe thereÕs absolute truth. I donÕt believe the Bible.Ķ The believer is over here operating on divine viewpoint, and heÕs got to figure out how to talk to this unbeliever over here. What do they have in common? What is the point of contact? If I say, ŌYou need to believe this because itÕs the truth,Ķ heÕs going to say, ŌHow do you know itÕs the truth?Ķ

 

HeÕs going to have a system of how you would prove it, but ultimate proof for him is going to be on the foundation of human autonomous reason. And youÕre over here saying, ŌI canÕt appeal to human autonomous reason because that would be answering him according to his folly.Ķ His folly is, ŌThere is no God.Ķ So, reason is something that man developed and it didnÕt come from God.

 

As a Bible-believing Christian, I must understand that logic is embedded within the Godhead, and I canÕt grant his presupposition or act as if itÕs true and then try to argue him into the kingdom, into salvation, at all. It just wonÕt work.

 

You canÕt answer the fool according to his presuppositions. ThatÕs why I have the diagram here. HereÕs a Christian missionary. HeÕs trying to talk to the fool, the unbeliever, the pagan who is on human viewpoint whether heÕs a pagan animist, or whether heÕs a postmodern secular atheist, or whatever he is, ŌWhat is your common ground?

 

What are you going to appeal to for absolute truth? Is it going to be reason? ThatÕs category one—those are the classical apologists. TheyÕre going to say you appeal to reason—that is your common ground—you both agree as to what logic is. But thatÕs not true.

 

Or facts—thatÕs the empiricist. Are you going to appeal to intuition? No, thatÕs the mystic. You never give up your assumption of revelation. You say, ŌWait a minute. That sounds circular.Ķ We will get to that in a minute.

 

Now, the next verse says, ŌAnswer a fool according to his folly.Ķ So, the first one says, ŌDo not answer fool according to his folly,Ķ donÕt accept his presuppositions in the way you answer him. You can answer him in a way that undercuts your own argument. A lot of people that you talk to are not going to be sophisticated thinkers enough to understand that. And IÕve done it. YouÕve done it. WeÕve gotten away with it because the person weÕre talking to doesnÕt have their MasterÕs degree in philosophy from the University of Rice, so they donÕt have a problem.

 

But there are some people that weÕre going to talk to that are a little more sophisticated. TheyÕve watched a lot of shows on the Discovery Channel or the History Channel, and theyÕre going to regurgitate some of the things that theyÕve said.

 

So, we answer a fool according to his folly. His folly is his presuppositional framework that there is no God and everything is a product of time plus chance and that somehow brought order out of chaos. ThatÕs his foundational assumption about reality—that itÕs impersonal. So what we are going to do is weÕre going to answer him, recognizing heÕs got this foundation thatÕs a foundation of quicksand.

 

Remember JesusÕ story? You have two people, one builds his house on quicksand and one builds it on rock. When the storms of life come, the house thatÕs built on quicksand falls apart and the house thatÕs built on rock stands. Well, the unbelieverÕs built his house. You know this! His house is built on quicksand—whether he admits it or not is irrelevant. You know heÕs built his house on quicksand.

 

What do you want to do? You want to be like the big bad wolf and huff and puff and blow his house down. You want to answer him according to his folly, which means you want to answer in such a way that you demonstrate that he doesnÕt have the right to say what he is saying based on his presuppositions. HeÕs presupposing thereÕs no God, and there is no order, and there is no prediction, and heÕs going to start talking.

 

ItÕs like the joke. One my favorite jokes about creation is that you have a Cambridge scientist who comes along and says, ŌOh! We have finally, finally, been able to create life in the laboratory.Ķ And these other scientists get together and say, ŌWe really donÕt need God now—not at all.Ķ So this scientist is all full of himself and says, ŌWell, IÕm going to tell God that He can just go away, because we donÕt need Him. We can create life.Ķ

 

He goes to God and says, ŌWe donÕt need You anymore. We can create life. It just shows that You didnÕt need to be around to create life to begin with, and God says, ŌOkay. IÕll challenge you to a little contest to see who can create life. Since IÕm challenging you, IÕll let you—GodÕs always a gentleman—create life first. The scientist says, ŌOkay, IÕll show You.Ķ He reaches down. See, God is showing the flaws of his presupposition. The guy bends over and picks up some soil, some clay, and heÕs going to start making life. And God says, ŌNo, no, no, no, no. YouÕve got to make your own clay.Ķ

 

See? ThatÕs part of the problem here. When we answer them according to their folly, what weÕre doing is, weÕre showing the inability of their presupposition to hold what theyÕre trying to build on it. They built their whole life on a flaw. Now, youÕre not going to do that with a one-liner or two-liner; that may take 15 years of discussion, but thatÕs the strategy.

 

What this verse means is that weÕre to expose the flaws within his human viewpoint reasoning by asking questions that reveal an inability to consistently live with his foolish assumptions. That takes time to think about the questions—not just to jump in there and say, ŌBlah, blah, blah, blah, blah,Ķ but to say, ŌWell, how did you get to that conclusion? WhatÕs your evidence for that?Ķ

 

Somebody raises a classic question, ŌHow can you believe that thereÕs a good God if evil exists?Ķ ThatÕs a good question to ask. How do you answer it? He canÕt answer it on his assumption because in his objection, he says, ŌHow can you believe in a good God when something bad happens?Ķ What is he assuming in that question? The existence of good and bad.

 

Where does that come from according to his evolutionary presupposition? HeÕs got an evolutionary presupposition that says that pure chance develops from the simple to the complex and it does so through a principal called the survival of the fittest. The problem is that it doesnÕt explain the arrival of the fittest.

When you look at Ōfittest,Ķ how do they survive? WhatÕs going on in this contest for survival? You have a fight that goes on. Somebody weak and innocent gets totally destroyed, and something that is powerful and vicious and ferocious defeats him. ItÕs classic bullying. So, the survival of the fittest is just a bullying technique that Darwin came up with to demonstrate how life advances.

 

ŌSo, you believe in a system of bullying that ÔgoodÕ means violence and bullying?Ķ ŌWell, wait a minute; I didnÕt say that.Ķ See, now what youÕve demonstrated is that on the basis of his assumptions, he doesnÕt have the right to use vocabulary like ŌgoodĶ and Ōbad,Ķ which he is trying to pin you on. So by asking questions, instead of jumping in there with your well-thought-out answer that you wrote down in Bible class, youÕve exposed his folly.

 

Clough puts it this way. In the context, ŌA (Any) critical question ÉĶ Anytime you are talking to somebody and they ask a critical question, any critical question comes with its own interpretation of history. DonÕt answer a question too quickly, because a question is going to often have some sort of presuppositional framework attached to the question. ŌHave you quit beating your spouse?Ķ You donÕt want to answer that question. You want to redirect. So a question often comes with an agenda.

 

ŌA critical question comes with its own interpretation of history, of what is possible and not possible, and of what is right and what is wrong. It brings its own agenda to the table about the basic building blocks of reality. If we try to answer it without perceiving this [if you run into that trap too fast] unbiblical baggage, we may unconsciously adopt its alien viewpoint.Ķ In other words, we are told not to answer a fool according to his folly, which means donÕt inadvertently assume the accuracy of their baggage.

 

Charlie goes on to say, ŌPaul warned the church about being deceived by pagan notions of the fundamental categories of reality (Colossians 2:8).Ķ

 

ŌThese basic categories [called the elementary things] or STOICHEA in ancient times could be earth, fire, water, air, or other created things that paganism falsely interpreted as cosmic sources and sustainers.Ķ In other words, this is what gave birth to creation—matter evolved into organized things. He says, ŌOver against this pagan viewpoint Paul directs us to build upon the truths revealed in Christ. Christ, says Paul, created the entire cosmos, sustains every so-called natural process, and fully reveals GodÕs Person (Colossians 1:15–17). Verbal revelation, not human speculation, is the key to interpreting history, what is and is not possible, and what is right or wrong. In Him Ôare hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledgeÕ (Colossians 2:3).Ķ

 

As soon as people start using terms that relate to right or wrong, or what could be, or what ought to be, you immediately can challenge, ŌWhere did you get this idea that thatÕs the way things ought to be? Where did you get this idea?Ķ ŌWell, everybody holds it.Ķ ŌNo, they donÕt.Ķ

 

Elements in Apologetics. Four basic things here.

1.      Apologetics addresses specific issues, challenges, or misrepresentations of biblical truth.

 

YouÕre talking to somebody, and they say, ŌWell, we really have to make sure that weÕre not emitting too much carbon-14, because thatÕs contributing to global warming. WasnÕt it a hot February?Ķ So how do you address that? Because what they are bringing to the table is a whole boatload of assumptions, and apologetics would address that. Somebody holds to evolution; somebody holds to—you name it—that Jesus really isnÕt God—specific issues or challenges, or someone who misrepresents biblical truth.

 

It came across my e-mail today. I got a text from Vida Velasco. Everybody here ought to know Vida; she is with StandWithUs. She stood up here in the pulpit on her little stool, because sheÕs like Arnold—sheÕs very, very short. She sent me an article from Christianity Today.

 

Christianity Today is supposed to be the standard bearer for evangelical truth. This is an article that they published, written by two Jewish rabbis, one of whom is with the Anti-Defamation League. In this article, written by two unbelievers—non-Christians—theyÕre basically making the point that for the last 40 or 50 years in Jewish studies in America and in many, many evangelical churches, Jews have come in and theyÕve gone through Seder meals as to what happened on the Passover the night before Jesus went to the cross—youÕve seen several here. They say, ŌThis is totally fake.Ķ ThatÕs their contention. They donÕt say it quite like that, but thatÕs what theyÕre saying: the Seder as we know it today isnÕt what it was before AD 60 or 65.  Yes, but what they donÕt say is that just like the oral law in Israel, the Halakhah and the oral traditions, these were passed on from generation to generation, but they were memorized verbatim. They were codified in AD 200 by Judah HaNasi, Judah the prince, and that became known as the Mishnah.

 

But the Mishnah didnÕt invent this stuff. It didnÕt come up in the last hundred years after the destruction of the Temple; heÕs recording the views of Jewish rabbis that had been developed from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, from the close of the Old Testament canon. So, even though what Jesus and His disciples did the night before He went to the cross wasnÕt exactly what happens in a Jewish household today, it was probably 90%, 95% the same. It got codified after the destruction of the Temple.

 

So how are you going to answer that? ThatÕs what I was asked. So I flipped it back. IÕm getting good at that. VidaÕs sister is Michael RydelnikÕs secretary. I said, ŌGive it to Michael. Let Michael handle it! HeÕll give a good response.Ķ But I also articulated what I just said, and I said, ŌThatÕs the first point. The second point is that I quit my subscription to Christianity Today—because thatÕs just garbage—30 years ago.Ķ But this is going to have some weight out there—it raises a doubt. So this is why we do apologetics—to address these things so that people are grounded that what they believe is the truth.

 

2.      Apologetics provides a justification or vindication for believing the Bible over other beliefs.

 

Why the Bible and not the Bhagavad Gita? Why the Bible, not the Koran? Why the Bible and not the Book of Mormon? A thinking person is going to want to know an answer to that. Most of us donÕt want to be non-thinking people. We donÕt want to say, ŌWell, I just donÕt care. I believe it; it works for me!Ķ But there are Christians like that, ŌAs long as it works for me, IÕm happy.Ķ ThatÕs called pragmatism; thatÕs not biblical theism.

 

3.      Apologetics helps expose the flaws in non-biblical worldviews.

 

It does two things. It strengthens our faith, but it exposes the weaknesses in non-biblical worldviews. IÕm telling you that what apologetics does for every believer is to teach you how to think! When I started listening to Charlie [Clough] and going through the first round of the Framework pamphlet back in the 1970s, I started discovering how to think. I was so in love and entranced by studying all this stuff about philosophy and apologetics, that in the 80s I had a chance to go back and get a second masterÕs degree in medieval philosophy, which I did.

 

4.      Apologetics seeks to persuade people of the truth.

 

ThatÕs what weÕre trying to do. The end game isnÕt to know a lot, or refute arguments, or win arguments; itÕs to persuade people to believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins and answer legitimate questions.

 

Now, there are some people who are going to ask you a lot of illegitimate questions—or they just love the debate. I have known, personally, a couple of Jews that I can think of. One guy was a friend of a friend of mine, and every time he had a party—Christmas party, New YearÕs Eve party, birthday party, promotion party, whatever it was—this guy was there. Gene knows him. Every time he came, everybody at the party witnessed to him—every single time. He loved it! Because he loved the intellectual stimulation of the discussion and the argument. But he never intended to believe in Jesus.

 

I know two or three other Jews that are like that. But theyÕve heard the gospel. Most Jews that I know can give you the gospel better than you can! ThatÕs why when we invite Jewish speakers here, I say, ŌDonÕt try to nail them with the gospel on the way out the back door.Ķ Because what youÕre doing is just continuing to validate a false view of evangelicals that they have, and that is that because theyÕre Jewish they have a target on their back that says, ŌTell me about Jesus.Ķ TheyÕve been told about Jesus more than youÕve ever told anybody about Jesus. What they need to know is that you care about them as a person, whether they believe in Jesus or not.

 

I had one Jewish friend of mine tell me one day. I canÕt quite use the vocabulary he used, but he said, basically, ŌIf I ever thought that our friendship was because you want me to be a Christian, thatÕs it. IÕll never talk to you again; thatÕs the end of our friendship.Ķ And every now and then he asks me some question, but I always let them initiate. Because in the Jewish community, they need to know that theyÕre in a secure environment and theyÕre not going to be hammered with the gospel, so they can come and relax and be enjoyed as someone who believes what they believe and if they are interested—if thereÕs a modicum of a positive volition—they will ask. I get asked in different ways by different people.

 

I want to use this slide again. YouÕre communicating to your neighbor, pagan, whomever. WhatÕs the common ground? Is it language? Is it culture? Is it religion? If you say, ŌWell, have something in common: we both believe in God. What do you mean by ŌGod?Ķ What do they mean by ŌGod?Ķ What they mean by ŌGodĶ is that they have a pantheon; they have 50 gods.

 

What do they mean by ŌGod,Ķ and what do you mean by ŌGod?Ķ Just because you use the same word doesnÕt mean youÕre talking about the same thing. I talk about God and Elohim, but Elohim has nothing to do with Allah. Allah, I think, is just another name for Satan, just like Baal in the Old Testament. All of these idols are energized by demons. So you have to define the terms.

 

Truth. What is truth? What are the values? Where do they come from? Reason—all of these things. Experience.

 

We are missionaries to a pagan world. How do we communicate? Do they mean the same thing? We have to answer these questions. What do they mean? That means talking to them, building a relationship, asking them questions.

 

What I want to do is go to this slide—back again to our Basis of Knowledge slide. We need to talk about this, and IÕm already getting late. We need to talk about all these different views and how they relate. We need to come to understand what is meant by classical apologetics, evidentialism, fideism, and revelation.

 

The basic issues that we have in apologetics: How do we know anything? ThatÕs why I put that slide up there, because the foundational thing is, ŌHow do you know anything?Ķ You tell people, ŌI know Jesus is the Messiah.Ķ How you know that? How do you know itÕs true? Anybody with half a brain wants that question answered. But when that question is answered, it presupposes a certain view of knowledge. What is their view of knowledge? What is your view of knowledge? What is their view of truth? What is my view of truth?

 

1.      How do we know anything? Do we know things as they are or only as we perceive them?

 

WeÕve been in that quagmire since Immanuel Kant at the turn of the 19th century. Before Kant you knew things as they were—people had objective knowledge. After Kant, you only knew your perception of things. You didnÕt see a tree as it is; you only saw what you perceived to be the tree. So, all knowledge became subjective. They called it the Copernican Revolution in knowledge, in philosophy. Because before that, objective knowledge was out here; you could know something as it is. You could know a tree as it is, a rock as it is. You could know water as it is. You could really come to understand creation as it is.

 

After Kant, the shift goes from out there [points away] to in here [points to brain]. Now all you can do is know your perception of the tree, the rock, the water, the creation. In the Copernican Revolution you went from earth being the center of the solar system to the sun being the center of the solar system—you shifted the center. ThatÕs what happened in thought with Kant. Ever since then, knowledge is relative; knowledge is subjective. You can have your truth because thatÕs your perception, and I can have my truth because thatÕs my perception. How are we going to get around that—the basic issue in apologetics.

 

2.      Do the theistic proofs actually prove anything?

 

Many of us have heard the theistic proofs, and youÕve heard them presented that this actually proves God. You have the cause/effect. Because every effect has to have a cause, ultimately you have an uncaused cause—thatÕs the argument from cause.

You have the cosmological argument. Now you have a form of that in the intelligent design argument.

You have the teleological argument, which is everything seems to have a purpose and so that means somebody had to put that purpose into everything.

You have the moral argument, sometimes called the anthropological argument; because man has morality, nobody else does. That implies a Creator that has morals.

 

Do these theistic proofs actually prove anything or just get us a greater sense of probability?

 

3.      What is the role of evidences in apologetics?

 

Talk to a lawyer. Ask him this question, ŌDoes it matter how you present evidence in the courtroom?Ķ It certainly does! How you present evidence is strategy. The evidence has to do with just your tools.

 

If youÕre a soldier going into combat, you have a lot of different weapons. You can have grenade launcher. You can have an M-16. You can have something like an Israeli Tavor. You can have a knife. You can have a hand grenade. YouÕve got a lot of different weapons. How you use those weapons, under what circumstances, is determined by strategy and tactics.

 

So when you first go in the military, you are going to be put in a platoon. If youÕre going to go through ROTC or Officer Basic [Training], they teach you the basics of small unit tactics. That determines how you use your men and how you use your weapons. The weapons and the men stay the same. So, when we look at those different schools of thought—whether itÕs classical apologetics, evidentialism, fideism, or revelation—they each use the same weapons; they each use the same evidences. ItÕs how they use them.

 

If you use them the wrong way, youÕve answered a fool according to his folly in the way that the first verse says, ŌDo not answer a fool according to his folly.Ķ So, you have to think through this. It may sound like IÕm saying, ŌThis is really hard.Ķ ItÕs really simple, but the problem is that what youÕve been exposed to so much is whatÕs probably confused you as to how to use apologetics.

 

Because what the Bible says is that you have to just assume the truth of the Scripture. Now, that doesnÕt mean you blast them with your gospel gun and just throw Bible verses at them. We will look to see how this is done in the Scripture.

 

You have to determine, ŌWhatÕs the common ground between Christian thought and non-Christian thought?Ķ

 

Classical apologetics. Now IÕm going to go through the four different types. The common ground is logical criteria, logic. YouÕre a pagan unbeliever. ŌYou believe in logic?Ķ Okay, weÕre going to start with logic because logic is going to give us the criteria to determine whether youÕre right or IÕm right. But see, the problem is that if their starting point is wrong, but everything theyÕve built on it is logically consistent, then they are logically consistent with their false presupposition. You are logically consistent with a true presupposition. So, youÕve got to get down and deal with the problems. We will look at the chart on that in just a minute.

 

So, they believe the common ground is logic, or reason. They refute human viewpoint truth claims on the basis of logic, saying, ŌThatÕs illogical.Ķ For example, dealing with postmodernism. Postmodernism says there are no absolutes, and their response would be, ŌThatÕs illogical.Ķ Well, postmodernism is basically mysticism, which is irrational—they donÕt care whether theyÕre illogical or not. So, youÕre not going anywhere with that argument!

 

In their typical classical apologetics way, first they will build a case for theism. ŌThis is why we need to believe in a God.Ķ Those arguments for the existence of God donÕt get you to Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because that God has specific characteristics. The God they get to is just a generic deity. But the Bible doesnÕt want us to argue for a generic deity; the Bible wants us to present a case for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Who appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai.

 

So, I see that as their basic flaw. They first of all build a case for generic theism, then theyÕll build a case that the God that is revealed in the Bible and Christ is the God that is the best theistic option. See, they get to basic probabilities. Key people include Thomas Aquinas, famous for his five ways, and Norm Geisler, whoÕs a Thomistic, also did his doctoral work in Thomism. There are a lot of others as well.

 

Classical apologetics. What is their common ground? ItÕs the law of non-contradiction, that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time in the same context. The problem is that they donÕt deal well with the problem of the effect of sin on logic and reason. Sin affects the way you think! It affects your ideas of logic and reason.

 

LetÕs look at an example here in terms of contradiction. Scripture says, in one gospel, that Judas hung himself and in another gospel that he fell down and his bowels were opened. Are those mutually contradictory? No. But youÕll have people whoÕll attack, ŌSee, this is a contradiction in the Bible.Ķ No. He hung himself, the rope broke, he landed, his bowels burst open. ThatÕs one way [to handle it]—it is not necessarily a problem.

 

So, the problem here is that they are assuming the self-sufficiency of human beings, that they have logic and reason which can help them correctly interpret facts apart from divine revelation. See, if youÕre talking to this unbeliever and he says, ŌLetÕs go with logic and reason,Ķ heÕs assuming that he can interpret the facts without GodÕs prior revelation. So, if you go with that, youÕve undercut your own argument.

 

Evidentialism is the second category. Common ground is empirical and historically verifiable facts. So, we are going to prove the resurrection occurred, we are going to prove there are miracles, we are going to prove creation, we are going to demonstrate this. ThatÕs where theyÕre coming from.

 

Divine viewpoint, for them, has a high degree of probability, and something is true in the sense that scientific laws are true. Scientific laws are the result of empiricism—itÕs happened 999,000 times, so we are going to make it a universal law. But what if, on the 1 billionth try, something else happens? But thatÕs how laws are developed. Okay? So their idea is that this is a very, very high 99.999-ad infinitum percent chance of being true.

 

For them, evidence is not proof. TheyÕre not trying to prove God by evidence, but itÕs sufficient to show that belief in Christianity is rational and justifiable. ThatÕs the best theyÕre going to get as an evidentialist, ŌWe believe Jesus because itÕs the best option. ItÕs rational; itÕs justifiable; nothing else is.Ķ

Key people. In the 1700s you had Joseph Butler, arguing against the deists and then a modern version of an evidentialist would be John Warwick Montgomery.

 

WhatÕs their common ground? Their common ground is historical and empirical evidence provides the highest probability of truth. Evidence for God, for inspiration of Scripture, for the deity of Christ all points to the reality of a biblical God. They say, ŌSee, all these things are true, so therefore the God of the Bible must be true.Ķ ThatÕs the process of argumentation. But the problem, again, is that itÕs not doing justice with the effects of sin on logic and reason.

 

The third view is Fideism. The common ground is intuition. This is whatÕs comparable to mysticism. ItÕs a personal existential encounter with God, which is not rational, itÕs not empirical, itÕs not historical, and itÕs not scientific. You just believe in God or Christ apart from any reasoning or evidence. Think about that a second.

 

You just believe in God, apart from any reasoning or evidence. Fideism rejects apologetics; it says, ŌJust believe—just believe.Ķ Key people: Lutheran pietism as a tradition; Soren Kierkegaard, father of existentialism, was a Lutheran pastor; Karl Barth; Dietrich Bonhoeffer. A lot of evangelicals are being told today that Bonhoeffer was a really neat evangelical and he resisted Hitler, but he wasnÕt; he was a German romantic and mystic, he loved Kierkegaard, and he loved BultmannÕs demythologizing of the text.

 

This is fideism. WhatÕs their common ground? The common ground that they seek is, ŌWe are going to have an existential, subjective encounter with God.Ķ It rejects any rational, empirical evidence and usually has a weak view of Scripture.

 

ItÕs Easter. HereÕs a hymn. This hymn fits into which category?

ŌI serve a risen Savior, HeÕs in the world today.Ķ I know—knowledge—epistemology.

ŌI know that He is living, whatever men may say.Ķ DonÕt confuse me with facts—my mind is made up. I know HeÕs living.

ŌI see His hand of mercy.Ķ ThatÕs empiricism—there is mercy in the world.

ŌI hear His voice of cheer.Ķ There is joy and happiness in the world.

ŌAnd just the time I need Him HeÕs always near.Ķ When I need Him? Or always?

ŌHe lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today. He walks with me and talks with me along lifeÕs narrow way.Ķ ThatÕs experiential.

ŌHe lives, he lives, Salvation to impart

ŌYou ask me how I know He lives?

ŌHe lives within my heart.Ķ ThatÕs fideism—pure mysticism.

 

How do I know Jesus lives? ŌJesus loves me this I know.Ķ Why? ŌFor the Bible tells me so.Ķ How do I know Jesus lives? The Bible tells me so! We have to figure out how to change the wording so we can get that in there. IÕve always been critical of the chorus, but the rest of the words are all based on subjective experience—itÕs pure fideism.

 

What weÕre going to do next time is start here talking about the revelational approach.

 

The common ground is the assumption of the truth of general and special revelation. TheyÕre going to say, ŌWell, isnÕt that arguing in a circle?Ķ Well heÕs rejecting it, but what do you know about it? He may be rejecting the Bible, ŌThe Bible is not true. I donÕt believe it.Ķ What does the Bible say? That he knows itÕs true that God exists and he is suppressing that truth in unrighteousness.

 

See, youÕve got a spy in the camp and the Holy Spirit. Number one, you know that he already knows that God exists, and you know that God the Holy Spirit is in there convincing him of the truth of what youÕre telling him. So, you donÕt have to be able to answer every question and every objection—just help him think it through. That may take time before we ever get to the gospel. You may spend 20 years talking to somebody before you ever open a Bible! And thatÕs not wrong.

 

Remember, Paul said that some are going to plant the seed, some are going to water the seed, some are going to weed it [he didnÕt say that, but we know thatÕs what happens], and eventually itÕs going to bear fruit. A lot of people I know when theyÕre witnessing donÕt ever take into account the fact that they may be just the seed planter or the waterer, but theyÕre not the one whoÕs going to close the deal. Every one of us seems to think that we need to be the deal closer, but God the Holy SpiritÕs going to do it. So, donÕt get in a hurry. DonÕt put people in a corner. DonÕt keep badgering them. Remember, find out where they are, ask them questions, take them to the next step.

Slides