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.
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:
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.