Hebrews
Lesson 49 April 13, 2006
NKJ Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy --
meditate on these things.
We are continuing our study in Hebrews 5, but we are
not really doing any exegesis on Hebrews 5 tonight. I am still working off of
this concept of the dynamics of the backsliding believer, thinking through
these things because even as I have been teaching this the last 3 or 4 weeks, I
have had opportunities to listen to how Christians talk. If you listen to how
Christians talk, it is no wonder that they make bad decisions. Decision making
in thought is based on vocabulary. If you have bad vocabulary and poor word
choices in how you are expressing your concept of God and your relationship
with God, you are going to end up making bad decisions because your vocabulary
is not biblically correct. As I pointed out in recent weeks in our study we
have a problem in Christianity in that from the time Jesus began to teach
(probably with the Sermon on the Mount on) people have interpreted what the
Bible says from the frame of reference of whatever their worldview is. That is
the process of sanctification as outlined in Romans 12:2.
NKJ Romans 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the
renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
It is not talking about overt behavior. It’s not
talking about don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t chew, and don’t go with girls who
do. It’s not talking about going
to movies. It’s not talking about listening to rock music. It’s talking about a
thought system that relates to culture which is where I went in our last class
in Hebrews. The analogy that comes closest to my thinking of what Romans 12:2
it talking about when it says, “Do not be conformed by the renewing of your
mind but be transformed with the renewing of your mind.”
It’s as if you were to be transported instantly to
somewhere deep in the mountains of western China and for the rest of your life
you had to operate within that culture. You would have to learn the history.
You would have to learn the customs. You would have to learn the language. You
would have to learn all of the social mores, the manners, how to talk to
people, how not to offend people by doing certain things or saying certain
things that are much different from what you grew up with as an American. You
would have to learn to think in a completely different way. If you have ever
studied Asian world views, Asian culture as opposed to Western culture, you
know that they are about as radically opposed to each other as human cultures
can be.
But when you get saved as a new member of the royal
family of God, God gives you a whole new culture a whole new worldview that is
all expressed within the Bible - a
whole new way of thinking about reality. What we are in the process of doing
now as in Philippians, Paul talks about the fact that we are not longer
citizens of the earth; we are citizens of heaven. As part of that
transformation that takes place we now have to learn what our ultimate view of
reality is as a believer. We have to explore and plumb the depths of the person
of God, His essence, what all of those attributes mean, His eternal existence
as a triune God, how the fact that the Creator is distinct from the creation
affects how we view the creation in terms of that relationship in that the
Creator is both a plurality and a singularity. As creatures we think of
plurality and singularity as somewhat contradictory. How can He be both three
and one at the same time? That is because we are taking our limited finite
logic based on autonomous independent reason and we are trying to take what the Bible describes as His
existence as three in one and we are trying to take that and interpret that
within our mathematical grid that comes out of our creaturely frame of
reference. What we have to do is take what the Bible says as our starting point
and not our concept of number theory as our starting point.
So we have to learn to think differently. It is not
just a matter of learning to think about different things. Obviously Scripture
talks about whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are honorable think
on these things.
NKJ Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy --
meditate on these things.
That verse in Philippians 4:7-8 is talking about the
content of our thinking. But it is also the structure of our thinking. An Asian
is going to think structurally in a different way from the way a Westerner is
going to think. When you become a
believer, the structure of your thinking has to change. That’s an arena of
application that very few churches or pastors are ever going to go to
especially in the superficial, emotional, feel good Christianity that we have
that is so popular today. You are never going to hear somebody like Joel
Olsteen or Robert Schuller ever use a word like epistemology. It would scare
everybody off. He just wants everyone to feel good. That comes out of a certain
cultural world view.
This is what I want to talk about because as we see in
our passage in Hebrews, the problem with these believers is that they have advanced
to a certain stage and due to carnality they are regressing spiritually. We see
this in Hebrews 5:11.
NKJ Hebrews 5:11 of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become
dull of hearing.
“You have become lazy in your hearing.”
The question that I am asking is, what is it that puts
pressure on our thinking so that rather than advancing in that process of
conforming our thinking to the Word of God, we regress and our thinking becomes
conformed to the culture that is around us?
The ultimate dynamic comes out of our sin nature. The
Bible teaches that every Christian faces three enemies, our internal enemy of
the sin nature and two external enemies. The two external enemies are the
worldliness which is the Greek word kosmos.
So I refer to this as kosmic
degeneracy. There is an affinity between our sin nature and various forms of
kosmic thought. In one sense there are only two ways of thinking - either human
viewpoint or divine viewpoint. That is all that there is. But within human
viewpoint you have a kaleidoscope of variations of human viewpoint thought all
of which provides rationalizations for the sin nature to freely operate in
independence from the will of God. So we have to understand how these things
work. They follow the trends of our sin nature. Everybody’s sin nature has a
trend towards either licentiousness, which is the complete rejection of any
kind of authority which is random chaos (do whatever you want to do), or
towards legalism which is a highly structured rigid control system. We
frequently think of degeneracy as immoral degeneracy. But it not only plays out
in terms of morality (doing whatever you want to do – sexual immorality
or other types of immorality as well) but in the role of knowledge which is
what we are talking about how do you know when God tells you to do something?
How do you know what is true? What
is your way of knowing anything?
Somebody says for example, “I read a Christian book on
the subject of marriage and I just knew that what he said was right because it
resonated with me and my experience.”
What is the ultimate determiner there? Is it what the
Bible says or experience? You see they have evaluated it because it fit their
experience. It doesn’t mean that it is biblical. They might not have been
taught a biblical view of marriage in their upbringing. It might have been distorted in
some way. Because it fit their experience of love and romance, it must be
right? No. How do you know what’s right? What is the ultimate determiner? So
often, Christians fade into mysticism.
“Well, it just seemed right. It felt right. It
resonated within me.”
Some terminology like that is usually what comes
across. This is epistemological antinomianism. (How do you like that for a
phrase?) That’s what it is. In the
realm of knowledge it is antinomian. Anything goes.
“How do I know something is true? Well, it just seems
right.”
I find that when I listen to Christians discuss things
very rarely do I hear someone say, “Okay. What is the biblical passage? How do
you know that is from the Bible? Give me the Scripture that supports whatever
it is that you are saying.”
Most people are so biblically illiterate that they
can’t do that. So all of these ideas get shuffled around and “it sounds good.”
That is how people get deceived - because things sound good. They seem to work,
pragmatism. They seem to be logical, rationalism. But are they from the
Scripture?
So we always have to always go back and say, “It this
biblical? Does it come out of the Scripture?”
Biblical doesn’t mean “it is consistent with the
Bible” but it means “does it comes from the Bible”. A lot of things seem to be
consistent with the Bible. So in terms of kosmic
degeneracy we have rationalism and mysticism.
On the other side of the spectrum we have moral
degeneracy. A great example of moral degeneracy might be Sharia law in
Islam. You have this overt
morality which is what attracts many westerners to Islam because they are
reacting to the licentiousness, the immorality in Western culture, the
breakdown of the family, and the breakdown of marriage. So at a superficial
level it appears as if there is order and structure in marriage and family and
morality in some of these religious systems like Mormonism and Islam. So there
is moral degeneracy. In moral degeneracy there is an emphasis on autonomous
reason and empiricism as the ultimate determiner of truth. We have gone through
this many times in the past. It has been a couple of weeks. I just want to
bring our heads back into this.
It (moral degeneracy) also promotes asceticism and
self-righteousness. You know the truth because of your use of reason and
empiricism. Two examples in the Bible – immoral degeneracy is pictured in
the Old Testament through the fertility religions of the idolatrous religions
of the Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians – nothing different from the
prosperity gospel folks today. It is just another sanitized moralized version
of ancient prosperity theology. Moral degeneracy in the Bible is pictured by
the Pharisees. They are white-washed sepulchers. They look good on the outside,
but on the inside it’s dead men’s bones. They are rigorous in their logic,
rigorous in their morality, and rigorous in following an external code.
Just a reminder - whenever you are dealing with an
issue of knowledge, how do I know something is true? Always think in terms of
this chart. There are four ways in which mankind historically claims to know
anything to be true. The first three are human viewpoint systems. By human
viewpoint I mean that God only enters into the system secondarily. He is not
the primary starting point. Man starts with himself, with ultimate faith in
human ability. So you have rationalism that starts with human reason in the
mind. Somewhere in the mind you have a first principle that is known inherently
by man. That becomes a starting point. Building on that in a system of rigorous
logic you can come to an understanding of all reality. You can develop a system
of metaphysics which has to do with the existence of God usually in philosophy
or you can come to your ethics, aesthetics. All of this flows out of
rationalism.
In contrast to rationalism you have empiricism, which
doesn’t start with what’s in the mind. It starts with what you derive externally
through sense perception – what you see, hear, taste, or touch. This is
empiricism. It follows external experience, the foundation for scientific
method. Both rationalism and empiricism put their faith in human ability –
that man in and of himself is able to accurately interpret the external or in
the case of rationalism (internal data) because he knows enough. It is an
ultimate faith in human ability.
So again it is an independent use of logic and reason.
Then there is mysticism. Mysticism is really
rationalism gone to seed because the starting point of mysticism is still what
is inside your head – what is going on inside of your mind. Instead of a
first principle that is related logically, now it is just some intuitive
insight – some feeling, some impression, some thought that comes into
your head. That is as real to you as any sense perception. Because it is so real to the mystic, it
can’t be externally evaluated. It can’t be talked about logically because logic
and reason are rejected in mysticism.
In contrast to all the human systems of knowledge you
have revelation. That is that God speaks truth to man. It is only under the
umbrella of God’s revelation that man is able to know truth about anything
else. He can learn many things through reason. He can learn many things
empirically, but he can only ultimately know Truth under the umbrella of divine
revelation. So the starting point is the objective revelation of God that is
self-authenticating. This is where it gets confusing with mysticism. The mystic
thinks he is self-authenticating, but it is totally interior. It is totally
within. There is no external validation point that you can go to. Whereas when
God speaks to man He does so and there are validating evidences. We will talk a
little bit about this as we go through this. So there is a use of logic and
reason. It doesn’t reject logic and reason. It uses logic and reason but within
the structure of what God has revealed objectively through His Word. All of
that by way of review.
What I have looked at is that we have a real problem
today with mysticism, subjectivity, and emotionalism. People think that they
can know what God has for them through some sort of inner light guidance
mechanism. You find it leaks in in the strangest places. It is part of our heritage as
evangelicals. There has always been a certain amount of this. You can go to
certain theologians that we respect in many, many ways and you will see leakage
in this area.
So you just have to spot it and say, “Well that it was
an area that they didn’t think through that clearly. Others have thought about
it more clearly since then.”
So you just step around it and move forward.
After taking a couple of weeks to deal with the
mystics among us I wanted to deal with the rationalists among us. That is just
as much a problem. For many people, they have this subtle insertion of
rationalism and reason as an ultimate criterion where it leaks in as
independent use of reason to judge certain things that are revealed in the
Scripture. So what I want to talk about first of all is the more overt forms of
rationalism and empiricism that have affected Christianity. Then we will come
back and talk about some of the more subtle forms. Then when I finish that if
we have time I want to go back to mysticism because it connects with what we
are studying on Tuesday night in divine guidance. I am going back and forth. We
will learn a lot.
In the early 19th century coming out of the
18th century enlightenment there was a denial of what came to be known
as fundamental doctrines of the Scripture. There was a denial of revelation
that God did not objectively reveal Himself in the Bible. There were questions
raised about the infallibility and the inspiration of Scripture so that the
Bible was no longer viewed as God speaking to man, but it is man’s record of
his experiences with “God”. So therefore it is no longer guaranteed to be free
from error. People came up with certain allegations about contradictions in
Scripture and problems where they thought history showed something else. Frankly, no one has ever demonstrated
any contradiction in Scripture that cannot be handled within the structure of
how the Scripture presents itself. No one has ever presented anything from
archeology or history any kind of contradiction from the Bible. People come at it that way all of the
time. They often misrepresent Scripture. They set up straw men arguments.
You are going to see a certain amount of this right
now. I am going to deal with this Sunday morning with The Judas Gospel. We have another book coming out called The Jesus Papers by Michael Bagent who
is one of the co-authors of the non-fiction book Holy Blood, Holy Grail which was foundation for The Da Vinci Code. Of course we have The Da Vinci Code movie coming out in
May. All of these are great opportunities for believers to be able to dialogue
and talk with people around them. You will get great opportunities, but it
calls upon the average pew sitter to know a whole lot more data about some of
this information than you have had to know in the past. These attacks are based
upon a mass of false information that is thrown out there. It is the old big
lie technique. If you give a big enough lie with 2,000 pieces of false data
then you have overwhelmed the believer with all of this false information. They
don’t know where to begin. They don’t feel like an expert in all of these
areas. They don’t know how to respond. So part of what I want to do Sunday
morning as a Resurrection Day message is deal with something I mentioned in the
pastor’s conference – some basic things that we need to have, some basic
facts that we need to have so that when we are talking to anybody about these
things, we can pull these things up real quick. They are sort of nice
foundational focused comments that can at least get us past some of these
current events.
The questions that came up because of rationalism and
empiricism combined is that we don’t have any empirical data today of God
speaking. There is no burning bush. No one is getting raised from the dead.
There is no healing. They rejected the infallibility of the inspiration of
Scriptures, miracles, and resurrection. They rejected the virgin birth.
“How can you believe in a virgin birth? How silly? How
can that happen?”
They rejected substitutionary atonement. What is part
of that is that they reject what the Bible says man is – a fallen sinner
who has violated God’s standard. If man isn’t what the Bible says he is, then
man doesn’t need the solution that the Bible says he needs. So they reject
substitutionary atonement. Jesus died to be an example of love. He died to be
an example of care and dedication and all this other garbage that is imported
into the Scripture. But the Bible doesn’t teach that. There is denial of
resurrection and denial of Jesus’ future Second Coming.
How did all of this happen? Let’s get a little
historical background. I have some talking points here so that we can
understand what was going on in the 19th century. If you don’t
understand what was going on in the 19th century and what was coming
out of the enlightenment of the 18th century, you get lost in what
happened in the 20th century.
You look around and say, “How did we get where we are
today where Christianity seems to be the enemy?”
It has been marginalized and pushed out even further
than the margins. We live in a society today, a culture today that is 180
degrees opposite of where it was 150 years ago. What happened? I am planning to
have a much lengthier series on this some time in the fall or next winter.
The five essential doctrines were:
Inerrancy of the Bible
Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ
Substitutionary Atonement
His bodily resurrection and miracles
The future literal return of Jesus Christ to the
earth.
Those were the 5 fundamentals of the faith. That is
where those terms come from. But it has been completely distorted and
bastardized today. Today it applies to all kinds of other things, but it is not
where the term originated. In a very real way we are fundamentalists. If you
say that today people get all kinds of crazy ideas because as usual Satan knows
that the way to destroy and attack Christianity is at the level of
vocabulary.
We lose good words. We can’t talk about being holiness
Christians anymore because charismatics grabbed that. Another good biblical
word is charismatic. We are all charismatics. We believe in the spiritual gifts
of the Holy Spirit. That’s the word that is used in the Scripture. They change
that to mean something else. It goes on and on and on.
One of the popularizers of liberalism at the forefront
of the battle was a very popular preacher in the early 19th century
by the name of Harry Emerson Fosdick. You can almost trace it. Harry Emerson
Fosdick, Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller, Joel Gregory and a number of
others. They all flow in the same stream of consciousness. In 1922 he was
invited to preach in a church in New York. The pastor was out of town or not
present. He preached a sermon called “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” As a
result of that conservative Presbyterians and Baptists dubbed him the Moses of
Modernism or The Jesse James of the Theological World. His friend John D.
Rockefeller Jr. offered him the pulpit of his family’s congregation The Park
Avenue Baptist Church in New York which changed its name to Riverside Church.
He became the pastor there until his retirement in 1946.
In his sermon, “Shall the Fundamentalist Win?”, he
said… (Now I want you to notice the technique that he used to belittle
conservatives.)
Here
for example is one point of view, the virgin birth
Note he says this is one point of view.
is to be
accepted as historical fact. There was no other way for a personality like the
Master
Notice the terminology there. It’s
not the Lord; it’s the Master. The very vocabulary diminishes the deity of
Christ.
to come
into this world except by a special biological miracle. Well, that’s one point
of view. But there are many gracious beautiful souls that hold that
See how patronizing he is!
side by
side with them in the evangelical churches there is an equally good and
competing view is a group of equally loyal and reverent people who would say
that the Virgin Birth is not to be accepted as historic fact. Here in the
Christian church are these two groups and the question that the fundamentalist
raises
(those nasty fundamentalists!)
this,
“Shall one of them throw the other out?”
Those fundies just want to kick us out. How mean spirited they are.
Is not the
Christian church large enough to hold within her hospitable fellowship people
who differ in points like this?
“See how reasonable I am. See how sweet we are and
they want to throw us out. We believe in Jesus.”
This is the technique that is used to undercut the
fundamentalist and make him look bad.
This was the benchmark because he was the preacher of
that era. Back then sermons were often reported and printed in the newspapers
because they didn’t have radio or television like we have today.
Another statement that reveals what is going on here
is one by Charles Elliott who was a Unitarian President of Harvard. Harvard
went Unitarian in 1807 and has been ever since then. He gave an address at the
summer school of theology of 1909. In that he made this statement. Notice how
contemporary this sounds.
“The new
thought of God”
You see we are in a new wonderful era of
Christianity.
“will be
its most characteristic element in the religion of the future. This ideal will
comprehend”
It is all inclusive.
“the
Jewish Jehovah, the Christian universal Father,”
Who is that? Right there he has front loaded the
argument. He has distorted Christianity right off the bat.
the
modern physicist’s omnipresent and exhaustless energy and the biological
conception of a Vital Force.
You can almost hear Star Wars and “may the force be
with you” floating around in there.
These ideas aren’t new.
“The new
religion rejects absolutely the conception that God is alienated from the
world. It rejects also the entire conception of man as a fallen being. In all
of its theory and in all its practice it (the religion of the future) will be
completely natural. It will place no reliance on any sort of magic, or miracle
or other violation of, or exception to, the laws of nature.”
So what becomes your dominate framework of evaluating
truth? It is reason. But what they are using is what is called natural
law. Natural law is used a couple
of different ways in philosophy and history. You have got to watch out. It
leaks in there that there is this equally valid on the same plane of authority
of the Scripture these laws of nature or natural law and they are not in
contradiction with each other. You will hear Christians use this terminology. And
you will really hear this in Christian psychology. All truth is God’s truth.
No, it’s not. The Bible is God’s truth and you use it to evaluate everything
else.
Another statement that I have here is a quote from
Shailer Mathews who was very famous at that time. This is in the 1930’s. He was
the dean of the Divinity School at the University of Chicago. He is speaking
for Christianity.
The
modernist starts with the assumption that scientists know more about nature and
man than the theologians who drew up the creeds and confessions.
What is your ultimate basis for truth? It is reason.
It’s man’s own ability to interpret everything completely independent of what
the Scripture says. They come along then and all of these systems reject what
the Scripture says.
That’s the most extreme form of rationalism that
basically denies everything that the Bible teaches. Just as I pointed out when
I was teaching mysticism and how there are extreme forms of mysticism like
Gnosticism and Platonic idealism and occult mysticism and New Age mysticism,
you also see within Christianity there is this trend toward mysticism that is
dangerous.
It ultimately shifts your authority to some kind of
internal feeling or impression. I have seen people try to avoid using those terms
and then they are saying, “When they taught that it seemed right to me.”
The charismatics will say, “It spoke to my spirit.”
Whatever that is…..
That is the mystical thing. But within our circles we
also have a problem with rationalism leaking in especially at the point of
apologetics. You see it with mysticism too.
Now apologetics is the field of theology where we
construct our arguments to defend Christianity. Apologetics doesn’t mean to
apologize. The Greek word apologia
was used in a courtroom for the argument that a lawyer would construct in order
to defend his client. Let me give you a kind of analogy here so what I am
getting ready to say which may seem a little academic for some of you. Let’s say you are trying to convince a
judge and a jury of certain truths. So you pull in your dream team of lawyers.
You’ve got Percy Forman, F. Lee Bailey, and Johnny Cochran. Now they are all
dealing with the same evidence. These guys get into a conference room before
the trial and they get into a big argument as to the strategy for presenting
the evidence. That is what I am talking about here when we talk about how to
use Christian evidences. It is not a question of evidences or not. It is with
one group. But mostly it is how to
use them.
So I constructed a chart. On the left you have the
believer. On the right you have the unbeliever. The believer is trying to talk
to the unbeliever about the gospel.
The unbeliever says, “How can you believe in the
gospel? How can you put your brain in neutral?”
A lot of times when you are witnessing to people you
don’t need to go into much detail with Christian evidences. Sometimes you
do.
The unbeliever is asking the question, “How can you
believe this? How do you know this
is true?”
The question that comes up is what is the point of
contact? What is the ultimate appeal of authority and knowledge that the
believer can appeal to when he is talking to the unbeliever? It is interesting.
Bruce pointed out last time that Paul Shockley who is a professor at the
College of Biblical Studies covered this about two weeks ago in an early
morning show that the College of Biblical Studies puts out on television. It is
very important to understand this. Most Christians give away the farm because
they compromise epistemology at the very beginning. Remember I said that you’ve
got four ways of knowing. You’ve got rationalism, empiricism, mysticism and
revelation. Those are your four basic strategies that people end up with in
doing apologetics. On the one hand you have the rationalists. His point of
contact with the unbeliever is logic. Usually they refer to the law of
non-contradiction.
“Okay. Let’s use logic to show the truth of
Christianity.”
As if logic is not affected by the fall of man –
that man’s reason is unaffected by the fall of man. You see there is an
inherent flaw there. You have people like Gordon Clark who was a very reformed
Calvinistic apologist as well as Norm Geysler who has written many good things.
These guys have great things to say.
It is just that their ultimate strategy of how they are using the
evidence is where the flaw is. It’s not the evidence. I have over 200 to 250
books on apologetics in my library. I have read all of these guys –
volumes of what they say. I have learned from every one of them. But again it
boils down to some ultimate structural things.
Empiricism is another thing that leaks in. That’s Josh
McDowell, C S Lewis, Frank Morrison and any number of others. They appeal to
historical evidence as the common ground.
“We can prove that the tomb was empty, therefore you
should believe in Jesus.”
We have a guy up at Harvard Divinity School who
rejects the Bible. Nobody up there has believed the Bible for years –
decades – 200 years.
They say, “Okay. So I believe the tomb was empty. There
are all kinds of anomalies in history. Big deal.”
The unbelieving mind doesn’t have to accept the
interpretation of the empty tomb that we assign to it. Our interpretation of it
comes from the Bible. Because they reject the Bible, they reject our
interpretation of it. So empiricism and rationalism leak into our apologetic
methodology. I put mysticism up in the corner. Mysticism produces a kind of
apologetic approach called fideism from the Latin word meaning faith. It is the
idea that you can’t appeal to evidence. You just take a leap of faith to
believe the gospel. It is non-rational. It is non logical. You just believe it
because it has meaning for you. That is wrong because that is the mystical
approach.
I believe that the revelational approach sometimes
called presuppositionalsim is what’s defined in Romans 1:19. This makes
witnessing and apologetics so easy. We will wrap up with this.
NKJ Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in
them, for God has shown it to them.
That’s epistemology. How do you know anything about
God? How do you know who He is?
How do you know His characteristics? How do you know His essence?
Is that manifest in believers? No. It is manifest in
unbelievers. The Bible says that the most pagan atheist knows in the core of
his soul that God exists.
NKJ Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that
are made, even His eternal power and
Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
There is enough internal knowledge in every human being
to make them stand before the bar of God’s justice and they don’t have an
excuse to stand on. It is the Greek apologia.
They don’t have a defense. So the point of common ground is when you are
talking to an unbeliever is that in his soul he knows that God exists. You
don’t’ have to prove it. You can answer questions that confirm the truthfulness
and validate the truthfulness of Scripture, but you are not looking to some
authority over Scripture to prove Scripture. You are talking to someone who knows in his heart of hearts
that God exists. He may have
covered it up. He may have suppressed that truth in unrighteousness. He has 10
inches of calluses around it, but that is where your appeal is. The appeal
isn’t to reason as if it’s untainted by man’s fallen nature. Your appeal isn’t
to history as if it is pure, objective and untainted by human sin. Your appeal
isn’t just to feel good in mysticism. Your appeal is that he already knows.
What you have to do is expose the flaws and failures in his system. He can’t
live consistent with that system because everyday the unbeliever who holds to
the meaninglessness of life can’t live that way. If he does, what does he do?
He kills himself. He can’t live as if life is meaningless. What we can do
sometimes in apologetics strategy is simply force them to feel the tension that
is there. Then God the Holy Spirit uses that. Then we can bring the gospel to
bear.
So we have had problems throughout the centuries.
Christians always fall prey to the pressures of the cosmic system around them -
mysticism or rationalism or whatever – which dilutes and renders our
spiritual life impotent and makes us dull of hearing. We have to learn how to
think biblically. If you are thinking like a pagan even though you have a lot
of doctrine and morality in you, it will stifle and squelch your Christian
growth. So we have to learn to think biblically.
Next time we will talk about the leading of the
Spirit. How do you know what it is and when it is?
Let’s close in prayer.