Discussing Reading Assignment (Class 02)

If week one scared you, hopefully week two has made you less apprehensive. I want to start tonight with a question from the floor because while we had our break, Ross asked me a very good question, and I said, Ross, hold that question until we get done with the break.

So, Ross, ask your question again. Okay, so let me try to clarify what you're saying and make sure I'm getting it right. I'm going to repeat the question to make sure I understand. What you're saying is, how can we expect someone to believe something they obviously can't because they are suppressing it?

And the answer to that is, welcome to Calvinism. No, I'm serious, right? Because that's the point, is they won't. It's not even an issue of can't, it's an issue of won't. So you say, well, why then argue?

God Uses Means in Evangelism and Apologetics

And this is, we're going to get there. God uses the means of the proclamation of the gospel to bring about the salvation of his elect. Therefore, part of the proclamation of the gospel is giving a reason why we trust it.

That's according to 1 Peter, right? I am to give a reason for why I trust it, and I am to do so with gentleness and reverence because God may, according to 1 Timothy, or excuse me, 2 Timothy, God may by chance grant that person repentance.

And so that's the whole reason I'm doing this. So when I'm standing there talking to, if I'm sitting in the hospital room talking to that guy and look at the building, all I'm doing is appealing to what he does know in his heart, but I know he's suppressing.

And as I said earlier, I said tickling the hand, that was kind of just my sort of picture. I'm not tickling the hand, the Holy Spirit's tickling the hand. I'm not going to remove that. I'm not going to lift anything.

But what I am doing is I'm poking holes in the dike, as it were, and I'm creating for him less reason to push that down. And again, all by the power of God, being used by God. This is why when I'm done having an apologetic conversation with somebody and they say, well, I don't believe you and I still don't believe in God, I say to them, I'm not surprised.

You're still suppressing the truth and unrighteousness. You're still there. And it's only by the grace of God that you're going to ever be not there. So when it comes to a person going from death to life, that is a work of God.

And yeah, you don't know that. That's the other thing, too, right? We don't know if they're the elect or not. They may continue to stay in unbelief until eternity. But there is also, too, the call to be the watchman on the tower.

You know, the old covenant text that talks about, you know, the one who warns them. You know, I don't remember who said it. It may have been Spurgeon. But he said, and I think it was now that I think about it, but I could be wrong.

He said, if a man goes to hell, he should do so having to go over us to get there. You know, he should have to step over us to get there, meaning we should try in every way we can to put before him the obstacle of the gospel and the obstacle of the truth, of the faith.

And if he's going to go, he's going to go in spite of me calling him to repentance, not without me calling him to repentance, you know. So I, you know, again, how much relies on me, how much relies on God?

It's 100 God. And yet he uses me. He uses me as his means of bringing the gospel to somebody. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And that's why I say evangelism, for me, apologetics isn't evangelism, but it comes into evangelism, but evangelism begins with the gospel.

Yeah, well, the Muslim doesn't believe the Bible. How can you give them the gospel? Because I'm I believe the Bible. I don't I'm not asking. I'm not asking what he believes. I'm telling him what is true, the Bible.

And so I begin there, you know, but you can't do that. He's not he's neutral. No, he's not. So again, I'm circling back. Yes. He said many things like that. He was the one who said, I don't go around and lift up people's shirt to see if there's an E on their back, you know, to see if they have an E tattooed on their back for elect.

He said, we don't know who the elect are, so we proclaim the gospel to everybody.

Right. And then the other thing I was going to say, that's right.

I had a conversation not to not to terribly long ago with a guy who was saying ultimately that people didn't have to hear. God was going to save who he wanted. That's hyper Calvinism because hyper Calvinism says God doesn't use means.

God saves who he's going to save regardless of means. Calvinism says that God uses means and and effects in time to bring about his eternal purpose. And one of those means is the preaching of the gospel.

Presuppositional Apologetics and the Authority of Scripture

Yeah, he said something in this book is denying. This is like saying God.

That's right. And we're not saying that. We're not. And that's the thing about presupposition. We're not saying arguments are unnecessary. We're saying, how do we start the argument? How do we start the discussion?

We're saying, well, later on, we're going to talk about going on offense. You know, right now we're really talking about defense. We're going to talk about offense. Frank, you got your hand up. So returning to.

Yeah, but again, but you have to say that you have to know that. That's my point. You have to know what's real. What can't be denied? How do you get there? Everybody open your book to the first page, not the first page of the book, but page one of the text, which is apologetics, the basics.

Every semester I give you reading material. As I said this semester, I've given you a little heavy stuff, but I do want to make sure that we're kind of being able to go over it in class and understanding it.

I've made a few highlights of things I want to point out to you. And if you have questions about the book. Please raise your hand and ask. And if I don't understand it, I'll tell you I don't understand it because frame is smarter than I am.

So there may be some things I don't understand either. Yes. Yeah. Doctrine of Knowledge of God. This is another book that he wrote. Yeah, there's a page for abbreviation. His Doctrine of the Knowledge of God is is is a book that he appeals to a lot.

And it's it's it's really his writing on the from what I understand. It's his writing on Calvin's institutes because Calvin's institutes begin with the doctrine of the knowledge of God. So he's writing on that.

All right. So on page one, apologetics, it gives the definition which we went over last week. You know, we're not apologizing for the faith. It is the discipline that teaches Christians how to how to give a reason for our hope.

Let me ask you this. And this is in no way meant to be a negative. I think this is actually OK. Do you think that there are believers who don't know why they believe? And is that always wrong? Not necessarily.

The Sense of the Divine and Simple Faith

Yeah. See, see, we in our in our natural tendency, our natural tendency is to say, of course, it's wrong. You shouldn't believe something you don't know why. And yet, how many people do you know that have been faithful believers their whole life and couldn't really articulate the the reasoning, but they believe it?

And you might say, well, I don't like that. That's the Holy Spirit. Yeah. Yeah. That's the point is, again, in the five years book, this was really articulated well in the fifth view. We were talking about this on the break.

Calvin called it the census, divinity, Titus or divinity. It's the sense of the divine that we all have. No, God exists. And some people can't make that argument. There are people that I know that are the most blessed Christians in the world, but they can't argue themselves out of a brown paper bag.

They just don't have that capacity to think that way. And yet they they trust Jesus and they're they're on their way to glory. And so, you know, should we have a reason for the hope that we have and be able to give it?

Yes. But when we say, well, if a person doesn't have it, that makes their faith somehow inferior. No, not necessarily. It's just, you know, what do they people can understand their faith, but not always understand why in the sense of reason.

Yeah. Yeah. Again, we're talking about children who know their parents love them. You know, they know it, you know. All right. And I'm not saying that's a good argument for faith. I'm just saying it's it's enough for them.

And that's OK. All right. Moving on in your book, we have the section on presuppositions. I really like what he says on page four at the top. It says our apologetic approach is firmly rooted in our commitment to Christ's covenant lordship.

See, it's it goes beyond just I'm presuming God exists. No, I'm presuming Christ is my lord and I'm in covenant with him. So I'm beginning much further down the line than just a God might exist. That's where evidentialists arrive.

A God might exist. The Christian God probably exists. No, I'm in covenant relationship with my Lord Jesus Christ. And that's my starting point. Page five at the end of the first paragraph, we are either for Christ or against him.

No one is unbiased. And he references Matthew chapter 12, verse 30. So we want to look that up real quick. You got a you got a Bible on that computer of yours or somebody, please. You got it, Matthew five or 1230.

He's Frank Scott. I think he's right there. Anyone who is not with me is against me and anyone who does not gather with me scattered.

Yeah. And basically, that's all Dr. Frame is saying. No one's unbiased. No one is you're either for Christ or not. It's not a nobody can say, well, I'm neutral. I love something he said in his lectures.

I've been listening to Dr. Frame teach as well as going through the book. And he does have a free set of lectures on iTunes University. It's about 30 hours worth of material. You guys want to go through it with me?

I'd be happy to chat with you about it. But in one of his lectures, he said, if he said, if an agnostic were honest, they'd go to church every other Sunday. He said, because they said they don't know.

So, you know, if an agnostic were honest, he'd go to church every other week because he doesn't know. And I thought it was brilliant, right? He's not unbiased. He's not neutral. He's not really saying, I don't know.

He's saying, I know I'm not going. I'm not interested. I don't want that. So I just thought that was funny. All right, moving through the book again, if you have a question, I encourage you as you're reading, I highlight my book.

I write all in my book. If you've ever seen a book I've read, it looks terrible when I'm done. And people think I'm a hater of of sacred books because people some people hold books up like they're sacred.

You know, when I'm done with a book, it looks awful. And so I write all in it. I like what he talks about in page ten. So if you want to turn to page ten, he talks about circular arguments. And the circular argument he uses as his example is the Bible says it's true.

Therefore, the Bible is true. And that's not even the one he uses. He uses even the Bible is true. Therefore, the Bible is true. That is the worst kind of circular argument. But but here's the point he makes in his lectures.

And I guess so he does in the book as well doesn't mean it's not true. Just because it's circular. He said he said the argument it is true. The Bible is true. Therefore, the Bible is true. And here's the argument he makes.

He says, if somebody says, I will only arrive at the knowledge of God if I'm able to use my reason to arrive at the knowledge of God. OK, so let's let's start with that statement. I'm going to use my reason to arrive at a knowledge of God.

OK, so prove to me your reason is. Truth that your reason arrives at truth, but don't use your reason. OK, prove to me your reason is reasonable without using your reason. You say my reason is reasonable because I use my reason to arrive at the reasonableness of my reason.

See how circular it is. It's almost like a figure eight at that point. It's circular, circling itself twice. My reason is reasonable because I have reasoned to that conclusion. How is that any different than the Bible is true because the Bible is true?

Look at his page 11 under the premises. This this this brings the circular argument out a little bit and introduces an evidence. If Jesus is post-resurrection appearances are well attested, then the resurrection is a fact.

Then he says premise to his post-resurrection appearances are well attested. Therefore, the resurrection is a fact. So what's the evidence there? What? No, what's the what? Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're right.

It's it's the appearances are attested to. But but the but but we're saying that the the the resurrection is true because of the it's been attested to. Right. But where where where and how has it been attested to?

That's we have to begin to. Yeah, the Bible, but also outside of the Bible. Right. Something that I have to I point this out to people sometimes. Yes, I'm presuppositional. So what I'm about to say may seem like I'm undercutting my argument.

I promise I'm not. The resurrection can, in one sense, be proven outside of Scripture, even though I wouldn't I wouldn't. I would never dare say that that's the best way to do it. But we could go outside of Scripture and say the existence of the church and believers that are independent of Scripture.

How do we know believers existed in the first century? Because believers still exist today, and they're the product of the belief of those in the first century. The reason why we believe today is because people before us believed and taught us.

And how do they believe? Because people before them taught them. So the the evidence that the church exists today is evidence that there were believers then. Right. So the the belief in the resurrection existed in the first century.

Independent of the Scripture. But the Scripture does attest to it. And what's our presupposition is the Scripture is true. But even outside the Scripture, there's the evidence of the resurrection because the church exists and the church is based on one central truth.

Christ rose. If he didn't raise. There would be no church. Yeah, that's right. So so there is our the what he what he's saying, though, still, though, is still somewhat of a circular argument. You're saying that that the post resurrection appearances are well attested.

Therefore, they are a fact. But you're having to say the resurrection is a fact because it's a fact. How how do you know it's a fact? Because people saw him raised and they they believe. But it still goes back to how do you know they saw what they saw?

Well, they, you know, building out from that circle. It's a fact because it's true that when he said.

That Christ was a rager, faith is in vain. Yeah. Yeah. So he puts it he puts it to the test.

Yeah. Read with me real quick. The third, it says, does that procedure deserve to be condemned to circular? Listen, listen to this paragraph. He's speaking of. The conclusion about the resurrection, he says, is that procedure deserve to be condemned as circular?

Everyone else reasons the same way. Every philosophy must use its own standards in proving its conclusions. Otherwise, it is simply inconsistent. Those who believe that human reason is the ultimate authority.

Rationalists must presuppose the authority of reason in their arguments for rationalism. Those who believe in the ultimacy of sense experience must presuppose it is it must presuppose it in arguing for their philosophy, empiricism.

And skeptics must be skeptical of their own skepticism. A fact that, of course, is the Achilles heel of skepticism. I'll tell you real quick before we finish the paragraph. I remember a guy one time who told me that he was the biggest skeptic in the world.

He said, nobody's a bigger skeptic than me. And he believed some of the most outrageous things I've ever heard. But one thing he didn't believe was the Bible. I'm the biggest skeptic you've ever met. But he believed in aliens and all kinds of the crazy stuff.

But he didn't believe in the Bible. He wasn't the biggest skeptic I've ever met. He was just suppressed or he didn't believe in the Bible. He did not. I thought you said he did it. No, no. He's saying he's saying that was why it was his reasoning for not believing about you just don't understand.

I'm a skeptic. I'm the biggest skeptic you've ever met. And then he would tell me about his belief in aliens and his belief in the Illuminati and all this other stuff, you know, don't bring up the Illuminati.

But he's he mentions all this other stuff that he does believe in. Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, had a bunch of kids. Jesus was a Gnostic. That's stuff he believed. That's no evidence for that at all.

But. He's the biggest skeptic in the world. No, he's not. He is suppressing the truth and unrighteousness.

B .J. Yeah. Yeah. So we talk about. Yeah, absolutely. That's right.

So listen to this. Listen, this last bit of the paragraph. The point is that when one is arguing for an ultimate criterion, whether scripture, the Koran, human reasoning, sensation or whatever, one must use criteria compatible with that conclusion.

If that is circularity, then everybody is guilty of circularity. I use my reason to arrive at the truth. Well, how do you know your reasoning is valid by reasoning that it is? That's a circular. I use evidence to arrive at the truth.

Well, how do you know the evidence is correct? Well, I see it and experience it. And my sense experience determines it. So, again, getting back to the circle, how do you know? Because the evidence proves it to me.

So it's always a vicious circle that people don't realize. Yes, Bobby.

I think, too, it's hard to find them in a big strata. I'm like, awesome.

That's right. It's a it's a vicious circle. And when you point it out to them, it's they don't like it. I'll tell you, this is a good example. If you see a man building. A wall, and this is not this is not this example is not unique to me.

I heard this somebody else say this. So somebody might say that's not for me. I don't invent everything I say. So if if you see a man building a wall. And he's laying bricks. OK, and he's up here at the top of the wall, right?

And you look up at the top of the wall and you say, hey, your top line of bricks is uneven and it's not level. He may look at it and say, you know, you're right. I need to take these top bricks off and start over.

All right. But if you look at the wall and you say, hey, your bottom level your foundation is on level. He will argue that it's not because it's the foundation of all the work that he's done. You see, we're not we're not argue.

The evidentialist typically argues with the top layer. We're actually arguing with the foundation. The very foundation for how you know what is and is not true is the issue. And that's why it's so hard to accept.

Some of you already are in your mind going, I don't like this level of argument because it's getting much deeper than you usually want to go. We all want to say, well, let's let's use Aquinas's, you know, reasoning or let's use some other apologist, you know, Ray Comfort or somebody, you know, Ray Comfort is a popular evangelist and he uses a lot of apologetic things.

And a lot of that's good. And maybe that's what you thought this class was going to be. And I'm not saying those things are bad. And later in the class, we will get to some of those things. Popular level apologetics, you know, popular level argumentation.

But really, the foundation is what matters. How do you know something is true? All right. Let's finish the. Well, where are we at on time? OK, so we're over time. I do want to show you one last thing and we'll close.

Go in your book to page 13, where it's actually the bottom of page 13 on to page 14. Is this helpful going through it like this kind of clarifying some things? Because he asked the question sort of like what you asked, Ross.

Well, why even have a conversation? They're not going to believe anyway. Right. And some people would say, well, if you're presuppositionalist, why have a conversation? You're presupposing the truth. They presuppose it's not.

Why even have a conversation? You're going to talk past each other. You're never going to make any headway. Right. And I love what he says in number four. We never run out of topics for discussion. Even as a presuppositionalist, we never run out of things to talk about if the person will actually engage with us.

And then on page 14, he gives us an example of how a conversation can begin. And so I'm going to read it as it is written in the book. He doesn't even give an argument. He just he said, this is our starting point.

Believer, the gospel is true because X, Y, Z, the unbeliever. But your argument presupposes the truth of Scripture. So, for instance, let's say the argument was the gospel is true because Jesus rose from the dead.

That's the great proof of Christianity. Jesus rose from the dead. And the unbeliever says, but your argument is based on Scripture. The believer. Yes. But everyone presupposes something. You presuppose the autonomy of human reason.

The unbeliever. But how can you argue the truth of Scripture by appealing to Scripture that circular, no more circular than your appeal to reason to prove reason? Unbeliever. Well, then you have to you have your presupposition and I have mine.

Does that mean we cannot reason together at all? No, there's still a lot we can talk about. Let's put your presupposition on the table with your arguments. And I'll do the same with mine. We can compare the two.

I think I can show that your argument deconstructs. That is, it cannot even work within your own presuppositional framework. Good. Show me how to do that. That's that's what presupposition is. It starts by pointing out their presupposition.

You're presupposing that your reason is a good enough reason to reason. And that's where you start. Makes sense. Kind of. Kind of. All right. So there was a lot more in the in the chapter. I hope that you are benefiting from it.

I'll give you again my recommendation for you. If you have the means would be to go to books at a glance, get a copy of the summary of this book and read that as you read the chapter. Next week, what do we read?

Chapter three. And not because chapter two is unimportant, but because we're we only got eight weeks and we got to move, move, move. So read chapter three. OK. All right. Any questions? Let's pray. Father, we thank you for this time together.

May you be glorified in our study. May we be edified by it. And may ultimately, Lord, your Holy Spirit use this to draw us closer in conformity to the Lord Jesus Christ, in whose name we pray. Amen.