Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Let's start with prayer father of mercies. We pray that you'll be with us tonight help us to help us to learn well help us to stay focused help us to understand that Apologetics is not just about Standing back and giving a defense, but Lord.
It's about taking up the sword and storming the gates of hell and father. I pray that you'll give us wisdom and what we're going to be learning. I pray for the family of the one that I just heard about Lord who has Lost and we pray that you would be merciful to them in this time of grief in Christ's name.
Amen. All right. Well, I want to invite you to take out your Bibles. We're going to look at a few texts of scripture tonight. Tonight is Technically the last class of the course because next week is going to be what was supposed to be week seven and and So sort of got flip-flopped.
So what we're going to talk about tonight tonight will end as if it were ending the course. But please don't forget that we have one more night and that is listening to dr Suplita who will be here next week.
You will not want to miss that that will be the highlight of the course. Hopefully for all of you as well as for me so but just think of tonight as sort of the ending as I'm going to be drawing some conclusions based on what we've talked about and Pulling us into a final thought on all of these things that we have that we have learned.
We've been talking about apologetics. And as you all know from the very first night We gave the definition of apologetics as simply giving a defense of the faith. But it has been rightly said as was written in your book if you read your text for the week.
That sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Sometimes the best way to defend is to go on the attack. Van Til was famous. That is Cornelius Van Til the man most connected with presuppositional apologetics.
He was famous for his writing in Presuppositional apologetics. He was a master deconstructing the unbelieving worldview. He did not just defend the faith. He directly Attacked the faulty worldview of those who did not believe.
In fact one of the most famous Statements I I Know was stated. I know it was used by Greg Bonson, but I believe can be traced back to Van Til is the statement that Christianity is true because of the impossibility of the contrary.
Christianity is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. Basically what he was saying is that Christianity is true because all of the other positions are so faulty that they cannot stand. The position of the unbeliever is impossible.
Therefore Christianity is true. It's a syllogism. It really is it all other positions are false. Therefore Christianity is true. That was his argument and he went on the attack with that. Let me date let me take your ideas and destroy them so as to demonstrate the truth of Christianity.
So tonight we're going to take up that same approach and we are going to discuss going on the offensive. And the first the outline of tonight is three parts. We're going to look first at storming the gates of hell.
That's heading number one. Number two is going to be wearing the armor of God and then number three is going to be knowing and Trusting your sword knowing and trusting your Sword, so if you have your Bibles open to Matthew chapter 16 in verse 18.
This is probably somewhat of a familiar passage to us. This is Jesus speaking to Peter. Matthew chapter 16. This is the text in Matthew where Jesus asks the disciples who do the people say that the Son of Man is you know, he's asking him who do who do the people say I am and Simon said you are the Christ the Son of the Living God after a few other Statements, you know some say John the Baptist some say Elijah some say one of the prophets but Simon Peter gets it, right?
You are The Christ the Son of the Living God. I actually that's a statement that It's called the good confession. When somebody joins our church normally I will ask them along with other things. Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God?
That is a confession of faith in the Christian Church and Peter makes that confession and Jesus says in verse 17 Blessed are you Simon Barjona for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven and I tell you you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell Shall not prevail against it.
That last phrase is the phrase I want to point out tonight. I don't want to get into a debate about Who the rock is and the identity of Peter and all those things. Roman Catholics tend to use that verse to defend the papacy.
Certainly don't want to get into that argument tonight but I do want to point out the obvious thing that people often miss is Jesus says I will build my church and Then he says the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
By Simple question I want to ask you What does a gate? imply. Okay. In a sense it implies Protection from the outside. I put a fence around my yard. I want to keep people in. I want to keep people out and it has the idea of protection and Jesus makes the statement that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.
What is implied in that statement at least I believe what is implied in that statement is that the church Will be the one that is on the offensive. Because the gates are in are for what? To defend. So what does that mean?
That means we're on the attack and Jesus makes the statement the gates of hell will not prevail. See a lot of people get it backwards the people think the church will stand against the attacks of hell.
Hell will not be able to endure the attacks of the church. That's the beauty is the gates of hell will not prevail against the church because In its in its final analysis. I want to write this on the board and the final analysis the gospel Is a campaign of offense.
It is a campaign of offense. Now by that I don't mean offensive like if I say something ugly and you get offended. But what I mean is it's a campaign of going. It's a crusade if I can use such a language that I know is unfortunately damaged by some historical actions within the history of the church, but it is a Crusade.
Billy Graham when he would go and preach his gospel messages. He called it what the Billy Graham Crusade, right? We're going with this. We're on a crusade. We're go. We're on a mission. Right. We're going forward.
We're fighting the battle and so it's not just as if your goal should be to sit in your home and to take care of your family and Just sit back and let the world come to you. No, you're supposed to go into the world.
In fact, the the Bible tells us in Matthew 28 that as we go into the world we are to do what? As you go make disciples make disciples that's what Jesus says go and make disciples of all nations. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and lo I am with you always even until the end of the age.
That's the by the way, that's the Commission from our commander-in-chief as you go. And the assumption is that you will go. See the verb in that sentence is not go the verb in the sentence is make disciples.
The the word go in Matthew 28 is actually a participle. It and it's going the idea of your you are going and as you go make Disciples so the verb becomes the concept of the sentence is to make disciples.
That's what you're supposed to be doing. A lot of people focus on the go, but the assumption is that you're going. The assumption is that you're you're on the mission, but as you go. You make Disciples baptizing them and that's how you make disciples.
By the way, you preach the gospel to them. They believe and they are baptized in accordance with their faith. That's part of making a disciple. Person says I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ, but I don't want to be baptized.
I would question them. Why? Why would you not want to follow the commander-in-chief's prerogative or his demand his his statement is to be baptized. That is the very mark of a disciple of the first mark of a disciple is that the person be baptized?
So God does not call us to sit and wait. He calls us to go. He calls us to make disciples he calls us to be on a campaign of offense a crusade of The gospel and we are to storm the gates of hell knowing the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.
By the way, it's the church that the gates of hell will not prevail against our ministry. Should not be disconnected from the local church. Our ministry should be tied intimately intricately tied to the local church.
If we are not in fellowship and community and in submission to the local church we are outside of the will of God plain and simple and So we are to be part of the church because it is the church that will prevail.
There is no such thing as lone wolf Christianity. Just is what it is. So Matthew 16 18 Jesus tells us I will build my church the gates of hell will not prevail against it. So that's my little speech on storming the gates not not a long speech.
But because the third part is the longest we're going to talk about the Word of God as our sword keeping our sword. You know trusting it sharpening it those things second second one. So that's the first that's storming the gates of hell.
The second one is wearing the armor of God turned to Ephesians chapter 6. So we're on a campaign of offense. It sounds so funny when I'm saying it out loud sometimes I write things and I come back later like I said, it sounds different than what I what I imagined it would come out as I'm typing these things and Campaign of offense sounds like I'm saying be offensive.
It's not what I'm saying. Is it's it's apologetics is a part of the the the good defense is a good offense. Ephesians 6 beginning at verse 13. We have the Apostle Paul telling us about the armor of God.
Now, I don't want to bore you. I hope I would never bore you by rehearsing things that you already know. But I would also never Assume that anybody in here comes knowing everything. So it's always good to rehearse things.
Even if we know them the armor of God is mentioned in chapter 6 verse 13. There are five pieces of the armor. We'll read them now. It says in Ephesians 6 13 it says therefore Take up the whole armor of God that you may be able to withstand in the evil day and having done all to stand firm.
Stand therefore Having fastened on the belt of truth. Having put on the breastplate of righteousness and a shoes for your feet having put on the readiness of the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith.
With which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one and take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit. Which is the Word of God? Now having taught on this text several times.
I'm tempted to fall into a Exegetical role and begin to break these down and talk about how they work but for the sake of time tonight, I want to give you just a few insights that hopefully will work as just Overviews and you can always go back and look into it further for yourself because the majority of the armor is defensive in nature.
The majority of the armor is what we have from the Holy Spirit of God. Which is to give us defense in our battles our spiritual battles. By the way, if you are if you are making disciples you will have spiritual battles.
It will be inevitable That as you go making disciples sharing the gospel proclaiming repentance and faith you will have Struggle you will have battles and These are the five things that we are told that we have for the battle.
Number one is the belt of truth a belt is intended to hold things together. If you think about why you wear a belt or especially why a soldier would wear a belt. It's to hold on All the pieces of the armor the belt fastens everything together and therefore the Apostle Paul Compares the belt to truth.
He says you you put on the belt of truth because why the truth is what holds everything together. If we do not have the truth everything falls apart. So the belt of truth becomes important. The breastplate of righteousness.
What does a breastplate do? Well a breastplate it guards the heart and It is righteousness that guards our heart because our hearts inevitably deal with the issue of shame and guilt and It is the breastplate of righteousness that we have.
That provides us a defense when Satan comes and attacks us and says don't you know? What kind of person you are don't you know? What kind of person you've been don't you know where you've been and what you've done?
How dare you think that you can talk to people about Jesus? You don't deserve to be saved. You don't deserve to have any good in your life. You only deserve punishment and condemnation and you can say yep.
But I have the breastplate of righteousness, which is not my own but the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Right then so we can we can respond there. I do think too though and again not time for an exegesis.
But I do think there is a sense in where and where there's practical righteousness does play a part in this. Because if we are living a life in our Christian walk. Where we are allowing things into our life that are sinful and we shouldn't be and often it does attack our heart.
Often we do feel times of distress and depression and anxiety and pain. Because we have exposed our heart to shame. So I think the breastplate of righteousness though it is the righteousness of Christ.
I would say primarily I do think there is a sense in which we can we tend to open that up and say Come attack it when we open ourselves up to sin. All right, so the breastplate of righteousness very important number three the the shoes of peace now.
This one's kind of kind of interesting. Because the it actually says this it says the shoes for your feet having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. I Liked the King James rendering a shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.
I just like the word shod. Yeah, it's a nice word. Basically, this is what gives us our mission going back to what we're supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be going and how do we go we go with our feet?
We go into the world and preach the gospel and we take with us what the good news. And so that's what that's the shoes for our feet. And you remember the text of the Bible when it says how beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news?
Important passage and often misunderstood in our day because we don't understand a primarily Walking society we we're a we're a riding society we ride in cars. You know, but the people who at this time, you know.
Some of them rode animals, but many of them walked everywhere they went and and they'd walk out to battle. You know. They would march to battle and and they would march back and and when someone came to bring bad news.
He often came without a without much of a strut in his step. But one who came with good news came with joy in his step and there it says how beautiful are the feet of those? Who bring goodness? You know as he sees the step of joy as he comes you can tell when somebody's coming from a distance if they're coming with a good message or a bad message simply by the way they strut.
All right. So that's the idea of the shoes of the gospel of peace and then it tells us about the shield of faith the shield of faith. Remember Paul is in a Roman context and so he's looking at the shields and the shields of the Roman soldier were as tall as the man and as wide as the man and they were designed to protect the whole man and.
Notice what he says about the shield. He says it covers the whole person and it's able to extinguish the what the darts. That's right. The fiery dart says as those attacks come from Satan we get behind the shield and the shield is faith.
It's our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and what he has done again that breastplate we have the shield that covers everything and. Then the one that's often overlooked is the helmet of salvation. The helmet of salvation, of course is what protects our mind.
And what is the what is the biggest thing that we deal with in our mind as believers doubt? Am I really? Saved am I really his and that's how does how does Satan attack us even going back to our first parents?
Has God really said right? So it's the idea of doubt so we put on the helmet of salvation the helmet that that holds in the idea that we are his and he is ours and We keep that in the center of our mind that we belong to him that he has come to save us so all of these things again are very Allegorical and and some somebody may interpret it slightly different than the way that I have.
In fact the Apostle Paul even in a in a parallel passage Uses a little different language when he's talking about the armor. So these are not hard and fast Understandings, but I think that they're simple enough to where we can say.
Okay. This is God providing for us a defense against the attacks that we will face when we're going to make disciples, but The one thing that we note is that all the things that I mentioned so far are defensive in nature a breastplate Defends the chest the helmet Defends the head shoes protect the feet the belt holds everything together.
The shield keeps everything out, but there is one offensive tool in the arsenal and It is the sword of the Spirit the only offensive weapon. So if we are going on the offense as we said our gospel campaign is a campaign of offense.
Then we have to think of the weapon for the offense and our weapon Is the part of the armor that I I want us to really focus on is the is the weapon itself. Jesus When he was confronted by the devil was confronted by the devil after his baptism which you would imagine would probably be a time where would be Joyful and looking forward in expectation, you know, the ministry has begun.
But instead Jesus goes out into the wilderness spends 40 days out in the wilderness and as he's out there, he's hungry he's thirsty. Satan comes and Hey, take this bread. Excuse me. Take this rock turn into bread.
Jesus responds with what the Word of God It is written. In fact, I love that phrase the phrase it is Written. I tell you I Have I have issues some some issues with Some things that over the years Billy Graham did you know things I didn't.
I'm not a fan of mass conversion crusades and things I think sometimes those produce a lot of false converts, but I will say this especially in his his earlier ministry years. He was known by some people in fact Ken Ham mentions this in an article or in an interview.
He said he said we didn't know him as Billy Graham in Australia. We knew him as the Bible says man. Because everything he said was the Bible says Bob up the Bible says Whatever and that was how he was known by Ken Ham as he was growing up.
He wasn't Billy Graham. He was the Bible says man because no matter what it was the Bible says and That was it. So In that sense, I think there's that's positive. Wouldn't you love to be known as the Bible says person that.
Huh? Does it the Bible says yeah. Yeah, and the idea that that's the way we fight our battles. This is what the Bible says. I Trust it. I'm confident in it and this is What the Bible says? So let's move now to the third part which again will take the rest of our hour.
And that is knowing and trusting your sword knowing and trusting Your sword in Genesis chapter 3 We get the first Inkling of something bad in God's good world. Genesis chapter 1 God creates the world and it is very good.
Genesis chapter 2 it gives us an extended explanation of the creation of man and woman. They are very good they're living in the the perfect condition they themselves are in a sinless state and they are in my estimation living a joyful existence and.
Then in chapter 3 verse 1 it says now the serpent Was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman Did God actually say? You shall not eat of any tree in the garden.
Just stop right there the ESV I In an attempt to I think create a dynamic here says did God actually say and You get what the translator is trying to do there is trying to put in the concept of the of the Well Adding the question Did God actually say?
That and the King James half God said You know, but the idea is This is what you believe. But did God really say that? This is what you believe but half God truly said that I want to tell you that You and you may know this that is still the greatest Tool of the devil.
Yeah, that is still the greatest tool of them. Because the idea did God really say that can you really trust it? In fact, he goes on says and the woman said to the servant We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden.
But God said you shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden. Neither shall you touch it lest you die? But the serpent said to the woman you will not surely die for God knows That when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil.
Now we know how the story goes but Focus with him for a moment just on what he says in verse 4 you will not surely die. So what do we have here? We see the very method of Satan right from the beginning of his introduction into the biblical text.
And what is his method first? He questions if God has spoken. Second he questions the integrity of what God said and third he provides an alternative explanation for what God has said. I'll say that again.
He says he questions if God has spoken. Hath God truly said? Then he questions the integrity of what he said. He said you will not surely die and Then he provides an alternative explanation for God's Word.
You see God just wants you to be held down. He just wants to be your oppressor. And he wants you to stay oppressed. He knows that on the day that you eat of this tree you will be like him. See that's an alternative explanation right.
God's Word. It was clear on the day that you eat of it dying you shall die but Satan provides an alternative explanation. I Provide an alternative explanation for what God has said an Alternative belief an alternative idea an alternative concept an alternative lifestyle alternative direction, whatever you want to call it Something else other than what God hath said.
Was it? That's right. That's right one of the areas that apologetics has to be ready to deal with and As Apologists, that's what we are when we engage in apologetics. We become apologists. One of the things that apologists must be ready to contend with is the subject of the Bible's accuracy clarity and sufficiency.
Because that will be the attack of Satan. I'll write that down because that's going to be really where we go. The three things that will be attacked are the Bible's accuracy Accuracy clarity and Sufficiency.
So before we go further, let me ask three questions. Do you believe the Bible is accurate? And what it says is true. Okay, do you believe the Bible is clear? That you can understand it. That's the second.
Okay, I appreciate the honesty. Okay, how about this do you believe the Bible is sufficient that what it says is enough? Okay. That's important. Now. We started this whole thing eight weeks ago saying we're presuppositional.
Listen, sometimes when you say that people think that that means that you never appeal ever to evidence or anything any logical Argument or anything, but you've seen throughout the course. That's not true.
And so tonight when we talk about the accuracy the clarity and the sufficiency of Scripture I am going to be pointing out some Evidential things but I want to always remind you that my Overriding presupposition is that this Bible is true.
That's my starting point my foundation. So let us begin with defending Accuracy the accuracy of the Bible this argument typically comes in one of two ways someone will argue that What was originally written in the Bible was inaccurate or they will say what has been transmitted down through the centuries?
Has been corrupted. So that's the two arguments either what? Imagine Paul either Paul got it wrong or we don't know what Paul said because we no longer have an accurate Translation of what he said. Yeah, a lot of people do right?
That's the the member the the two devils. Remember, I told the story of the two devils right who came not real devils with the girls dressed as tables Devils ahead and they were in there the whole argument was with the Bible's been translated so many times.
It's been translated, you know, we don't have any idea what the original Bible said. I remember sitting I was sitting across the dinner table from a lady one night who said to me she said, you know I really wish I had an original Bible that's that could tell me what the original Bible said before King James came and changed everything and I tell you what might my brain almost exploded.
Because I I had I I'm not used to that level of ignorance. Because that's a very ignorant statement. Before King James came along and changed everything full stop. You don't know anything and I don't mean to be ugly and I suppose I didn't say it that way but to make that statement is such a ignorance of historical Truth, I'm just like, okay.
Let's start from the beginning. Whoever told you that whoever convinced you of that or if you came up with that on your own, it's an absolute fabrication. No historical accuracy that King James came along and changed anything that's foolishness and Silly but again that is one of the arguments that we deal with either Paul got it wrong or John got it wrong or Moses got it wrong or The other side is we don't know what Paul said.
We don't know what Moses said we don't know what John said and here's a logical syllogism that you'll you'll you'll run into. I'm gonna I'm gonna Try to put this on the board. The logical syllogism is Goes like this the Bible was written by man.
That's the first the first Claim the Bible is written by man, right? Second claim all men are corrupt. Okay, or you could say if maybe they won't say corrupt maybe say fallible fallible might be easier.
Depending on the level of who you're speaking to. But but that's but those two statements become a syllogism, right the Bible is written by man all men are corrupt or fallible. Therefore what would be the therefore?
The Bible itself is corrupt and or it is fallible. Hey. Yeah, okay. So yeah, so, you know, what is Bible is written by men all men are corrupt. Therefore the Bible is corrupt. Now. I want to ask you a question.
Are the first two premises true. Actually, yes. Yeah, I I wouldn't I would not deny either of these premises but the Premises also demonstrate a presupposition and if you can find the presupposition You win the prize.
What's the presupposition that is within this syllogism. Well, no man did write the Bible what we didn't deny that. But what is the presupposition? Yes. Okay. Now that's the conclusion but the presupposition of this argument because this is an argument remember we said an argument.
It's got to be logical. It's got to be valid rational. Yeah, this is a valid argument. It's it's it's logical. Rational but what is it presupposing if a person says the Bible is written by men we agree with that.
The Bible didn't fall out of the sky. Huh? No, that's the conclusion. The conclusion is it's not true. There's a presupposition. No, that's there and I agree with that all men are fallible. That's the second that's the second clause.
First clause is the Bible is written by man. I agree. Second clause all men are fallible. I agree the conclusion then they would say is that the Bible must be fallible. But they have a presupposition that we're missing.
That's right it does they are presupposing the absence of divine intervention they are presupposing the absence of divine Intervention you see what they're saying is all men are fallible. Yes, we agree.
Men wrote the Bible. Yes, we agree. But what they are presupposing is that God had no intercourse with those men as they were writing the Bible. You see there's a part of this argument that they're leaving out is the interaction that God made in the bringing about of the scriptures.
So here's a approach remember last week. I gave you some if they say this you might say this. Statements. Here's how I would if a person maybe said something like this. I would I would respond this way.
Maybe again don't know for sure, but this is one way that I might I might ask them. Does the fact that the Bible was written by men demand that it cannot be trusted? Does the fact that the Bible was written by men demand that it cannot be trusted and if they say yes.
They have a problem. Because all books were written by men. No book has ever been written by a dog. No book has ever been written by an ape and as far as I know it no book has ever fallen out of the sky even the Mormon golden plates.
So if the argument is true that all books are written by men and therefore all books are to be Disbelieved then the person has a problem say do you read? Well, yes, I do. Do you believe what you read?
Why all men are fallible all men are corrupt. Why would you believe anything? Why do you trust what you read if it's written by men who are inherently to be disbelieved and Here I would ask them this question.
Are you as critical of the other things that you read as you are of the Bible? Are you as critical of? your science textbook as You are of the Bible. Are you as critical of your of your English notes that you get from the teacher.
Well, but. But are they often not in Fact. I have found and this has been this has been proven true over and over and it's anecdotal. So I can't prove it by any type of evidence just simply my own experience.
But I have found this to be true that when people disbelieve the Bible they'll believe anything. I Know a guy one time. I think I've told this story better tell it again the guy told me He was the biggest skeptic in the world.
I Am the big and that's why I didn't believe the Bible. I am just the biggest skeptic in the world, but the problem was he believed in all kinds of stuff believed in voodoo believed in mystical healings believed in aliens believed in everything.
But did not believe the Bible because I'm the biggest skeptic in the world. No, you're not you believe everything but the Bible. You're not as critical of other things as you are of the Bible, which should tell us something.
That's Right. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely so I want to I want to tell you something that I might say and I would say this very carefully and. And somebody may write me a note and say I think you were wrong and I'm fallible and I could be wrong so If you want to send me an email that that's fine anybody who's watching.
But I might say this in this part of the conversation I might say this. Even if the Bible were not Superintended by God's Spirit, which I'm not conceding. I do believe that it was. But even if it wasn't that doesn't prove it's not true.
Because men can write true things so the syllogism is an assumption that's not necessarily true. That the Bible has to be wrong just because it was written by men. See I don't deny that it was written by men and I don't deny that men are fallible but I do deny this.
I Do deny that the Bible is untrue. Why? Because their logic is faulty. Nothing in their logic proves the Bible to be false. At all they are making a truth claim which includes a premise that they have not proven.
They are saying that because men are involved in writing scripture. It must not be true and we should all respond. Simply by saying if the Bible has an error, please show me if you believe the Bible has an error.
Please show me now. Let's just talk about that for a minute because that may open up a can of worms with you and your potential interactor. They may say something like this. Well. Based on the Bible the the earth is only a few thousand years old.
But we know the earth is billions of years old. There is an error. So, what do you do presuppositional apologist? Say what's your presupposition? No, what's what's their preset? We're we're we're on the offense, right?
We're attacking the attack. They're coming. We're going at them. What is your presupposition you print your presupposing and the accuracy of modern dating methods? Maybe a little more than that. Not necessarily but I get where you're going with that they're they're they're presupposing the earth is billions of years old.
They're presupposing the Bible can't fit into that that mindset. And what I'm saying is they're presupposing the accuracy of the dating methods. Yeah, and they'll say well I believe the science what science let me ask you a question here and here's a good one and I.
Yeah, I'm not trying to just give you zingers. But here's a good little a good thing to say maybe in the midst of the conversation is How much of the research have you done yourself? So you're really just trusting a book that somebody else wrote didn't we start this conversation with having a problem with books that other people?
Yeah. That's that's right. Yeah, the concept of science being settled. There's no such thing but but at least you now know where you are. You're presupposing I'm talking to not you but the person you're presupposing that the science is settled on the age of the earth and nothing could come along and knock down all of the Walls that have been put up in science regarding the age of the earth nothing could come along and change the paradigm.
May haven't we seen in the last hundred years Thousands and thousands of discoveries that have changed scientific paradigm over and over and over and over and over again. So you don't think that anything could come along that would challenge the paradigm of the earth's age at 4 .5 billion years old.
I Mean, but you see I'm saying though is you you're you're speaking to someone you're challenging them to examine their presuppositions. Your presupposition does not disprove my Bible because you're not proving it you're claiming it.
They're not making a proof they're making a claim. See people say well, this is proven. Is it how about this? There's a good one. This is actual. This is uh, this is actual. Front for this was in a TV show.
Know how my brain works. No, what I'm saying is this argument was in a TV show. Based on architectural. I'm sorry based on archaeological Finds camels were not domesticated during the time of Abraham.
Therefore when the Bible says he had camels the Bible is in error. We just talked about this a few weeks ago. Remember I preached on this right? Remember I said right here it says Abraham had camels and yet some archaeologists claim that There were no domesticated camels during the Bronze Age which was the time of Abrams life.
Okay, but My point Ed is that that is an argument that was on the Big Bang Theory TV show. If you've never seen the show, there's a character in the show. His name is Sheldon. He's supposed to be the smartest one in the group.
He's a little awkward and his mother is a Christian and they often use that to make fun of her in the show. Well one in one of the shows he's on the way to the house to see her and he begins to tell his friend How excited he is because he's going to tell his mom how everything she believes is dumb because there were no domesticated camels during the time of Abraham.
Well. But you get it, right? He's excited because he's got a zinger. What's his presupposition. No, not that way. Let's not try to guess the episode. What what is the what's the presupposition in that in that argument our archaeology?
The presupposition is that archaeology? can determine with certainty whether or not camel camels were domesticated in 2000 BC. That's about time of Abrams life, right? That's a presupposition now you might say well, it's proven.
Let me just read to you an article on this subject two recent academic papers written by evangelical scholars Conrad Martin Hyde a lecturer at Phillips University of Marburg Germany and Titus Kennedy and adjunct professor at Biola University.
Both referred to earlier depictions of men riding and leading camels some that date to early second millennium BC among other evidence. Kennedy notes that a camel is mentioned in a list of domesticated animals.
Animals in the Ugarit which dates to the Babylonian period between 1950 and 1600 BC. So there is evidence That camels were domesticated during the time of Abraham. Archaeology is constantly finding new things.
Do you know that so much of the Bible and the stories of the Bible the cities that the Bible mentions a lot of people? Say all those cities never existed until they started doing archaeology and they started pulling one after another after another after another out of the dirt.
There was a city that was mentioned by the Gospel of Luke. And Luke is the only one who mentions it out member the name of the city and they said it never existed. This is where Luke is wrong until later.
The archaeologists pulled out literally like a city limit sign of this place. It was like this is where you are now entering whatever and I don't remember the city. But the point is every time the spade of the archaeologist goes into the dirt.
It just consistently over and over and over again confirms the truth of Scripture. So the question is what's the presupposition? Do we start with Scripture and trust it or do we trust the ever-changing?
Standard of the archaeologist that every time the spade goes in the ground his standards shift see Third example now if you were in my New Testament class, you may remember this one because I brought this one up there and one gospel Jesus meets a demoniac and Gennesaret well in another gospel it mentions to.
That there were two two accounts. Must provide the same information. That's the presupposition. You can't have two accounts with two different information why I've Done this before many times. But I'll do it again because it's fun today.
I Had a conversation With our elder Mike Collier, we love to talk on the phone. We I probably spend more time talking to him about the Bible than anyone else except maybe my wife. Because he'll call me while he's painting and he's got his little earbud in and we'll talk and I can hear the roller going and he's Rolling paint and he's talking to me about the Bible and I enjoy it when I'm driving, especially.
And so today we talked about the Bible and we talked about baptisms because we have some young people that are going to be baptized and we talked a little bit about a recent sermon that we both heard that we wanted to interrogate engage with and we engaged with some of the Distinctions that we heard in the sermon and some concerns that we had and we're talking back and forth.
Is that statement true? No, is it true? I mean you believe you trust me. Yeah. Okay, but there were two phone conversations he called me once around three when I was working on the screens, but then I had to go and.
And so he called me back later and what I told you the story I told you actually included pieces of both conversations. But was I lying to you that I didn't tell you it was two conversations. Not in any way.
Not in any way. Something to consider right? All right. This is how narrative works. When the Bible gives a narrative it's not bound to tell every single detail. This is why we don't know anything about Jesus's life from the age of 12 to the age of 30.
Not because there was nothing significant. But there was nothing that was necessary for us to know for our salvation. John says I have written these things that you may know. Now excuse me that you may believe in the Son of God, right?
So it's important that we understand the presupposition as well. If it's if the story is this is here and it's here and there's differences then that is contradiction. It's not a contradiction. It's simply a narrative difference.
One tells the story from one perspective one tells the story from another perspective. And you can find copious amounts of lists online of people who say they have the. They have the attack against the Bible.
They have the the Contradiction, but if you do any digging at all any research at all, you'll find. That they haven't found one. They have found misunderstandings and misinterpretations faulty presuppositions, but they have not found an error in the text.
I once interacted with a lady on Facebook. She was claiming the Bible had errors. Now I didn't entertain her claim. It was on my page, but I didn't want to get into it with her but I had a friend who He dove right in and so I now I'm getting every few minutes.
I'm getting these signals. You know that yeah, you got a comment comment comment because they're they're going back and forth. But here's here it is, huh? Yeah, no one Doyle wasn't Doyle, but you've probably seen that happen.
You know it happens on your page. I've seen it happen on your page. I've almost I've almost jumped in on your pages before but I'm like you know what. Doyle's a big boy. He can handle it. Yeah, I don't want to get into it too much with people.
I don't know but There was a. Especially on Facebook, I mean if it's personal interaction. It's not so bad, but Facebook is so dangerous people become keyboard commandos and go nuts. But the lady she said you know she said the Bible is filled with errors.
That's true the Bible is filled and the guy I don't remember who it was one of my friends. He says show me one. She came back with a litany of verses. But they were verses about slavery women submitting to their husbands.
All these different things and me and him both wrote almost the same thing. That's not a contradiction. You just don't like it. It's not untrue. Just because you don't like it. You see that's the problem.
It's not that the Bible contradicts itself. They just don't want to hear what it says. I have a handout tonight. But this is connected to a sermon not mine. It's connected to a sermon by Vodie Balcom and The title of the sermon is why I choose to believe the Bible is true.
Why I choose to believe the Bible is true. This is actually notes from the sermon. I didn't write them. The website that I got it from is at the bottom. But it's like a this is like a notes from the sermon that's available.
It's a PDF file that you can download, but this is the quote. I like this quote. Vodie says I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses.
They report of supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine Rather than human in origin. So why do you believe the Bible because of that?
That's his argument now. You might say well, that's not very presuppositional. Well, it is as he's saying I choose to believe the Bible because this. But he's starting from the Bible. So I have that that quote is on here and you're and he does have a book called expository Apologetics that would come in to your reading if you want to extend your study of apologetics.
So I'm going to just pass these this way. James if you'll just pass those down. All right. Let me let me spend the next five minutes and then we'll take our break on Defending clarity and defending sufficiency because accuracy really is is the one that you're going to hit a lot.
But the other two clarity and sufficiency also need to be at least considered. So talk about defending clarity this one's a little more difficult because When you address an unbeliever the Bible may not be very clear to them because the Bible tells us what in second or first Corinthians 2.
Yeah, it tells us that it's folly to them. It's foolishness to them. So there is a sense in which it's not going to be altogether clear to the unbeliever. So listen to this. I State this as I wrote it while I contend for the truth with Scripture with an unbeliever.
Excuse me while I contend for the truth of Scripture with an unbeliever. I try not to allow myself to get drawn into debate about individual passages because they are rarely fruitful. If a bullet if an unbeliever is arguing with me about a specific passage of Scripture.
I Normally say something like this. Do you want to do a Bible study on that passage? Are you really interested in studying that passage in regard to the historic context and the grammatical historical method of interpretation?
Do you really want to know what that passage says or you're using it as a club to try to attack me? Because if you want to know what it says We can do that, but it requires more than the one minute of you shouting me down.
That you're trying to it use it as an attack club. So do you want to do a Bible study on that passage generally they do not remember this it only takes it only takes Five seconds for somebody to say something wrong.
It can take hours to clarify that error. And sometimes you ain't got that kind of time. Just keep that in mind because if somebody throws something crazy out there, you know, I you know I I just don't believe.
I don't want to believe in a God who would kill all of the firstborn children of Egypt that story Disgusts me. Okay, it is appointed unto man wants to die and after that is judgment. What are you going to do on Judgment Day?
You can argue with God about what he did in Egypt. Are you going to deal with your own sins? I mean honestly, I mean that yeah, I mean, you know, you know, because ultimately we all deserve punishment and.
Certainly you do because you're a sinner. See what I mean, that's Again apologetics is getting back to the gospel right getting back to the truth if they want to argue about God's. Again who created all of the children in Egypt?
Who do they belong to? Has the Potter know right over the clay to say to the clay. What he's going to do certainly does I? Don't like that. I don't expect you to. So defending clarity is a little tougher.
But we should we should at least be confident that the Bible is clear. The Bible does tell us why God did what he did. The Bible does tell us sometimes the answer though is not what we want. Sometimes the answer is I am God and I do as I will.
We don't always like that answer. But the answer is there. Lastly defending sufficiency. The Bible says that it is sufficient. In fact, it says four things. It says it's it's profitable for teaching for reproof for correction and training and righteousness.
That's second to second Timothy 3 16 and 17. It says for four things. All Scripture is profitable for those four things. What does it equip men to do. According to that passage. That's the four things but it says it equips them for every good work.
Yeah. It says it's profitable for teaching for reproof for correction training righteousness. So that the man of God may be fully equipped for every good work. The unbeliever May not be convinced of the sufficiency of Scripture but that does not stop us from proclaiming it and Our proclamation hear this because I wrote as I was writing this I said, I really want to make sure you hear this.
Our Proclamation does have persuasive value. Because some folks are just not used to hearing someone take an uncompromising stand on the Bible. Your uncompromising stand on Scripture may be the only one they ever hear and It may be the one that God uses to move their heart.
George Whitfield was a great preacher during the time of the Great Awakening. He would go into fields and he would preach the gospel and thousands of people would come and listen to him. I don't know how they could hear him.
I guess his voice just boomed through the field and he would often have unbelievers who came to listen to him and One time there was a very famous Atheist who was making his way to go listen to George Whitfield preach and he was asked by one of his friends.
Why would you go listen to him? You don't believe what he's saying. And he says no, but he does he does understand this. Proclaiming the truth of the sufficiency of Scripture if you believe it and you should.
That matters. If you trust it. Proclaim it it matters. And I want to say this as I close and I will close a Lot of times this objection about sufficiency will come from false religions. Muslims the Bible is not enough.
We need the Quran Mormons. The Bible is not enough. We need the Book of Mormon. Whatever, but keep in mind. They all have a basis in the Bible. They've simply departed from the sufficiency of it and Therefore a question you might ask them is are you saying that the Bible is not enough?
They might be saying that and that begins your conversation. But are you saying the Bible is not enough because I believe that it is our single Weapon, not our single best weapon, but our single weapon only weapon for fighting spiritual warfare is the sword of the Spirit.
This has been our point from the beginning of this course and it has brought us now to the end. The heart of presuppositional apologetics is that we begin and end our defense with the Bible. Keep your sword sharp and you will battle well.
All right, let's take a break.
