Always Ready: Chap. 26 The Heart of the Matter Pt. 1

Knowing and Believing

OK, we're moving right along here. We've concluded sections one to four of the book, Always Ready. And as I was mentioning a few minutes earlier, I had intended to try to move this along a little bit.

And instead of moving it along, I had to divide this next chapter into two parts. So we've already covered the first four sections of the book. And now we're looking at section five, Answers to Apologetic Challenges.

And I thought we could maybe get through this one a little bit more quickly. And so last week, we did chapter 25. This week, I came to this chapter, The Heart of the Matter. And it really is the heart of the matter.

I know I say this every week, but this is a very important lesson in the defense of the faith. So again, Bonson subdivides each chapter into sections. And the first one is called Knowing and Believing.

So he says, Christians are often called believers, while non-Christians are termed unbelievers. No big surprise here. Scripture itself speaks this way. We read that believers were the more added to the Lord, Acts 5 14, and that they should not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.

There are obviously two classes of people distinguished by whether they believe or not. And it can rightly be said that what separates Christians from non-Christians is a matter of faith. Now again, this is very basic, very simple.

It actually goes back to Christianity 101. But it's important. And I like the way Bonson has built on this. That's why I'm going to do this in two parts, because it's just too much information for one evening.

He continues, Christians believe certain things which non-Christians do not. Christians believe the claims of Christ and the teachings of the Bible to be true. Non-Christians disbelieve them. So again, he's just setting up this dichotomy that we've seen throughout the book.

Christians have faith in Christ and trust his promises. Non-Christians do not believe in him and doubt his word. It's quite natural, then, that the gospel can be called the word of faith, not in the word of faith movement, as we would know.

So becoming a Christian entails that you believe in your heart that God raised Christ from the dead. Likewise, he who comes to the Father must believe that he is, that he is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him.

And examples could be multiplied. What sets Christians apart from non-Christians is the matter of belief or faith. Again, nothing new, right? We're building on this. Everybody understands the premise.

But this is foundational for what's going to come. However, the difference between them is more than that in an important sense. Notice what he's saying. He's already classified all of humanity into two parts, believers and non-believers.

But now he comes back and he says, the difference between them is more than that in an important sense. And we need to understand this if we're going to do a faithful job in defending the faith. The Christian claims to believe the teachings of Scripture to have faith.

Faith in the person of Jesus Christ because the element of trust is so prominent in our relationship with the Savior. But the Christian actually claims more than simply to believe Christ's claims to be true.

And his comes with a little bit different. And I want you to think about what he says. The Christian also affirms that he or she knows those claims to be true.

All right.

Now that's so. He's making a distinction now between knowledge and belief.

All right.

And this is going to be a crucial part of this whole chapter, so much so that's why I divide it into two parts. What is involved in saving faith is more than hope, although that's present. We know we believe in the blessed hope.

All right.

And more than a commitment of the will, although that too is involved. There is a volitional aspect to coming to Christ. And we know we come by faith. But look at what he says as he continues. Job confidently asserted, I know my Redeemer lives.

Interesting. He doesn't merely say, I believe, but I know my Redeemer lives. John indicated that he wrote his first epistle so that those who believe on the name of the Son of God may know that you have eternal life.

And in fact, how many people were here when we did 1 John in the men's breakfast? Just one person was there? A couple?

OK.

Remember what we said about 1 John? 1 John was not just written that you may know, but that you would know that you know. In fact, you know that you know that you know. Because I think it's like 18 or 19 times the word know is used in 1 John.

So and that's what Bonson is picking up on here. So that you may know that you have eternal life, 1 John 5 .13. Paul declared that God has furnished proof that Jesus will judge the world. Jesus promised his disciples that they would know the truth, and the truth would set them free.

All right.

So now, yes, the $64 ,000 question. In what way? Anybody remember the $64 ,000 question? Am I the only one? OK, thank you, John. In what way does knowledge go beyond belief? Knowledge includes having justification or good reason to support whatever it is you believe.

Notice what he's saying. It's more than just, it's not blind faith. It's not mere belief. And this is what's important, because unfortunately, so many Christians today will, I've even heard it in an evangelistic way, all you've got to do is take that blind leap of faith and trust God.

That's not the message of scripture. And I love what Bonson says here. Imagine that I believe there are 37 square miles in a particular city. And imagine also that it just so happens that this claim is accurate.

But imagine as well that I simply got this answer by guessing, rather than doing measurements, mathematics, or checking an almanac. He believes it to be true, but he can't know that it's true. Because he doesn't, there's no way, there's nothing to support his belief that it's 37 square miles.

He says, I believe something which happened to be true, but we would not say that I had knowledge. In this case, because I had no justification for what I believed. Notice, there was no justification for what he believed.

When we claim to know that something is true, we are thereby claiming to have adequate evidence, proof, or good reason for it. Now, we have to be careful here, because we don't want to lapse off into being evidentiary in the way that we are apologetic.

But, and this is what a lot of people mistake about presuppositionalism. It's not that we don't use evidence, or that evidence doesn't play a part. It certainly does, but not as our standard.

OK?

And I think you'll see the difference as we go. The difference between the Christian and the non-Christian is not simply that one believes the Bible and the other does.

Not.

People's beliefs can be frivolous, random, or silly. Now, we've certainly seen that. I mean, just look around our society today and see what people believe. The Christian also claims that there is justification for believing what the Bible says.

I know it's true. I can make that statement. I know the Bible is true. Not merely I believe the Bible is true. The non-Christian says to the contrary, that there is no justification, whoops, went double-clicked, that there is no justification or adequate justification for believing the Bible's claims.

Or, even in a stronger case, say that there's justification for disbelieving the Bible's claims. This is what the non-believer says, all right? Now, apologetics amounts to an inquiry into and debate over who is correct on this matter.

It involves giving reasons, offering refutations, and answering objections. That's what apologetics is, all right? We'll expand on that as we go. Notice next subsection, conflicting worldviews. And we're going to take a little side trip, but it's not too much on this side.

Still goes to the heart of the matter. Whose perspective is intellectually justified? Good question. The Christians or the non-Christians? Many budding Christian apologists approach the answer to this question in a very simplistic and naive fashion, thinking that all we have to do is look at the observable evidence and see whose hypothesis is verified.

That would be an evidentiary look at it, all right? Now, it's somewhat understandable why a Christian would do this, because we resolve most disputes in society in this way. So for example, an example that Bonson uses in the book, he says, how do you resolve a dispute over the price of eggs?

One person says that it's $1 a dozen. Another person says, no, it's $1 .50 a dozen. Well, you can go down to the supermarket and look and see, and there you have evidence. There it says, it's $1 a dozen, OK?

Or even disputes with science. Many disputes in science, true science, not pseudoscience, can be resolved through experimentation. You know, what happens when you put sulfur or phosphorus in water? Yeah, all kinds of stuff, all right?

And just walk down the, when they're experimenting with sulfur in chemistry class in high school, and you walk down the hallway and you smell those rotten eggs, and it disrupts the whole school day, all right?

So of course, Bonson continues, disagreements such as these can be readily resolved in this fashion only because the two people who disagree nevertheless agree with the other about the more basic assumptions.

So if we're talking about the dispute over the price of eggs, the two people say, well, no, you know, going down to the supermarket and looking and observing it, I agree to that, that that will solve the problem.

That evidence is good enough for me. What if one of the people says, I don't care what it says in the supermarket?

I'm mad about that.

All right, you see the point, though? If one person says, I don't accept that as an authority. I don't like stop and shop. My wife loves stop and shop. But you see the difference. So some of these disputes can be clarified through just natural events if both people agree to it or if the both sides agree, such as the reliability of the senses, the uniformity of natural causes, natural events, the accuracy of the data reporting, and the honesty of the researchers.

But all of those would have to be agreed upon to resolve any disagreement, all right? However, the dreaded however, when a dispute is over more fundamental issues, as it is between believers and unbelievers, simple appeals to observational evidence need not be decisive at all.

In fact, in most cases, it's not, all right? The reason is that a person's fundamental beliefs or otherwise called presuppositions determine what he or she will accept as evidence and determine how that evidence will be interpreted.

There's the question. Are you going to accept whatever the proper presupposition is as evidence? And then even how that will be interpreted, OK? So naturalism and supernaturalism are conflicting outlooks regarding the world in which we live and man's knowledge of it.

So there you have the naturalism, the supernaturalism. And we're actually making the point Christian supernaturalism, not just any supernaturalism, all right? The naturalist claims that what is studied by empirical science is all that there is to reality, all right?

That's what the naturalist says. If I can't study it, see it in the test tube, work it out by mathematical formulas, all right, then it's not part of my reality. And that every event can, at least in principle, be explained without resorting to forces outside of the scope of man's experience or outside the universe.

See what he's saying? In other words, if it's not within my scope, I don't have to believe it and my presuppositions. You following me so far? So Christian supernaturalism, on the other hand, believes that there is a transcendent and all-powerful God who can intervene, excuse me, who can intervene in the universe and perform miracles which cannot be explained by the ordinary principles of man's natural experience.

Now here's one of the fundamental differences. The scientist of today says dead men cannot be resurrected from the grave, all right? And regardless of what you want to tell them, they're not going to believe it because they say, no, that's an impossibility.

And we'll get to that a little bit later. Whereas the Christian says, no, no, God said that he can do this, so therefore, there's my authority, OK? Now then, having well-accredited reports of a miraculous event is not in itself sufficient to change the mind of the naturalist.

And Bonson says, for good reason, OK? Notice what he's saying. You could have a miracle take place right in front of a naturalist. And he'll say, it's not a miracle.

Why?

Because he does not believe in miracles. Miracles are not possible. Therefore, what I saw, I can't even trust my own eyes. You following?

OK.

The naturalist's presuppositions will require him to dispute the claim that such an event really occurred. Or alternatively, will lead him to say that the event is subject to a natural explanation once we learn more about it.

So the fact that Jesus fed 5 ,000 people with a couple of loaves and fishes, all right, he'll say, no, that's not possible. There's got to be another reason. It's either a lie, or Jesus had a store of fish and loaves in a cave, which actually is one of the things that they do say.

The miracle was that everybody's heart was so that they shared in it anyway. But they just will not believe it, right? Simple evidence need not dislodge his naturalistic approach to all things. And there's the case again.

You can do it right in front of him. And he says, nope, I don't believe it. Our presuppositions about the nature of reality and knowledge will control what we accept as evidence and how we view it. Notice, it's what we believe can happen.

If you truly believe that miracles are impossible, there's no such thing, then no matter what you do to a naturalist in front of him, he will not believe it.

Why?

Because he says, that's not possible. And it's a presupposition. It's not something based upon fact or evidence. And then he goes on here. Now, again, now we're going to talk a little bit about worldviews.

Everybody has what can be called a worldview, which is a perspective in terms of which they see everything and understand their perceptions and feelings. OK, I'm just going to read a couple of these. A worldview, and I love, this is a great definition.

A worldview is a network of related presuppositions in terms of which every aspect of man's knowledge and awareness is interpreted. And the naturalist and the supernaturalist have completely conflicting worldviews.

This worldview, as explained above, is not completely derived from human experience, nor can it be verified or refuted by the procedures of natural science. When he says that from human experience, a person can come to a worldview many different reasons, not necessarily all by what he himself has experienced.

It could be from teachers, from parents, or reading. And once a person accepts that as a worldview, then it's very difficult to move them out of that. And also, and this is an important point too, not everybody reflects explicitly upon the content of his worldview or is even consistent in maintaining it.

But everybody has one nonetheless. So for example, when you talk to a naturalist, there's no way they can account for logic, for reasoning, and yet they use it. So they're actually working in contradiction to their own worldview and using your worldview to try to disprove your own worldview.

A person's worldview clues him as to the nature, structure, and origin of reality. Remember, even reality will be, their view of reality is affected by whatever their worldview is. It tells him what are the limits of possibility.

It involves a view of nature, sources, and limits of human knowledge. It includes fundamental convictions about right and wrong. Even if they say there's no such thing as right or wrong, that's their conviction about what right and wrong is.

There is no right and wrong. One's worldview says something about who man is, his place in the universe, and the meaning of life. What we, this is one of the reasons why, for example, like on our abortion ministry, if somebody has an absolutely naturalistic view of life, just taking the baby out is no big deal.

That's why you can have them say things that would, that horrify us, all right? They're being, in that case, they'd be being consistent with their worldview. Worldviews determine our acceptance and understanding of events of human experience.

And thus, they play the crucial role in our interpreting of evidence or in disputes over conflicting fundamental beliefs. That's why you have to be very careful. You don't want to get into a shouting match with somebody because then whoever is the loudest wins.

We saw above that apologetics in the nature of the case involves argumentation over the justification of belief or rejection of belief. Remember, it's all a question of what a person believes. But the Christian, remember, we have more than belief.

We have knowledge. What we have just observed is that one's treatment of the issue of justification of belief will be governed by his underlying worldview or presupposition, OK? Even what they believe is governed by what they believe in their worldview or their presupps.

Effective apologetics necessarily leads us to challenge and debate the unbeliever at the level of his most basic commitments or assumptions about reality, knowledge, and ethics. Notice, we don't, trying to argue whether capital punishment is correct or abortion is murder, if you're arguing strictly at that level, you're not going to get anywhere.

You have to get down to their fundamental beliefs and what their presuppositions are. So our approach to defending the faith is shallow and ineffective if we think that the unbeliever simply lacks information or needs to be given observational evidence, OK?

Notice what he says. It'll be shallow and ineffective if all you think you have to do is, if I can just persuade this guy by giving him more and more information. Because the lack of information is not the issue.

It's his underlying fundamental belief system and his presuppositions. The Bible teaches us that the mental and spiritual perspectives of believers and unbelievers differ radically from each other. In fact, they are diametrically opposed.

In principle, and according to what they profess, the basic worldviews, the fundamental presuppositions, and of the Christian and the non-Christian conflict with each other at every point. So you can see why arguing the morality of abortion is not the way to go.

Not that we shouldn't be defending our view, but not at that level. That's not going to do it. The all-pervading sinful depravity of the unregenerate man touches his intellect as much as anything else.

That's our doctrine of total depravity. Remember, what is total depravity? Doesn't mean that everybody is bad as they could possibly be, but that every aspect of their being, of their character, is affected by sin.

Therefore, even the intellect and the reasonability is affected by sin. The mind of the sinful nature is at enmity with God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be. And that's an important word, nor can it be.

That's a question of ability. Paul's description of the unbelieving mind in Ephesians 4 is graphic. Look at what he says. Unbelievers walk in vanity of their mind, darkened understanding, ignorance, and a hardened heart.

And that's, he's just getting warmed up. Professing them to be wise, they became fools, he says in Romans 122. On the other hand, believers are said to be transformed by the renewing of their minds. So you can see the difference.

Something that you will look at and say, but of course, they look at and say, that's stupid. And we'll get to that, too. They now have the mind of Christ and bring every thought captive to him. So it is not surprising, therefore, that believers and unbelievers, with their conflicting worldviews and heart conditions, do not really share a common view of knowledge, logic, evidence, language, or truth.

And this is, that's, but that's the level that we have to operate on. Pilate arrogantly asks, what is truth? Agrippa differed with Paul over what is believable, Acts 26 .8. And what unbelievers call knowledge, believers shun as pseudo-knowledge.

What believers called wisdom, unbelievers call foolishness. So if the way in which people reason and interpret evidence is determined by their presupposed worldviews, and if the worldviews of the believer and the non-believer are, in principle, completely at odds with each other, how can the disagreement between them over the justification of biblical claims be resolved?

That's an excellent question. And we're going to save that for next week as we study the impossibility of the contrary. Questions? Now, again, this is only halfway through the chapter, chapter 26.