TPW 61 Worldview Apologetics Part 1 of 4

I'm Pastor Patrick Hines here at Perduell Heights Presbyterian Church in Kingsport, Tennessee and today I'm gonna post part one of four on the issue of apologetics and evangelism and This is sort of by request from the students at Doe River Gorge.

So I hope that they will find this to be edifying and I'm gonna bring back a lot of the videos that used to be On the the old YouTube channel. So I'll be posting those here and also the audio will be on the just the the audio Protestant witness podcast on thorn crown ministries, so I hope you find this to be edifying.

Some people have requested that I do some videos just on apologetic methodology on presuppositional apologetics and There's a lot of people who are more able at this than I am. And there's a lot of really good books that are out there.

Scott Oliphant's book Covenantal apologetics is very good. Jason Lyle the ultimate proof of creation Is outstanding and just love that if you want to go deeper Greg Bonson's Van Til's apologetic and also Bonson's book always ready are really good introductions to the issue of apologetics and Certainly the the classic Bonson Stein debate is I believe available on YouTube for free.

You can listen to it on there. The audio is on there and it's really good stuff. Apologetics is very very very important and the main thing that you need to know about it I think that most people don't realize is that it's very much tied to your theology.

Your theology is going to determine how you defend the faith. If you are more Arminian in your perspective, you're going to be more evidentialist in your approach meaning you're going to be relying upon the power of of the empirical proofs and evidences of Christianity in order to try to coax a decision out of someone.

Whereas if you're more reformed you're going to go more so in the direction of worldview analysis. We do believe in using evidence. It's very important that people realize that. People often think that you're one or the other you're either a presupposition list or you're an evidentialist.

As if evidentialists don't have presuppositions and as if presuppositionalists don't use evidence. We do we do use evidence, but we use it in the right way. We use evidence in the presuppositional camp, which I would argue is just the biblical method of doing apologetics.

We use evidence as a confirmation of our worldview not to prove it. Because the very concept of proof itself assumes a certain perspective assumes a certain worldview namely the Christian worldview. And so it's very important that your theology is correct first if your theology is not right.

Then what you're defending. It's not going to be right and so Apologetics and theology are very much intertwined with one another and the way I've always taught this particular issue. In fact, I'm actually going to be speaking at a conference.

That one of the churches in our Presbytery does every fall. I'm going to be the the keynote speaker and do a bunch of sessions on apologetics. So this is kind of an introduction To a lot of the things I'll be covering.

I've studied apologetics for years and years. I discovered Years ago that I was not really doing apologetics correctly. And so I'm going to cover some of that in these videos. So I'm gonna try to make these maybe about a half hour each something like that.

Defining Apologetics from 1 Peter 3:15

So here we have part one. First of all, what is apologetics? Well apologetics is from the Greek word apologia from 1st Peter 3 15. But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts and always be ready to give a defense that word Apologia to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

Now.

Presuppositionalists are very good and rightly so and emphasizing that whole sanctify the Lord God in your hearts part there. That's very important because while I'm defending the Christian faith, I am a Christian while I'm doing it.

No one is able to lay aside their worldview in order to argue about things. And very often the non-believers you talk to are going to want you to do that. They're gonna want you to pretend to be neutral while you're talking to them.

That happened recently with With me on a YouTube video a dialogue. I was having with an atheist. And they said to me I want you to try to give me some evidence that God reveals himself to man. But don't quote the Bible and I responded so.

Well while you're arguing for your worldview, you're allowed to be an agnostic and an atheist. But when I'm arguing for mine, I'm not allowed to be a Christian. That's ridiculous. Everyone has a perspective.

They're committed to. You can't expect your opponents to lay their commitments aside in order to argue with you. Any more than we can lay our commitments aside when I go to into battle when I go to defend the faith or to evangelize I am a Christian.

I take the Bible with me. That is the part and parcel of my worldview. To lay it aside is to deny the very thing I'm defending to deny what I am. Now the atheist he's not gonna lay aside his commitments.

He's not gonna lay aside his presuppositions in order to talk to you. So always remember there's no neutrality. This is one of the main issues. This is why evidentialist as a pure form of apologetics does not work.

Because it assumes the neutrality of the people you're talking to. And people are not neutral people are dead set against God. That's why Romans 1 is so critical. All men everywhere are well aware of the existence of God, but they they successfully Suppress the truth and unrighteousness.

I'd like to give you just an example just last night was reading the gospel of Luke to my children at our family devotions. And read Luke chapter 6. Luke chapter 6 Contains a narrative that really jarred me years ago when I was on my way to becoming reformed in my theology.

Listen to what it said here Luke 6 verse 6 now it happened on another Sabbath. Also that he entered the synagogue and taught and a man was there whose right hand was withered. So the scribes and Pharisees watched him closely whether he would heal on the Sabbath that they might find an accusation against him.

But he knew their thoughts and said to the man who had the withered hand arise and stand here and he arose and stood. Then Jesus said to them I will ask you one thing. Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil to save life or to destroy?

And when he had looked around at them all he said to the man Stretch out your hand and he did so and his hand was restored as whole as the other. Now I have heard atheists say in my presence that if God came down and would part some oceans.

Or would rain down some miracles or destroy a city with fire and brimstone or heal somebody or something I would definitely believe that he exists and here you have Jesus. Surrounded by a group of Pharisees of scribes and Pharisees Watching right in front of their eyes to see if he'll heal on the Sabbath and he does an Astounding miracle right in front of them.

And what is the next verse say? I haven't read it yet. Does it say. And when they saw this display of power on God's part then they could no longer deny it. Jesus was God in human flesh. He was the long-awaited Messiah and they became his disciples.

That's not what it says. They had empirical evidence right in front of them and yet what does verse 11 say of Luke 6 and they were filled with rage and Discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus.

The parallel account of Mark's gospel says that they went out immediately and plotted how they might kill him. Facts have nothing to do with what people believe. Well people believe in the way they interpret everything around them.

Whether it's a miracle in their very presence or if it's just ordinary Providence God feeding the birds and Sending rain and us having food at the grocery store. Whatever God does no matter what a person's.

No matter what their condition as an unbeliever. They're gonna suppress that truth and they're not gonna allow it to count as evidence that God exists or that his word is true or anything like that. So what we have to do if we're going to be good evangelists is that people have objections.

We need to go deeper than their objections. We need to understand what's behind their objections what the worldview commitments that they have are that are behind their objections. So apologetics is intimately connected to evangelism.

I do think this is one one part of Presuppositionalism in general that I think is not emphasized the way that it should be. We get good the whole thing of sanctify the Lord God on your hearts and always be ready to give a defense.

To everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you. What it with meekness and fear? I think that that part what you're defending is what the hope that you have the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm defending The fact that I hope to go to heaven that that term Elvis that expectation.

It's not well, I sure do hope it happens. The term really communicates expectation the expectation that is in you to go to heaven. I am certain that I am right with God and I'm going to heaven. Well, why is that?

Can you defend that? Yes, I can and that's what we're gonna talk about here. So the biblical mandate Is to go into the world and to preach the gospel mark or Matthew 28 18 and Jesus came and spoke to them saying all Authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.

Go therefore and make disciples go therefore in light of the fact that all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Therefore in light of that go and make disciples of all the nations. Excuse me baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son of the Holy Spirit.

Teaching them to observe all things that I've commanded you and lo I am with you always even to the end of the age. So the evangelism is something that every Christian is supposed to be engaged in. There are there are some who try to say well, no, it's really just for the the clergy.

It's for the Apostles. It's for pastors and ministers and things like that. I think Acts chapter 8 verses 3 and 4 really gets rid of that whole idea altogether. Listen to Acts 8 3 and 4 as for Saul, this is Saul before he became the Apostle Paul.

He made havoc of the church entering every house and dragging off men and women committing them to prison. Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word. Well, who who was scattered everywhere.

The church the people the people in the pews. They probably didn't have pews back then but the people that were members of local congregations were scattered everywhere. What do they do? How did they accept this this persecution and being scattered as an evangelistic opportunity?

And they went around preaching the word talking to people about Jesus and about the hope. That they had in Christ to go to heaven to be reconciled to God to be forgiven. And so apologetics and evangelism are always connected to one another.

It's very important that we realize that we are not in the business. Merely of dismantling other people's worldviews and showing the incoherence of non-christian perspectives. We are to do that with an eye to Taking them to the cross and I've always taught people when I've taught on apologetics.

The only reason that we want to get good at worldview analysis is for the glory of God. And so we can take people to the cross the goal is not to just destroy someone's worldview and leave it there is to take them to Christ and Being good at worldview analysis being good at apologetics will enable you to sweep aside all the objections.

So you can get back to the cross so you can get back to the gospel. You are defending the hope that is in you and the reason that we have that expectation. That hope of going to heaven is the gospel. So the thing we're defending is the gospel now listen.

There's a number of other passages of scripture I've compiled and my manuscripts here as I've taught on this in the past and I've tried to refine my my teaching here. Acts 22 verse 1 brethren and fathers hear my defense before you now and then what does Paul preach to them the gospel?

Hear my defense my defense of what my apologia of what the gospel. Philippians 1 7 just as it is right for me to think this of you all. Because I have you in my heart and as much as both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.

You were all partakers with me of grace. You hear that? He is defending what the gospel defending and confirming the gospel. So when people come with objections when they've got Their opposing worldviews always remember the thing we're defending is the expectation that we have of going to heaven.

I'm defending the gospel because that's why I know I'm going to have them. So we're not just defending the Christian worldview in general. Although we are doing that but the goal of the apologia is to take people to the hope to the expectation.

To Jesus Christ and the cross forgiveness the call to repentance and faith. 2nd Timothy 4 16. Paul says that my first defense there you have that word apologia again. No one stood with me, but all forsook me may it not be charged against them but the Lord stood with me and strengthened me so that the message might be preached fully through me and That all the Gentiles might hear you see that at my first defense No one stood with me and then he says but the Lord stood with me and strengthened me.

He was defending so that what so that the message might be preached. You see that I want to say to everybody there I think there there may be some younger folks who are who are getting how to do biblical apologetics.

But but might be not getting this as emphasized as they need. The point is to be able to preach the message you do apologetics and you sweep aside The objections to get to the gospel and so whatever venue you're in whatever.

In whatever situation you're defending the gospel whether it's a publicly moderated debate or a lecture in a classroom. Or just one-on-one conversation. Until you have proclaimed Christ and him crucified and issued the call to repent and believe you haven't engaged in apologetics.

Because apologetic apologetics and evangelism are intertwined you are defending The hope that is in you which means at my first defense No one stood with me, but the Lord stood with me so that the message might be preached.

Until that message is preached. You haven't reached the goal of apologetics, which is to take people to the cross. So we're gonna look at both apologetics and evangelism, but under the category of apologetics There will be two major sections method and practice.

So when you think about apologetics always be thinking in terms of method and practice. Okay, my method my method is going to be determined by my theology. Okay, so we'll practice. There's they're intertwined throughout but right after doing some method and there's going to be some examples some concrete examples of this in action.

So the key to effective apologetics and evangelism as the one is the doorway to the other you defend. The hope that is in you to do evangelism. That's that's the thing you're defending is the gospel. Is biblical methodology the key to being effective as a Christian in evangelism is biblical methodology.

So rather than get bogged down in a zillion particulars and details Related to methods other than the one that I'm gonna be teaching you here. Let me just illustrate the key difference by way of a contrast.

Between what I would hold to be the biblical method and all other competing methods. In the recent past two big debates took place between a prominent Christian and a prominent atheist. The first was Christian.

Dr. Greg Bonson against the atheist. Dr. Gordon Stein that took place. I think in 1985. So it's been Goodness 32 years ago. The second was the Christian philosopher and apologist. Dr. William Lane Craig and the atheist Frank Zindler.

Now Greg Bonson and William Lane Craig's theology could really could not be more different. Greg Bonson was a was an Orthodox Presbyterian minister. So he really is a kindred spirit to me. I'm a Presbyterian myself and William Lane Craig is is some kind of I guess probably Baptistic something like that, but really Is an Arminian with a vengeance and is a Molinist believes in middle knowledge and would not be reformed at all.

And in fact, I think has more detestation for Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists than he would for even Catholicism. So William Lane Craig is an interesting case. But the method that Bonson and Craig use could not possibly be more different.

Now, let me illustrate the differences between what I would hold to be the biblical method and the non-biblical method. William Lane Craig's basic argument was this in his debate with Frank Zindler and I think that debate is available on YouTube.

Is this here's his argument. The available Cosmological scientific evidence. The fine-tuning of the balance of life. The existence of moral absolutes humans tend to agree upon across cultures. The uniqueness of the person of Christ in history and the strong evidence in favor of Christ.

Bodily resurrection from the dead all Favor all that together favors the probable existence of a God. The evidence.

Leans.

Strongly in our favor and therefore the reasonable man can hardly be faulted if he believes there is a God somewhere. The evidence seems to indicate that a God Probably exists. That was Craig's argument when Bonson Debated Gordon Stein and I would highly recommend that you listen to both of these debates if you really want to get your mind around.

The difference between the methods listen to Craig's debate with Frank Zindler. That's ZINDLR. I'll put links to these things if I can find them in the in the description of this video. Bonson's debate with Gordon Stein here was Bonson's basic argument, but you need to hear the whole debate to really get the force of it.

Here's his argument in order to debate at all. We must have worldviews that are able to justify logic reason science and morality. Atheism can justify none of these things only the biblical Christian worldview is able to and therefore dr Stein by showing up to the debate.

You've already abandoned your own worldview and embraced mine. Therefore you've lost. Remember years ago hearing that going Wow, how how's he gonna answer this and that debate is epic. It's epic. The thing is though a lot of what William Lane Craig said I thought I think is very good his stuff on the historical evidence for the resurrection is Devastating it is very good.

But you see it's devastating because I'm a Christian and I'm going to interpret it in the light of my worldview. Should we use those arguments and use that evidence? Absolutely, of course as a confirmation of what we believe.

Should we even use them on the non-christian? Yes, but we also need to address not just Facts, but our non non-believing counterparts philosophy of fact, how does he interpret facts? What does he think Counts as a fact.

What does he think is in the list of plausible explanations for facts until you go that deep until you go Underneath the way the non-believer interprets things. You really haven't engaged him in terms of the apologetic task.

And so I want to ask a more important question here when it comes to method when it comes to the method by which we do apologetics is Apologetics neutral or is it tied to theology? Historically there is great disagreement among Christians on how to answer this question.

What is the proper method of defending the faith and answering objections and questions? Now eventually we'll get to specific types of objections and do worldview analysis and how to test people's worldviews for inconsistencies arbitrariness Unworkable consequences and the preconditions of intelligibility, but we'll get to that later.

For now, we're going to focus on method. How do we go about defending the faith? How do we do it? Do we do so entirely committed at the outset at the outset of all of our discussions do we do it Committed to the Bible as God's infallible word.

Or do we set the Bible aside and try to argue on other grounds for the truth of the Christian faith? That is the great question Christians do not agree on among themselves. My position basically is this.

We do everything related to apologetics and evangelism. Entirely committed to the Bible alone as the infallible clear word of God. You have to do it that way. Otherwise, you're really not being a Christian.

You're really not being honest with people. So I want you to think about this when Jesus Made the Great Commission very often again another part of that Great Commission. That's often not looked at is How extensive his authority is?

He says all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth and in light of that go make disciples of the nations. All authority that Greek word exousia authority, how extensive is it all in heaven and earth?

Jesus does not qualify the statement all authority that exists is his Christ. Lordship and authority must still be firmly in place as we defend the faith. I am a Christian while I'm defending the faith.

I am committed to Scripture while I'm defending the faith. I do not pretend to be neutral and try to argue on other grounds for the Christian faith. And here we must maintain this against all who would ask us to set the Bible and the Christian worldview aside.

So that we can argue on neutral grounds and I want to tell you the minute you do that. You've already lost the debate because your opponent is not going to do that. They will pretend to be neutral. But they're not and when it comes to the issue of neutrality with regard to God always remember this saying I learned from Greg Monson.

They aren't. The person you're talking to is not neutral. They aren't and you shouldn't be. They aren't neutral and you shouldn't be neutral. So never let the non-christian rob you of Scripture to rob you of all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge to rob you of the stoic a the basic elemental principles Of God's Holy Word, which alone make debate possible.

The difference between believers and unbelievers in Scripture is said to be the difference between ignorance and knowledge. Listen to first Peter 1 14 as Obedient children not conforming yourselves to the former lust as in your ignorance.

But as he who called you as holy you also be holy and all your conduct that includes defending the faith. You be holy in all your conduct. You don't act like an ignorant person when you're defending the faith.

You have knowledge. The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge the beginning of the justification of knowledge. So how much of my behavior should honor Christ? Obviously, that's a rhetorical question.

All of us should be all of us should be Matthew 22 35. Then one of them a lawyer asked him a question. Testing him saying teacher, which is the great commandment of the law? Jesus said love the Lord your God with all of your heart with all of your soul and with all your mind.

This is the first and greatest commandment. Whatever you do first Corinthians 1031 or whether you eat or drink or whatever you do do all to the glory of God and Our minds it is possible in our minds to think in an unloving way about God.

And I want to warn people when you defend the faith and pretend to be neutral about it. You're not loving God with your mind. It's a sin not to not to do apologetics committed to being under God's authority the whole time.

You're doing it and you can't pretend That you're not under the authority of Scripture while you're arguing for the Christian faith Our thinking the way we reason logical deductions and their validity all of it is either loving or unloving to God thinking reasoning drawing conclusions.

Those are all things that we do and whatever we do is to be done under the authority of Christ and to the glory of.

God.

Now I want you to think about back in the Garden of Eden when Eve was attacked by Satan and He undermined the authority of God's Word. Eve was attacked via reasoning. Satan tries to get her to believe that God has selfish motives for withholding that fruit and it's very important that we don't allow The siren calls of the world to cause us to do the same thing.

You can't allow Scripture's authority. To be decreased in your thinking by the fact that you're talking to someone that doesn't accept it. If you're a Christian you are set apart by the Word of God and it defines everything that you are think and do and people.

Say oh, you're just assuming that you're just just presupposing. It's totally circular argument. Yeah, and the non-christian all their presuppositions are circular as well. All their presuppositions are not testable or verifiable by science.

So we all hold circular positions. That's right. We all do and our position Justifies everything that we have to take for granted in order to argue and all not all forms that non-christianity takes whether it's Islam Mormonism Atheism agnosticism, whatever all of them cannot account for everything that we have to take for granted in order to be able to argue at all and That now once you've pointed this out are the non-christians gonna go.

Oh, you got me. I repent and everything else. No. Our job is simply to close people's mouths. It's God's job to convert them to the gospel. But always remember if you haven't preached Christ if you have not called that person to repent and believe in Jesus.

You really haven't defended the gospel. Another way of illustrating the difference between the biblical method of doing apologetics and I would argue all of its competitors is this the brick by brick approach.

Versus the entire biblical Christian worldview approach. I think that's a really helpful way of summarizing the differences between the two way the primary two ways of doing apologetics. Do we go brick by brick and try to get them to first become a theist?

And then I'll try to get him to think that Jesus is unique and then I'll try to get him to think that the Bible Is unusual and then I'll try to get him to think this and just sort of step-by-step get them there.

Or as I am evangelizing people and talking to them. Do I bring the entire Christian worldview intact? I Think that's the right approach because of the extensive nature of Christ's authority and what we are set apart by Scripture to do.

Let me illustrate the difference here again the brick by brick approach. This was William Lane Craig's approach in this debate with Frank Zimler and it's most Christians approach. Unfortunately, it means this trying to build your case for the faith one small brick at a time.

Rather than bringing the completed picture in your thinking and in all your arguing already with you. The brick-by-brick approach is trying to build your case for the faith one small brick at a time instead of bringing the entire worldview to bear upon the unbeliever.

We must first try to make him a theist and then try to make him think the Bible's special and then try to make him Think that Jesus existed and then to believe that he rose from the dead, etc. Piece by piece we try to bring the unbeliever in and we will we are rejecting this approach.

I reject that approach. Yes, we do need to be able to argue for all those things I just mentioned but the way we argue for them will be distinctly biblical and Committed to the Bible as the authoritative Word of God.

It never ceases to amaze me how often you'll hear people say that the resurrection of Christ proves that Jesus is the Son of God. That that event by itself that proves everything and my response to that as a Christian is no.

It doesn't the resurrection of Christ proves exactly one thing that some dead guy came back to life. And that's all proves, you know who actually made that point very forcefully. Michael Martin in his book the case against Christianity.

I'll never forget reading it now. When I was in seminary I wrote a paper on the resurrection and I read Martin's book and he makes the point. He says even if you can show that Jesus did rise from the dead as a historical fact.

That still does not prove. He was the Messiah. That doesn't prove he fulfilled any prophecies. That doesn't mean he was the Son of God and it doesn't mean Christianity is true. And it doesn't mean the Bible's true.

All it means is Some Jewish guy was crucified died and came back to life. And that's all it means. You see the problem with the brick-by-brick approach. You see it's not just the historical events. It's also their God-breathed interpretation given to us in Scripture.

You have to have both in place and without both the events are meaningless. You've got to bring the whole system with you the whole time you're arguing for it. And so that's the brick-by-brick approach and that's what we're rejecting.

That's what I reject. Then you have what I would argue is the biblical method the entire biblical Christian worldview approach to doing apologetics. Since God has spoken only in Scripture and the Scriptures teach that if you reject Scripture you are reduced to foolishness in your reasoning.

I'm not going to act like I'm not committed to Scripture when I argue for the Christian faith. Because if you reject it you're reduced to foolishness in your reasoning. I don't want to be a fool. I'm not going to embrace the folly of unbelief in order to defend the truth.

I'm going to show you that everything that you take for granted, Mr. Non-christian is destroyed by your own presuppositions. Now by everything that you take for granted I mean this logic, knowledge, inductive reasoning, science, reason, morality, human dignity, so on and so forth.

By rejecting the Christian God and his law word given to us in Scripture. You destroy your right to use anything in that list of things I just gave you. Now is the non-christian gonna go. Oh my goodness, you're right.

I guess I can't use any of those things. Of course not. Of course not. Why does he believe in their validity? Because he's made in the image of God. Even though he embraces a worldview which if true would render all of them unintelligible and that's that's what we point out to them.

That's what we get them to try to see as we try to take people to the cross. God is to be believed on his own self-authenticating and self-authorizing authority and on no other basis. And so I don't look to evidences and to proofs.

For the validity of God's Word. God's Word is my starting point. It is my presupposition by which I evaluate everything else. And again, people are gonna object. That was totally circular. All worldview issues, all worldview commitments are completely circular.

Always remember that. The agnostic, the atheist, the Muslim, whatever. Whatever form non-christianity takes. The presuppositions that lie at the base of that worldview Cannot be tested scientifically and cannot be verified by the procedures of natural science.

Rather those presuppositions and those worldviews are that by which Natural science is interpreted. That by which you interpret facts. I'm going to give a number of illustrations of this in some subsequent videos.

But I hope that that sort of lays out the foundation of where I'm coming from here in terms of Understanding the biblical method of doing apologetics and evangelism versus the Evidentialist or the brick-by-brick approach to doing apologetics and evangelism.

So there's there's part one on method and we'll move into some more details regarding worldviews, presuppositions. What those terms mean and how how much they do affect the way we think and reason as Christians.

Thanks for watching. This is Pastor Patrick Hines of Brittle Heights Presbyterian Church located at 108 Brittle Heights Road in Kingsport, Tennessee. And you've been listening to the Protestant Witness podcast.

Please feel free to join us for worship any Sunday morning at 11 a .m Sharp where we open the Word of God together sing his praises and rejoice in the gospel of our risen Lord. You can find us on the web at www .brittlewellheightspca .org.

And may the Lord bless you and keep you the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. The Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.