Presuppositional Apologetics - 1 Peter 3:13-16

All right, if you were here for the conference over the weekend Friday and Saturday.

Then you know who our speaker is.

For those of you who may not have been here.

Our speaker teacher this morning and the and he's going to preach in worship service as well as Paul Taylor.

He's from the Mount St. Helens Creation Center in Castle Rock, Washington.

And he spent the last two days Friday night and Saturday equipping us in creation

Apologetics and young earth worldview issues, etc.

And so Paul is going to be here now to talk to you about Presuppositional apologetics.

So with that, please welcome Paul Taylor

now, I must admit.

I thought I was going to be speaking in a Sunday school room.

So I planned this a little bit differently.

I planned it to be a sort of seminar.

Okay, and as with most good Christian churches half of you sat at the back.

So this is now your opportunity to get up and come into the first few rows, please.

Because what I want to do, this is not going to be a lecture.

Okay, or at least what it may be a lecture it depends how quiet you are and I will try

and get you to respond and I If you want to ask questions during

the During the talk then please do so don't wait for the end if that means I don't

get through all the material.

It doesn't matter.

I will have got some through some of the material.

Okay, so that was my plan.

This is not meant to be a sermon.

This is not meant to be a talk like yesterday.

If you came quiet, then it will become that but we'll see.

Okay, well I wanted to talk to you a bit about apologetics and The reason why I

wanted to talk to you about apologetics is because I am concerned that a lot of people

Who refer to themselves as apologists are doing?

Apologetics in a manner, which is unbiblical most of the well -known

apologists that you find are Doing apologetics in a manner that is unbiblical

and you know, right as soon as I say that some of you might be saying Well, what are you talking about?

What is apologetics?

Anyway, you know, are we supposed to be saying?

Sorry that we're Christians apologizing for being Christians well

When we're talking about apologetics and I will define the term so that you know what we're talking about.

There are a number of passages of Scripture which are helpful to go to but the most important one probably the main one

is in First Peter chapter 3 and you may well be very familiar with this or at

least you may well think you're very familiar with this.

But I would like you to turn to it.

Anyway, please first Peter chapter 3 and.

We'll read.

From verse 13.

Now I have noticed that unlike yesterday's talks with

the.

The.

Few slides I've got here.

I have noticed that I have forgotten to change the scripture version in the slides from

the English Standard Version, which I normally use to the new and new American Standard Bible.

I do apologize for that.

Okay, I know.

That you think the new and new American Standard Bible is the only Received Word of God.

Okay.

Please forgive me.

So that's why we'll turn to this now and we'll read it from the new American Standard Bible.

So that you know exactly what's there and you can compare it and work out what what we need to learn so from

verse 13.

Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?

But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness you are blessed

and.

Do not fear their intimidation.

And do not be troubled but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.

Always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for

the hope that is in you.

Yet with gentleness and reverence and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are

slandered.

Those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.

Let's stop there.

Okay, so I did say 1st Peter 3 didn't I?

Or did I say 2nd Peter?

I said 1st Peter.

Okay, I got it right then.

I was just worried then I thought some people were not finding it easy.

And I thought maybe I said 2nd Peter by accident because I do often use 2nd Peter chapter 3 for other things.

So that was 1st Peter chapter 3.

1st Peter chapter 3 includes the word defense.

I don't know what's happened to the picture there.

Is there anything we can do about that at all?

It looks perfect on my computer.

Is there anything we can do at the back there at all to make that right?

Okay, I'll try it again.

Okay, that looks okay.

Ah, there we are, that's better.

Okay, just have a look please at verse 15, verse 15.

There is one particular clause there which apologists often quote.

Always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account

for the hope that's in you.

Just stick with that particular phrase for a minute.

Always being ready to make a defense.

Defense of what?

What are they asking you to defend?

What's Peter asking you to defend?

The Word?

Okay, do you hear that?

The Word?

The Bible?

Anything else?

Anyone else?

The Word?

The Bible?

Your hope?

Your faith?

What you believe?

The Christian faith which includes the words of Scripture there.

You're being asked to defend that Okay.

Who are you being asked to defend it to?

Who?

Unbelievers?

Well, although it's got the word everyone it qualifies it doesn't it?

So it doesn't mean everyone everyone.

It's everyone who Asks you about the hope that's within you

everyone With whom you are having a conversation.

Everyone who is asking you to defend your faith.

What hope have you got?

And you're being asked To defend your faith for that purpose.

And of course there are other words there that ask you, you know, what means you're going to use.

Now if anyone is reading Either the King James Version or one or two other versions at this

point, you'll know that it says there that we should always have an

answer an answer so it could be the word defense

or it could be the word answer and.

Both those are correct because they are both giving you and

The meaning of the Greek word and the Greek word there is a apologia.

Apologia, I've written it in Greek there for those who recognize the letters.

I Said yesterday for those who were here.

I'm not an expert on Bible languages.

I know a little Greek not much and I'm completely self -taught.

I've never attended a seminary class on the subject, but I know a little bit.

I know almost no Hebrew but I try and get these things a from computer programs and be from people who I know I

respect and I know That they know what they're talking about.

Okay.

So just bear that in mind because if you're then going to button and ask me to Translate a Greek phrase because I've just happened to introduce

the Greek word. I'm not going to be able to do it.

So I'm not going to try and pretend to you that I understand Greek I I can recognize those

shapes and I have got it from a program and I know what they you know I've looked on all my references

and so on to do it.

Is that okay?

Okay, so please don't start going away thinking only that man this morning was a Greek expert, you know, very well I am NOT.

Okay, your pastor is I am NOT.

Okay.

So ask him the difficult questions.

Apologia is the word that apparently is best translated as answer or defense and

It's from that that we get the word apologetics.

And of course you recognize it as the word, you know where we get the word apology from.

But you've got to understand that the use of the English word.

Apology is not what it used to be.

It's changed its meaning slightly.

Nowadays we think it we use it to mean saying sorry.

So, you know those of you who are parents will tell your children you must give an apology.

You know you hit your little sister.

You'd better apologize and What the little boy concern says is

well, she did it first.

And you say to that that little boy.

No, that's not a proper apology.

You've got to apologize without an excuse and of course that's good parenting.

But bad use of the English language.

Because actually in its literal meaning what the little boy did was an apology.

You see what I'm saying?

Because of course you we wanted him to say sorry and wanted him to say sorry unconditionally.

But the word apology used to mean a defense and what he did was he defended himself.

He gave you a reason he gave you an answer a reason a defense for why he had hit his sister.

That doesn't mean to excuse it.

It doesn't mean it was a good reason.

It's not an acceptable reason.

Please don't think I'm undermining your parenting.

Yeah, it's definitely not an acceptable reason, but it was a reason.

That makes sense so on the older meaning of the word apology.

That's what we would do and you still see that of course in academic terms.

You see a really good argument in a book and you write an article.

Agreeing with that book defending the things that were said in it that article that you write is an Apology for

what has just been said that make sense.

You know your favorite politician has said something that's controversial other people disagree with that person.

They put all sorts of comments on Facebook about that and you put a comment defending what your favorite politician has said

your comment was An apology.

You see you were not saying sorry for what they said you were defending what they said.

And that is what apologetics means and it is therefore a biblical thing that we should be doing.

We should be in that sense apologizing for the faith, but we are definitely not saying sorry for the faith

quite the opposite.

This is a.

This is something that we should be doing.

This is that this is a proactive.

But having said all that there are then some misunderstandings about how we do that

because these might be the sorts of questions that you might get and These are really what we're thinking about

in terms of apologetics.

Okay, and we might be asking things like how do you know.

Or we might be asked things like how do you know?

The Bible is true.

How do you know that God is real?

Okay.

There are a number of different answers to this.

Well, let me just see what what your answers are.

Please do not give me a long lecture.

We haven't time for that.

Give me a very very brief summary.

How do you know that the Bible is true?

What would you say if someone asks you that if I put you on the spot?

How do you know the Bible is true?

And please I don't understand that anything you say well.

You know that it's not gonna be adequate as I know because people have written entire thick books on this subject as an answer to

this.

I'm not expecting you to know to do that.

Okay, how do you know the Bible is true?

Historical evidence.

That might be one.

Is that what you think about when somebody is challenging you and saying well, that's something in the Bible.

Yes, sir.

They changed heart.

That's good.

They've had evidence.

We've had a changed heart basically your experience Of what's happened?

How do you know that God is real?

Yeah, complete silence.

I think it's not that you don't know.

The answer is that you're frightened that I'm going to criticize you.

Because the Bible says that God is real I see.

Right, and so that's starting from a very firm belief that what the Bible is telling you is true.

Yeah, I like that.

Sorry, how do you know he's not real?

Yeah.

That's that's an interesting response.

I know that there are many atheists who will tell you you know, you your burden of proof is on you and you might say well

the burden of proof is not on you and In fact, I would say that the that you're right that the burden of

proof is not on you.

But we need to understand why because many Christians think that the burden of proof is on them.

And there are many books and even even movies that have been in the movie theaters

recently.

But assume that the burden of proof is on Christians and that they have to make the case for this or that or

whatever.

Actually, the Bible doesn't do that.

Here are some of the sort of answers that people might give which I will go to but but I want to first of all Mention that many

people will quote first Peter 315 without really fully understanding the context and the context is

important.

This is the bit that people usually quote.

Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that's in you.

But having got that in front of you, you know, that's not the full verse.

There's something at the big before it.

There's something after it which is in your hearts on a Christ as holy.

Always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that's in you.

Yet do it with gentleness and respect.

The last bit is very very important we're not to be belligerent.

We supposed to be winsome in the way that we defend the faith.

So we must do it with gentleness and respect.

That's that you know should go without saying.

Of course, it's not always the case.

There are some Christians and I am one of them who can get very very argumentative.

There's something I have to repent of very very frequently.

Okay, and it's been crossing the line there.

But we've also got to remember the first bit.

This is important because when you are defending the faith you should do so using an argument

which honors Christ the Lord as holy and That is a problem

because there are people who defend the faith with great gentleness and respect.

But I would argue that the way they do so is still not honoring Christ

the Lord as holy.

I'll give you I'll show you what I mean by that as we go through but it is very important

that our Apologetics honors Christ the Lord as holy and it's my

opinion.

That there are many many apologists out there who are using arguments which

they do out of Genuine belief that you know, they honestly think they're doing the right thing.

But actually if you listen to their arguments their arguments are not honoring Christ the Lord as holy.

Okay, I would suggest then that there are four main classes of apologetics

four different ways of Doing apologetics four different ways of answering

those questions that I gave you.

How do you know the Bible's true?

How do you know that God is real?

There are there's an experiential Apologetics there's evidential apologetics

there's classical apologetics and there's Presuppositional apologetics.

I want to show you very very fast in just a couple of minutes.

How those work and why I believe that only one of those is biblical and

that the other three are not.

Okay.

That's that's my aim in the next 10 to 15 minutes.

Okay, let's start with every and with experiential apologetics.

Now this is really a label that one or two of us have put on this because I don't know that many people Deliberately set

out to use Experiential apologetics, but here's how it goes.

Obviously it's to do with your experience.

In other words, you defend the faith according to your experience so the question

remember is how do you know that God is real and

Experiential apologetics is often people's default setting so that a typical answer to the

question, how do you know that God is real is I was raised that way.

I was raised that way.

Have you heard that argument?

You're all frightened now because I'll be very careful.

I ask this question.

It's probable that may have some of you including me may have used that argument.

Because I was raised in a church home.

I now look back and I think I was not raised as a Christian.

But I was raised in what my parents thought was a Christian home.

Okay, and there are some good things about that.

Let's face it.

I did go to Sunday school.

I don't think it was an adequate Sunday school, but I did learn a lot of Bible stories and.

So I did have a fair amount of knowledge by the time in my mid to late teens that I actually became a Christian.

So the background there was of use and I'm not going to despise it my parents did what they thought was right at the time

they've gone to be with the Lord now and they have gone to be with the Lord because Subsequent to I was the first person in my

family to be saved but not the last and my parents were both saved later, so I

Was raised that way.

But I hear this as a genuine answer.

I was raised that way.

Okay, do you think?

This is where I'll answer ask quite a careful question so that I'm not going to put you on the spot, okay.

Do you think that is a satisfactory answer?

Okay, think about it.

Is it a persuasive answer?

No.

What about you've been from Britain?

There are many parts of Britain where you might meet people who've immigrated to Britain.

From different parts of the world, especially people from different parts of the British Commonwealth.

So for example when I was in Leicester, you would have had a lot of people who came from the Indian subcontinent.

People brought up in Pakistan as Muslims.

If you ask them, why do you believe in Allah?

They might say because I was raised that way.

What about, you know, if my friends there who were Hindus?

Why do you go into the temple and put a saucer of milk at the foot of the statue?

The elephant, the elephant God statue, I forget his name, I've just forgotten momentarily.

Why do you do that?

Because I was raised that way.

Now it's not true then if you were if you were brought up in India.

Think of this question if you were brought up in India where there were a lot of Hindu people and

your parents were Hindu.

Would you now be a Hindu?

It's a tricky question.

Good.

Well done.

What a good because God's sovereign remember.

What's God got to say about this?

And here's the problem with the experiential apologetics.

It's not recognising God as sovereign.

It's not recognising Christ as Lord and yet many people many Christians would

say Oh, yes, if I was brought up in India, I would be a Hindu to which I might reply

Well, are you a Christian only because you were brought up in America?

Is it cultural?

And again without putting anyone on the spot.

Do you believe that there are cultural Christians who are Christians because they were raised that

way?

Yes, quote Christians.

Yes.

So the experiential apologetics and as I say, you wouldn't normally get a book with the title experiential

apologetics.

I'm saying it's just the default option.

It's when people haven't really thought about it.

But if you're if you're on the spot, you're defending your faith.

That may be the way that people say it and we say it's not a satisfactory answer.

Nor is it a satisfactory answer to say well, I'm a Christian because it works for me.

Why is that not a satisfactory answer?

It works for me a Lot of people like that answer, you know today.

Why do they like it?

You know, why is that not a satisfactory answer?

But why do they like it?

You can answer either those questions and it's a real question.

Come on.

It's not.

It's not offensive.

That's true though.

We don't necessarily understand we have to be offensive in the sense of taking the battle out there.

But not offensive in the sense of putting people's backs up deliberately.

Hmm.

Yes.

Why is it popular today?

It is.

Everybody has their own thing.

And remember we're in a post -modern world.

If you understand the times that we live in this of course is the prevailing view.

It's okay for you to be a Christian.

That's your truth.

I've got my truth.

That's post -modernism, isn't it?

The idea that everyone has their own truth now.

That's of course is unbiblical because actually truth means nothing if there is no standard behind it.

There has to be a standard.

Something is true.

Because it's true and why is it true.

Because it's according to what God says.

That's what makes it true.

There is only one objective pattern of truth and I should be

pointing to a paper Bible here, but I've got a program on my.

The Bible is there.

I can see the Bible there on my tablet.

You can't see that but that's why it's true.

Because it's in Scripture.

Okay, second type of Apologetics is evidential apologetics.

And this is where we get a little bit more problematic where some of you may wonder what at what case I'm trying to make.

Here, what's the evidence that will prove things to be true?

What's the evidence so you say why do you believe in God?

Why do you believe in God.

What you might want to do then is give people evidence that God?

Exists or why do you believe the Bible is true.

Give them evidence that shows that the Bible is true.

Okay, and.

I'm about to criticize this so I'm letting you in on that just again so that you don't have too much fear on this.

Why would I want to do that give people evidence that will prove things to be true?

Isn't that a good method of doing it because this is in fact a method that many many Apologists today

use in order to defend the Christian faith.

God is real because I can give you the proof that he's real I Can

make the case that he's real?

Why would someone like me want to try and criticize that and the answer very much here?

Just as a clue is in the scripture passage that we actually read

any ideas.

Okay.

Let me give you a scenario and then maybe this will get you the answer and I'm not letting you off the question because I'm Going to ask it again, but

here's the scenario.

Supposing you do this supposing you have some real winning arguments and you're very eloquent in

what you say and you're speaking to the atheist here and you're Explaining some of the reasons

why you believe that God is real.

You've given those arguments at the end.

They say yes, I can see then that there must be a God.

Are you going to jump up and down at that point and say praise the Lord?

Because they've said that they understand and accept that there is a God

the demons know that Demons know that there's a God.

Actually, the demons know a little bit more than that, but many humans only know that there is a God.

If you use yes, sir, it felt that

is true.

Did you hear that?

It's an application of the wisdom of men and Therefore it fails to sanctify Christ.

How can it fail to sanctify Christ?

Well, here's the here's the reason why I can fail to sanctify Christ.

You've got them to believe in a God what God?

What God what God?

You know as a creation speaker it applies in creationism because there are a lot of people who say we should be showing people.

We don't need to mention God we can get people in schools in high in public schools to

learn intelligent design.

That so, you know instead of believing that Organisms evolve we can show them that there are

mechanisms which are so complex.

They could not possibly have evolved.

They must have been designed Intelligently so there is an intelligence that design them

and many creationists think that is a wonderful thing to do.

And by the way, I'm saying this you obviously have gotten the idea that I don't think it's a wonderful thing to do.

Can you see why?

You brought them to believe in a God a creator.

What's the point?

Because if they believe in a God a creator.

They are still going to hell.

Just as much as the atheist who doesn't believe in a God who actually really does believe in a God believes himself to be

God.

Remember the Bible says that there isn't actually any such thing as an atheist anyway.

Okay, knowing God they refuse to accept him as God.

Romans chapter 1 read through that section.

It's why Ray Comfort wrote a book called God does not believe in atheists.

Which is a brilliant title and absolutely biblically true, isn't it?

God does not believe in atheists.

He knows that there are no atheists because he knows that everyone knows that he exists.

But many people refuse to accept him because they prefer their sin.

So Romans 1 says.

So here's where many godly people whose intentions are very good.

Try and give you arguments to prove to you that God exists and they bring you

to believe a God.

And if that God is only the end result of an argument.

Then he's not the true God.

He's not the God of the Bible and it does you know God no good at all.

Now there was a gentleman called Anthony Flew.

Anthony Flew have you heard of him?

He was a well -known atheist in Britain.

He wrote books and books and books on the subject of atheism.

When the humanist manifesto number three was published he was one of the signatories to

that.

He was a man who was quoted widely by other Atheists who you will know of such

as Richard Dawkins and others quoted him as being a well -known Philosopher.

He criticized the idea of life after death.

He criticized the idea of the problem of evil evil and any form of meaningfulness.

It was in 2003 that he signed the humanist manifesto version 3 and the very

next year 2004 he changed his position and he stated that he now

believed in the existence of an intelligent creator of the universe.

Atheists were horrified.

Many many Christians were jumping up and down for joy.

Can I rain on the parade?

I'm afraid I wasn't jumping up and down for joy.

If any of you heard about Anthony Flew, I don't know whether you were or not.

He did not become a Christian.

He believe he turned his instead of being an atheist.

He became what's known as a deist where he believed there was something controlling the universe.

But you couldn't really know who or what it was.

How is that better than being an atheist.

An atheist really inside the heart?

Really knows that God exists and a deist inside the heart really knows that God exists and they actually know

that the God that exists Is not Allah.

Or an elephant God or anything else that the God that exists is actually the God of the Bible.

But they refuse to accept that so the Bible tells us so we shouldn't have been jumping up and down for joy.

Anthony Flew died a deist.

We have no idea what he may or may not have done in his deathbed but if he did nothing else

on his deathbed and he did no repentance and Putting his trust in the Lord Jesus Christ the Savior.

Then becoming a deist and acknowledging that being an atheist is wrong did not save him.

Sorry if that depresses you but it's true.

It's the truth what the Bible teaches.

So giving people evidence to prove that there's a God also doesn't exist.

Now there are many apologists who will take This a little bit further and they'll say well after all

seeing is believing.

Isn't that.

Well seeing actually is not necessarily believing.

Try this for size for example.

This is a place in Scotland called electric grey.

Watch this car.

See if I can get it to work.

There's a short video clip here it should be moving.

Whoops my computer is a just disconnected from.

That is not good.

Okay.

Well, I'm gonna move beyond that picture and it's a YouTube video.

You can find it very easily, but this place called electric grey in Scotland.

You can get out of the car.

Take your brakes off the car and allow the car to roll backwards uphill.

You can see that you're driving downhill.

But you take your brake off the car of the car and the car rolls back uphill not rolling

downhill.

Why.

Because obviously it really is going downhill, but the lie of the land is an optical illusion and

It's a well -known spot in in in Scotland the town called Bray, but more recently they started

calling it electric grey.

Seeing is believing and people say that but actually your eyes are one of the yes.

You're seeing sense is the sense that is actually the easiest to fool believe it or not.

Your eyes are very easy to fool.

Well, my computer's saying it's connected, but it's not showing connected on the screen.

Do we know why.

Do we know why it's not connecting at all.

I'm gonna try again.

Okay magic is about to happen.

There we go.

All right, let's try again.

That's spirit that was so that's a picture of Spirit Lake.

Not the Spirit Lake here the Spirit Lake near Mount St. Helens.

Well, we're still not getting what I want here.

Okay, well I'm gonna have to do this without slides.

I'm just straight from the notes because we can't see the picture and I hope you'll just excuse me doing that.

But seeing is not believing.

Seeing doesn't doesn't work that way.

If you remember the idea of seeing is believing is something that was mentioned in Scripture because the Apostle Thomas

Mentioned it and he said, you know I'm not going to believe that Jesus has risen till I see the the nail prints in his

hands and the hole and his feet and the hole in his side and Jesus very graciously when he next

appeared and Thomas was in the room.

Invited Thomas to prove for himself.

It's interesting by the way that Jesus only ever offered evidence to people who were already believers.

Read through and you'll see that if there was somebody who wasn't a believer like for example

Jairus when Jesus once was going to heal Jairus his daughter the evidence that Jesus gave him

was only believe.

Only believe which is why when I wrote a book on the subject of apologetics.

Entitled it only believe because Jesus throughout the Gospels you'll find this he never offers evidence

to unbelievers.

He only offers evidence to believers and that's a key point.

Evidence is not for unbelievers.

Evidence is for believers.

It backs up what you believe and it causes you to praise God.

Evidence given to unbelievers does not cause them to praise God and therefore does not sanctify God as holy.

Does not sanctify Christ the Lord as holy.

Classical apologetics is what many Christians want to go into.

This is the third type and it's evidential plus you'll use evidential apologetics with all the

problems that I've just made and you'll try to prove to somebody that a God exists and then You'll add a bit to that to

say well the God that exists has to be the God of the Bible.

Let's have a look at things like fulfilled prophecy and this is very popular and in some ways it might be a

slightly better system.

But it still is not immediately sanctifying the Lord as holy because even there the

prophetic words are there for the believers a Sign for believers to help them

understand that what scripture is doing is pointing us to Jesus Christ.

So even then it's not really giving you much more than the evidential Apologetics

did and after all the bulk of your argument is the evidential method.

Anyway, trying to give them evidence to prove to them that God exists.

So I would say therefore that although the classical apologetics looks a little bit better.

That is also really not what scripture requires so that brings us

back to To our passage and just just a reminder by the way in 2nd Corinthians

chapter 4 verse 18 It says we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are

unseen.

For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.

Evidence is things that are seen and you're trying to give to people to try and prove to them that God exists.

You're trying to give to them things that are transient.

But it's the things that are unseen.

That are eternal and that's what Romans 1 is talking about the things that are unseen.

They're the things that they already know because as I said all everybody already knows that

God exists.

But they're refusing to accept that because they prefer their sin

so that brings us then to the.

The fact that many people would say evidence speaks for itself.

Have you heard people say that?

Evidence speaks for itself.

Actually, that's not true.

Evidence doesn't speak for itself.

Evidence is interpreted.

So, you know if I could have got that video working for you, you could have seen the car Rolling up

the hill a gentle slope uphill and you would have said well that proves that there's a different sort of

gravity in Scotland.

Because the evidence speaks for itself.

But of course then you look a little bit further and you see actually there is a different interpretation of the evidence

that relies on the fact that the way that the rocks are arranged and even the Direction that the trees are growing has

fooled your eyes.

So that really what appears to be uphill is actually downhill.

The evidence should have been that if the car is rolling in one direction that must be downhill.

That should have been the evidence.

But of course our eyes have fooled that so evidence is not.

Evidence does not speak for itself evidence is interpreted.

That's why in what I normally do when I'm talking about things Giving people evidence and

I will give people evidence but in a different context evidence itself proves nothing.

If I show you how complex a cell is an Evolutionist will say look at how well that has

evolved and a creationist will say look how well God has designed that the same evidence with

different conclusions.

One of those conclusions is correct.

In all cases if you think about it, if someone gives you the evidence They will interpret it if you've got two different

interpretations, they could both be wrong, but they can't both be right.

They can't because you can't have truth for you and truth for you and truth for you.

There's only one truth.

But although they can't all be right, although they can't all be right, although they could all be wrong.

One of them could be right.

And of course, it's the one that lines up with scripture.

That's right and that brings us to presuppositional apologetics a

Presupposition is not necessarily correct.

Of course, you could have a false presupposition.

So when I talk about presuppositional apologetics, I have to tell you what presuppositions we actually need

which is why we need to go back to the scripture on this, but here's an example of a

Presuppositional question and it's a famous one.

You must have heard this question being asked many times.

Supposing I picked on someone at random one of the gentlemen in the audience and I said have you stopped beating your wife?

You've heard that question, haven't you?

Think about it.

If you've heard the question, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

How should that man respond?

Should he say yes or no?

Exactly.

Instead of answering the question You've got to challenge the presuppositions because the question has a presupposition that you were beating

your wife at one time.

Now you stopped or now you haven't stopped.

The question is not a fair question and the majority of questions that are being asked are not fair questions.

And actually the questions that I asked you at the beginning were not fair questions unless you answer them presuppositionally.

You know the question to say, how do you know God is real is Equivalent to saying how do you know

that your wife is real?

You know, I go to places often when I'm speaking.

I'm very privileged here because my wife's here on this row.

Many times I would have to say well, my wife's not there.

She's not with me.

She's at home.

How do you know therefore that I'm married how do you know that my wife exists.

I've shown you a photograph on the screen.

But people can use Photoshop can't they?

There are even such things as deep fakes these days where people are very very realistic looking people can be rented and

even made to Move you can even mix up CGI Animations with real with

real movies a strange world.

We live in.

How do you know?

Well, the point is So that to prove to you that my wife exists, I'm not going to give you very much evidence at all.

I'm I I'm going to introduce you to her.

That's the way we do it and I'm going to introduce you to God.

I know that God exists.

It's not a question of proof.

I know God exists.

Like I know my wife exists.

He's real.

He's real and what's more?

I know God is real in exactly the same way that everyone else knows God is real if there's an atheist sat here and he Says to me, how

do you know God is real?

I will say exactly the same way that you do.

You see you're challenging the presupposition.

The presupposition is that God might not be real.

The true presupposition is that of course God is real because we know him everybody knows him.

So there's your answer.

I know God is real in exactly the same way as you do.

And I'm not going to waste time giving evidence to prove that.

Everybody knows God is real and you're challenging their assumptions straight away.

You're challenging their presuppositions.

My second son Jack Once came running in I think he was I must have been about

let's see maybe about 11 years old came running downstairs and

Came into the kitchen where I was sat where I was trying to arrange a meal and his question

was Dad have you got any of that stuff for filling in holes in a

wall?

What should have been my answer?

Should I have said no, I'll go out and buy some.

Should I have said?

Yes, because actually that would have been the truth for answer.

I did have some of that stuff.

He must have seen it at some point Polyfillo was a the brand name that we had in in Britain for filling

in the sheet.

What are the sheet rock holes in the sheet rock in the wall?

That isn't the answer I gave.

Well.

Some of your parents if your if your son came to you and said that dad if you've got any of that stuff for filling In holes in walls, what

would your answer have been?

What have you done?

He had made a hole in the wall.

He wanted to cover it up without letting me know.

But he wanted to see if he could find some of that stuff for filling in holes in the wall.

There was a presupposition behind the question.

There is always a presupposition.

Okay, and let's look back at first Peter chapter 3 verse 15 then in conclusion first Peter

chapter 3.

In fact just going before first Peter chapter 3 verse 15.

We read from verse 13 who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what's good?

Because the further verse 15 has got the Greek word Apologia in for a defense or

argument many people think therefore we should use Greek Argumentation, but that's

not true.

And here's why and this is where I'll end.

Will you please turn to Isaiah chapter 8?

Isaiah chapter 8 and In

fact if I can find this right I want you to look at Isaiah chapter 8 and verse 12.

Isaiah chapter 8 and verse 12.

Here is what it says.

You are not to say it is a conspiracy in regard to all that this people call a conspiracy.

And you are not to fear what they fear or in being dread of it.

It's the Lord of hosts whom you should regard as holy.

He shall be your fear.

He shall be your dread then he shall become a sanctuary.

But to both houses of Israel a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over.

Does that sound familiar to you?

It should do.

Because it's very very similar to in an Old Testament version to what's just been said in

first Peter chapter 3 and I did have a slide that put the two together and compared them and

I'm going to leave this as your work go back and Compare these two passages.

It's very similar in other words the arguments that we should use Should not go

to any form of Greek Argumentation of giving people evidence of trying to prove by

Logical deduction that God exists.

No, they should presuppose that God exists and that the Bible is true.

And you go back and you show them from Scripture what they need to know.

Because that's what Peter was doing.

Peter might have been writing in Greek.

But he didn't think in Greek and that's why it's so precious probably that it was Peter who wrote this rather than Paul.

Of course, it would have been equally true if Paul had written it if God had inspired him to write it.

It's all inspired, but I'm just saying here's someone we know who would think in Hebrew is think in the in the

In the Jewish way of doing things and so his first response here is not Greek.

Of course, Paul would have done as well, but Paul knew Greek philosophy.

Peter wasn't wasn't versed in Greek philosophy.

So he is immediately taking you not to Greek philosophy, but straight back to the Old Testament Scriptures.

It's the whole of Scripture today, of course, but that's what we use that is to be our presupposition

that God is real and that the Bible is true and That's where we start from

that's what presuppositional apologetics is about and Everything else you might study on the subject will be just

fleshing that out and putting it into practice.

Let's pray shall we?

Thank you Lord God for your word.

I Thank you Lord that it's true.

And I thank you Lord that it speaks of you in every word in every page.

I Pray Lord God that we will sanctify Christ the Lord as Holy in

The way that we speak to people and the way that we defend our faith and the way that we point

people to you.

For the honor and for the glory of your name Amen.

Thank you.