TPW 64 Worldview Apologetics Part 4 of 4

ThornCrown Network iconThornCrown Network

0 views

0 comments

00:13
Welcome to the Protestant Witness. This is Pastor Patrick Hines here at Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church.
00:19
And today is the fourth and final part of worldview apologetics, and I hope that you'll find this to be interesting and edifying and helpful as you seek to defend the
00:30
Christian faith and to be a spokesperson for the gospel and an ambassador for Christ.
00:36
All right, moving on here in our series on apologetics, just by way of review, what is a worldview?
00:42
Remember, this is key to everything. A worldview is a network of presuppositions untested by natural science, and in light of which, all experience is interpreted.
00:55
You can liken a worldview, really, in a broad sense to what is spoken of in Colossians chapter 2, verse 8, where Paul says there,
01:04
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
01:19
The basic principles of the world, the basic presuppositions of the world, and not according to Christ.
01:27
And that word, stoicheion, refers to the elements, the elementary principles or assumptions, the things that are in control of one's thinking.
01:40
There are elementary principles that govern the thinking of individuals.
01:47
Some are according to Christ, meaning that they are in harmony with the word of God, and there are those that are not.
01:53
And that's what determines the way you interpret things, and that's what worldviews are all about. Worldviews are simply networks of those stoicheia, those elementary principles, the basic starting points that people bring to everything.
02:06
So the first thing you've got to understand to be effective as a Christian apologist and evangelist is that facts do not speak for themselves.
02:15
Cornelius Van Til used the phrase, and this is very helpful, there are no brute facts. What he means by that is there are no facts that just sort of stand out there and say the same thing to every single person.
02:26
The way that facts are interpreted is determined entirely by the set of presuppositions you bring to those facts.
02:33
The elementary principles that you bring to the facts is going to determine your interpretation of what those facts mean.
02:40
So in that sense, it is completely erroneous, and you know immediately, you know immediately that someone does not think biblically about apologetics, worldviews, and how to do evangelism, and they do not think biblically about the concept of antithesis in their thinking.
02:55
If they say things like, science tells us this, in fact I was just reading an article that was put out by Biologos about the
03:05
Ken Ham -Bill Nye debate, and these folks that work at Biologos are saying, well, you know, from Ham's perspective, he's not even willing to consider the science, and it's almost like they didn't hear anything that he said.
03:18
Science does not speak for itself. Facts do not speak for themselves. They are always interpreted through the lens of a worldview that a person brings to the facts.
03:29
Eventually, I'd like to do a couple of videos on the concept of antithesis, because we live in an age of anti -antithesis, anti -antithesis, and so it's very, very important that we understand that antithesis between the biblical worldview, those who are the followers of God, and those who know the
03:49
Lord Jesus Christ, and those who understand the truth, and those who do not. There is a fundamental conflict between those two perspectives, and that's what
03:57
Genesis 3, verse 15 is talking about, when God pronounces the curse upon the serpent.
04:05
He says there in Genesis 3, verse 15, I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.
04:11
He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. That leading noun,
04:18
Eva, there, Eva, enmity, God says I will put enmity, enmity
04:24
I will put between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. So there is a fundamental antithesis in terms of our entire outlook on life, between the believer and all non -Christianity in the world, whatever form it might take.
04:41
And so, people don't realize that antithesis is very, very important. We need to maintain the antithesis, but we live in an age of anti -antithesis, and because of that, people very often are quick to try to find as much common ground as possible with unbelief.
05:00
But just remember that, a worldview is that network of presuppositions that are not testable by natural science, and in light of which, all of experience is interpreted.
05:08
So always remember the primacy of worldviews. Worldviews determine how all facts are interpreted.
05:14
Scientific data and observable evidence will not resolve worldview conflicts. I can't emphasize that enough.
05:21
When people say, well science says this, they don't get it. They don't understand what the
05:27
Bible is teaching about this. Observational facts, observational data, will not resolve worldview conflicts.
05:36
Worldviews must be tested by other means, not by science, because your worldview determines what scientific facts are allowed to mean, and also what counts as a fact, and further, what is and is not seen as a plausible explanation of the facts.
05:50
Let me give you an illustration of this. Years ago, I had an argument with a fellow in my
05:56
Sunday school class about the age of the earth. And this fellow was a well -spoken, well -educated chemical engineer, and he kept saying this in Sunday school class.
06:05
He kept saying, scientists look at the facts, and many of them believe that billions of years is a plausible explanation of those facts.
06:11
They just think that that's a plausible explanation. And I tried, I think in vain, to demonstrate that what you take to be plausible, or reasonable, or a likely explanation of anything, is determined solely by your worldview, that you bring to those facts, that you bring to the data, or to those observations.
06:33
So here's the problem. How in the world can we get anywhere with anyone then, if our worldviews are so completely antithetical to one another?
06:42
How do we even talk to the non -Christian? No matter what evidence we throw at the unbeliever, they're just going to misinterpret it according to their unbelieving worldview.
06:51
We can't meet on neutral ground, since none exists, and in doing so, Jesus said that that's immoral.
06:58
He who is not for me is against me. So there is no neutral ground here when it comes to this sort of thing.
07:04
Only biblical presuppositions, only the biblical Christian worldview, God revealing
07:09
Himself in creation, God revealing Himself especially for salvation in His Word, in the
07:15
Bible, in the person of Jesus Christ, that alone makes knowledge possible. Now if someone is willing to admit that they don't know anything, well, then obviously there can't be a debate with them.
07:26
But everyone knows that knowledge is possible, because we're created in the image of God, and everyone knows that by nature.
07:32
Living in this world would not even be possible if that were not true. Proverbs 1 .7 says,
07:37
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. We can demonstrate clearly and easily that all unbelieving worldviews result ultimately in foolishness.
07:49
No matter what form unbelief takes, no matter what form opposition to Christianity takes, it ultimately results in foolishness.
07:56
So why do Christians know things if their worldview makes knowledge impossible in principle? How do they know things?
08:03
Well, because they do know God, although they refuse to acknowledge Him because of their moral depravity and rebellion against His Lordship over them.
08:10
Scripture very clearly teaches that unbelief is a moral problem, not an intellectual one.
08:16
Jesus Himself said in John 3, 19 and 20, He says, This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light, and they refused to come to the light, lest their deeds should be exposed.
08:30
So the intellectual objections are really just excuses for people to keep clinging to sin. That's really what the issue is.
08:36
People prefer sin. They're in love with sin. Jesus said in Matthew 6, 24, No one can serve two masters. You love one and you despise the other.
08:43
So those who serve sin are going to despise God, and those who love God are going to despise sin.
08:50
We are hardwired by that. We can't have two things that we serve. So either you love and serve
08:55
Christ, or you love and serve sin. So understanding that the non -believer is suppressing the truth of unrighteousness, and that does not mean that he really does know that God exists and he's just lying to you because in his heart he really does know.
09:11
He has errors about what he believes. The non -Christian has convinced himself that he doesn't believe in God, but he's wrong about that.
09:19
He does. So it's not that he's lying. When a non -Christian tells me that he doesn't believe in God, or what most say today is
09:24
I'm an agnostic, I'm just not really sure if there's a God or not. He really does believe that he's not sure there's a
09:32
God. So I don't think that they're lying. They're telling you the truth. But they are wrong about what they believe.
09:39
And the way they live their lives demonstrates that to be the case. Saitam Brinkett used this great illustration.
09:45
He said, If someone came to us and told us they didn't believe in words, number one, we wouldn't believe them. Why would we not believe them?
09:52
Because what did they just do? What did they just use to tell you they don't believe in words? They used a bunch of words to tell you that. And number two, we wouldn't go to get a dictionary and start trying to convince them that words exist.
10:02
We would think that they were a fool, wouldn't we? And rightly so. For some strange reason, people tell us they don't believe in God, or they tell us they're not sure if there's a
10:10
God, and we believe them. And we start trying to give them evidence that he exists. And the thing is, we need to go deeper than that.
10:18
We need to go underneath. We need to look at the worldview that they're putting forward, what they say they believe, and force consistency, which will result ultimately in foolishness.
10:27
But we don't start with evidence. We don't try to convince people that God exists, because nobody really needs evidence that God exists.
10:35
We can point to evidence as a confirmation of what we believe, but not to evidence as a proof of anything.
10:40
God's revelation of his existence has successfully gotten through to every person who's ever existed on earth, but men suppress that truth, and they are wrong about what they believe.
10:51
So when an agnostic tells me, I'm an agnostic, I believe him. He is telling the truth, but he's wrong.
10:58
He's wrong in his belief about what he believes. Alright, so men are not the judges of their creator's existence.
11:06
All men already know God, but are actively engaged in suppressing that knowledge, and all we have to do is demonstrate that their own unbelieving perspective is utterly foolish.
11:14
Only the Bible, and only the Christian worldview provides the preconditions of intelligibility, laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and absolute morality.
11:24
Every human being on earth, unless they're insane, believes in the validity of all three of those things. Laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and absolute morality.
11:32
But only the biblical worldview can give a rational justification for these things. Non -believers will cry foul, always, and always say the same thing.
11:40
I don't believe the Bible, and I believe in and use logic. So did Aristotle, Plato, and many other intelligent people before there ever was a completed
11:48
Bible. To which we respond, yes, all of them did, because they were created in the image of God and lived in God's world and were given those gifts.
11:56
They believed in them, they believed in laws of logic and absolute morality and those things, but they could not justify them by their own worldviews, just as all unbelief cannot justify them.
12:07
So remember the illustration. When the non -Christian says things like this, it is identical to the person who does not believe in the existence of air saying to us, well,
12:16
I don't believe in air, and I can breathe just fine. I don't need air to be able to breathe, see,
12:23
I don't believe in air, and I can breathe just fine. Remember, we're not saying that someone has to profess a belief in air in order to be able to breathe.
12:31
They don't have to say they believe in air, they don't have to even believe in air in order to breathe, but they do need air to breathe.
12:39
Whether they believe in it or not is irrelevant, air exists, and they have to have it in order to believe, in order to breathe.
12:46
See the point? That is the kind of irrational foolishness people are forced to say when they reject
12:52
God and His revelation in Scripture. They are reduced to foolishness, and the Bible calls them fools. And that's not name -calling, it's describing, it's a moral term of judgment.
13:02
It's a moral judgment on someone who just doesn't get it. Someone who is denying what is painfully obvious to everyone, that God exists, that He created the universe, that He created us in His image, and that He governs and sustains the universe by His power.
13:16
So let's talk about these three things. Laws of logic, uniformity in nature, and then the don't answer, answer strategy.
13:23
We'll talk about that in just a second. Laws of logic stem from God's nature. Why can't two contradictory statements be true in the same sense?
13:31
Because that would be to engage in lying, which is contrary to the character of God.
13:36
And we know that we're supposed to think logically. The most hardened non -believer does not like to have tension in his thinking, usually, and will try to resolve things that are contradictory.
13:48
So the laws of logic stem from God's very nature. 2 Timothy 2 .13 says, If we are faithless,
13:53
He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. God cannot contradict His own character.
13:59
God cannot say, Proposition A is true, and then Proposition Not A is true in the same sense and in the same relationship.
14:08
For example, let me give you an example, Allah, the God of Islam, cannot exist. Why? Because the Quran endorses the
14:13
Gospel of Jesus Christ. It endorses the Psalms of David and the Law of Moses. But then it contradicts the
14:20
Gospel by denying that Jesus was ever even crucified. It denies what the New Testament teaches by denying the divinity of Christ and things like that.
14:28
So because of those contradictions, because those are illogical statements, they don't fit together, we reject the
14:35
God of Islam and we reject the Quran. The Quran is not a continuing revelation of the Bible, and Muhammad was not a prophet of God either.
14:43
What are laws of logic? I want you to think about this. If you're a naturalist materialist, what is logic? It just never ceases to amaze me to think of someone like Dan Barker who says, laws of logic are just how the brain works.
14:55
It's just amazing to me that someone as bright as he is would say something like that. What are the laws of logic?
15:01
Can you touch one? Can you chew one up? No, they are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities which govern all possible conceptual relationships.
15:12
So laws of logic are contingent upon the existence of the biblical God. He is the one who gives the form and structure necessary and the consistency of our experience.
15:21
He's the one that makes that happen so that we can think rationally and logically. Why does the physical world hold together the way that it does through time and into the future?
15:30
Because God is the one who sustains it, and therefore logic holds. Other worldviews cannot account for laws of logic.
15:37
They attempt to use logic and reason to support their position, but the problem is logic is not part of nature.
15:43
Thus, the naturalist is wanting to use what his own worldview, if true, would destroy. The very fact that he uses logic to make his argument demonstrates he is wrong.
15:53
Their response, hey, wait, I don't believe in God or the Bible, and I don't believe in Jesus as my savior, and I use logic all the time.
15:59
Therefore logic can't depend upon the biblical God. Remember, this is just like the critic of the existence of air saying, hey,
16:05
I don't believe in air, and I can breathe just fine. We're not saying you have to profess a belief in God in order to use logic, but the existence of God is a necessary precondition for the justification of logic.
16:17
That's what we're saying. Just as in that other example, we're not saying that you have to profess a belief in air in order to breathe.
16:23
Someone can scream and really, really believe that air doesn't exist, all the while breathing air in order to scream it, but you still need air to be able to scream.
16:32
You still need air to be able to talk. In the same way, we're not saying you personally have to profess to believe in God in order to use logic.
16:41
So when the non -Christian says, look, I don't believe in God, and all these other Greek philosophers, they didn't believe in the God you believe in, and they used reason and logic.
16:48
We're not saying you have to profess to believe in him, but we are saying that without him, you can't justify it. Laws of logic, people will respond this way.
16:57
Laws of logic are material. They're just chemical reactions in the brain. But then they wouldn't be laws at all, would they?
17:03
They would simply be what happens in someone's brain, and what happens in one person's brain might be different from what happens in my brain or your brain.
17:10
Another response to this, laws of logic are descriptions of how the brain thinks. But then why do we need laws of logic to correct how the brain thinks?
17:19
They're obviously not a description of how brains think, because very often our use of logic is wrong.
17:26
People go to college and take courses in logic. There are many professors in universities who would be glad to tell the world that logic is not how their students' brains work.
17:37
And that's why they have to take courses in it to learn how to think in a proper fashion. The laws of logic exist outside of our brains and correct the mistakes that we make in our use of logic.
17:49
Another response, laws of logic are just conventions. That's what Gordon Stein said in his debate with Greg Monson.
17:55
If so, then they wouldn't be law -like at all. Different places and different people could have a different convention regarding logic.
18:01
Another response, they are a property of the universe. Again, this would result in their being non -law -like.
18:08
Another response, we use them because they work. And that, of course, avoids the question before us. Yes, they work, but why?
18:15
That is what we are really asking. You need to justify, justify these things. Not just say, hey,
18:21
I use logic because logic works. Yeah, I understand that. We want to know why it works.
18:27
Being able to use something and being able to account for why it works are two completely different things.
18:35
The second thing, uniformity in nature. Operational science requires this presupposition. If nature is not uniform, we can't do science, period.
18:43
Testable, repeatable science cannot be done without uniformity in nature. Science studies predictability.
18:50
Experiments done today with the same circumstances should have the same result three days from now, right? Excuse me.
18:57
In general, physical laws remain the same over time and space. In other words, I doubt seriously if anyone listening to me is going to very slowly step out of their seat that they're in and then float up into the sky, right?
19:12
Because gravity applies everywhere, doesn't it? Anywhere in proximity to a huge body that has huge mass like the earth, gravity applies everywhere, doesn't it?
19:22
There's uniformity. Does gravity work on the other side of my room over there? I bet you if I threw a pen over there that you would see it fall down because gravity is uniform across the various places.
19:33
We can count on it. When we launched the Voyager probe into outer space, we counted on the gravitational pull of Jupiter being able to slingshot it and throw it at just the right angle towards Saturn and then
19:44
Saturn's gravity, just the right angle to slingshot it towards Uranus and the Neptune because nature's uniform.
19:50
We can calculate the law -like properties of physics because they're the same everywhere.
19:56
Uniformity in nature is absolutely essential to being able to do science. The future resembles the past and everyone knows this in terms of its law -like characters.
20:06
Dr. Bonson used a couple of illustrations. When a child first sees a lit candle, he'll often reach for it because it's interesting and he's curious and then he'll burn himself or herself.
20:17
And he reaches the conclusion after that, not, well, that particular instance of flame was hot, but if I touch a candle's fire tomorrow, hey, maybe it'll be a thrill of a lifetime tomorrow.
20:33
No, he makes a generalization that fire in general is something you don't want to touch. Now why does that child do that?
20:40
Well, because they're made in the image of God and because they do know God, that nature is uniform and that it behaves in a certain way and that it will be consistent over time.
20:51
And so what children will conclude after burning themselves is that fire in general is not to be touched, but it is only because the biblical
20:58
God exists and has a governing providence over the universe that the child reaches that conclusion. If nature really were chaotic and random, we would have no reason to believe that the future will resemble the past.
21:10
The Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 11, what are the works of providence? What are God's works of providence? Answer, God's works of providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful, preserving and governing all his creatures and all their actions.
21:23
So it's very important that we realize God is the one who preserves and governs everything that he created and he governs it and upholds it in a law -like fashion so that men can study it and we can count on the physical and chemical properties and laws that we discover today, they will continue to be what they are into the future.
21:42
And you may recall, I pointed out that no less of an authority than Bertrand Russell was the one who pointed out we have no reason to expect the future to be like the past.
21:51
And if you reason from past experience into the future, you're begging the question, which is a logical fallacy.
21:57
Begging the question is reading your conclusion into the premise, which is fallacious.
22:04
Because yeah, your conclusion would follow, but that's because your conclusion is part of the premise. What Russell was asking was, upon what basis do we proceed into the future expecting it to be like the past?
22:16
He said in his book, we have experience of past futures, but not of future futures. This is
22:21
Russell, who was an enemy of Christianity. And the question is, here's Russell, will future futures resemble past futures?
22:27
This question is not to be answered by an argument which starts from past futures alone. We have therefore still to seek for some principle which shall enable us to know that the future will follow the same laws as the past.
22:39
See how consistent he's being? As an atheist, as an agnostic, he's saying, we don't know that five minutes from now gravity and chemistry, physics and mathematics will still work.
22:48
We have no way of knowing. And you can't reason from the past or the future. That's begging the question. And that's why he says, so how do we know that?
22:56
Well, we're still looking for some principle which shall enable us to know. When I read that book years ago,
23:01
I wrote in the margin, he just threw away science. Here you have a guy who is admitting that from his worldview perspective, science, the most basic principle of science, the uniformity of nature, cannot be justified.
23:14
And yet for some reason he just goes right on doing science. Hmm. Wonder why? Why do we know the future will be like the past?
23:22
I love how simple it is because God told us. That's the only reason. Russell said he had no reason.
23:28
I do as a Christian. I know why. God told me it will. Well, Genesis 8 .22, seed time and harvest, summer and winter shall continue until the end of the world.
23:35
God sustains and upholds all things consist, Colossians 1 .16, in Christ.
23:41
He upholds all things and sustains and governs them. Now, here's some, here's some possible responses.
23:47
Here's some responses I've heard myself to this issue of the uniformity of nature. Well, everyone just knows that. If everyone just knows that, why was
23:54
Bertrand Russell writing a book about how we need to justify this concept? Why didn't he think to say, well, everyone just knows that?
24:03
Because you can't do that in philosophy. You have to be tough minded. You've got to answer these hard questions.
24:10
When I've used the presuppositional method of defending the faith with friends, this is often where they go. They'll say, well, everyone knows you're just supposed to be nice to people.
24:19
Everyone knows the future will be like the past. And my response is, yeah, as a Christian, I know that. And I have a reason why.
24:26
You know it because you're made in the image of God, but you can't give me a reason why you know it. Do I think everyone should be kind to others?
24:32
I do. And I understand why I as a Christian think that, but I don't understand why you as a non -Christian think that.
24:39
Another response to the uniformity of nature, people say, well, it's the inherent character of matter. It just behaves that way. That was what
24:45
Gordon Stein said to Greg Monson. Again, man, why didn't Bertrand Russell think of that? Because it's a fallacious argument.
24:51
That's not an answer either. All we know is what our experiences of matter have been in the past.
24:58
What Russell's asking is, how do we know they'll be that way in the future? And his answer is, we don't know.
25:04
And we can't know. And we're still looking for some principle which shall enable us. Another answer to that question of the uniformity of nature, well, it just always has been that way.
25:14
Again, this is irrelevant to the future. Yeah, it's always been that way in the past, but that's begging the question.
25:20
Bertrand Russell himself said that. So we can't know anything with certainty apart from the fear of Yahweh.
25:28
And if unbelievers want to argue with us, they have to assume what only our worldview can account for in order to do so.
25:34
Now let's talk about the don't answer, answer strategy. Proverbs 26, verses 4 and 5 spells this out.
25:41
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. And then verse 5, answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
25:49
Now that sounds contradictory. It says, do not answer a fool according to his folly. And then it says, answer a fool according to his folly.
25:57
So here's the strategy. You present the Christian worldview that is setting forth the truth, and then you do an internal critique of their worldview, demonstrating that it is absurd on its own terms.
26:08
Now don't be nervous by any of this. This may seem like a lot to take in, but the main thing you need to remember is this, how to present the gospel of Christ clearly.
26:16
And I'm going to do a whole video on just how to do that in a simple way. And then all you got to do is sit back and listen. Listen to the non -Christian talk.
26:23
Listen to them say what they believe. And it's so easy to deal with them. It's really easy to show that their worldview makes no sense.
26:35
Listen to them talk carefully, and then you'll hear the folly of unbelief. And all you have to do is ask a few key questions and watch their worldview blow itself up.
26:44
It's really quite easy to do once you've learned to think like a Christian. I had that long conversation with a young man at the orthodontist office.
26:51
I was stuck there forever. I have three kids and braces. And this young guy was pro -abortion, pro -gay marriage, pro -communism.
27:01
And I'm just sitting there, wow. And I jumped in this conversation with this young guy, and he's pro -abortion, blah, blah, blah.
27:08
And we started arguing about that, and then he told me he doesn't believe in God and he's agnostic and sort of atheistic, believes in evolution and everything else.
27:17
And he started talking about women's rights, and he started talking about how we should all respect each other and be nice and everything. It was just so easy for me to sit back and say, well,
27:25
I understand why I would say that you need to be nice to people, but that's because I'm a Christian. I don't understand why you think we're supposed to be nice to people, because you think that we're just evolved pond slime.
27:35
And this young guy had nothing to say in response to that. Well, I just happen to think this.
27:41
So what you happen to think is what everybody should live by? Really? You determine what is absolutely moral for every human being on earth by your own whimsical decision -making?
27:52
It's pretty amazing how bold you are in saying things like that. So you answer a fool according to his folly.
27:59
Adopt the worldview that he says. As soon as that kid told me he believes in evolution, I knew this would be easy to just slice and dice this, and it was easy.
28:07
And although he hasn't come to Christ, he did tell me he's changed his stance on the abortion issue. Which is encouraging.
28:13
I'm glad he's pro -life now, that's good. Although I wish he would come to Christ and have eternal life.
28:19
So when you're doing an internal critique, there are several things you need to think about and listen for.
28:24
And we'll go through these in more detail in more videos. Arbitrariness, inconsistency, and the preconditions of intelligibility.
28:34
Arbitrariness, inconsistency, and the preconditions of intelligibility. The AIP test. People are arbitrary, they're inconsistent, and what they believe does not allow for intelligible experience.
28:47
So first, arbitrariness. You can't just claim something without giving reasons. It's incredible how often people do this.
28:53
Well I think Jesus stepped off of a UFO 2 ,000 years ago, now you go prove me wrong. Just say, no.
29:00
If you're going to say something like that, you gotta have some evidence of some kind. Try to make some kind of case for this, even though I would argue that in your worldview there's no such thing as facts or evidence or proof.
29:10
But I'll go ahead and grant it for the sake of argument. If you're going to say Jesus stepped off of a UFO, give me some reasons to believe that.
29:16
If you're going to say that, well I think that monks just invented the Bible in the year 1232 somewhere.
29:24
Really? Okay, do you have any facts to support that? No, I just happen to believe that. Arbitrariness. Okay? It's really amazing that we have to correct adults when they're arbitrary.
29:33
Children are arbitrary all the time. The little child claims that there's a monster in the closet. I mean, they claim that, and then they act on it by pulling the covers over their head.
29:42
But the claim is entirely empty, there's no evidence for it. You see, adults are not supposed to be arbitrary.
29:48
Schools were originally formed to help adults be rational, to think clearly. But today it's just, you know,
29:54
I'll just be totally willy -nilly arbitrary, just throw beliefs out there, and then you just have to just deal with me, and while I'm interested in your opinion, your opinion is worth absolutely nothing, just as my opinion is worth absolutely nothing.
30:08
Can't you give an argument of some kind for your position? So arbitrariness. You're not allowed to be arbitrary.
30:14
Secondly, inconsistency. A worldview cannot have contradictions. From one contradiction you can prove anything no matter how absurd.
30:21
Let me just give you an example. People will say, you know, it is so wrong, you know, what
30:27
Saddam Hussein did years ago, you know, somebody needs to go over there and blow his head off, and we need to go over there and do this, and I'm upset about this and that and everything else.
30:36
And then the same person will turn right around, hey, it's okay for me to live out of wedlock with my girlfriend, and it's all, you know, different strokes for different folks, and morality is all relative and everything else.
30:46
And don't you see? He just said two things. His moral indignation that someone needs to go to war with Saddam Hussein, and then his relativism about sexual purity are smack up against each other.
30:59
Totally inconsistent. So on some things, there's absolute right and wrong. On things that are things
31:06
I like to do, everything is just relativistic and is of no value. That's called inconsistency.
31:12
You can't be inconsistent. You can't discard a belief in God and then expect there to be moral absolutes, that people need to respect your property and, you know, not come into your house and kill you and take all your stuff.
31:23
Thirdly, the preconditions of intelligibility, laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes.
31:29
If you can't justify those three things, you can't justify human beings having an intelligible experience of life.
31:36
And so we stand upon the biblical worldview, and we call people to repent and believe in Jesus, and then we demonstrate that the unbeliever's worldview is arbitrary and inconsistent and fails to provide the preconditions of intelligibility.
31:47
And once you learn how to do this, it's actually quite easy to do. To think like a Christian, and to reason like a
31:54
Christian, and to hold people accountable for what they tell you they believe, that's how you show the weakness and the bankruptcy of the non -Christian position.
32:03
So just remember, the main point of all apologetic engagement is to get to the gospel, and there's going to be videos about how,
32:11
I think, what is a very easy way to share the gospel. And then as soon as someone contradicts you, or they don't like what you're saying, or they say, well,
32:18
I just don't believe that, just ask a question. What do you believe? Where do you think human beings came from? And then just listen to them talk.
32:26
Listen to them talk, and just keep prodding them with more questions, and you will see all forms of unbelief fall under their own weight.
32:34
So with that, thanks for watching. This is
32:43
Pastor Patrick Hines of Brittle Heights Presbyterian Church, located at 108 Brittle Heights Road in Kingsport, Tennessee, and you've been listening to the
32:51
Protestant Witness Podcast. Please feel free to join us for worship any Sunday morning at 11 a .m. sharp, where we open the
32:57
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 .brittleheightspca
33:05
.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