Practical Apologetics (part 2)

So last time we we talked about how sometimes doing apologetics can be can cause fear. Here we stand up. Let's say debate one of these world-famous Atheists and then you know, how do you answer them?

How do you look kind of silly in front of people and there's a lot of things that come to Causes fear and confusion and the purpose of these three weeks was to just help us look at it biblically. How can you?

Approaching Apologetics with Confidence and Biblical Grounding

Approach apologetics with With confidence and not just shrink away because it just seems too intimidating. And so with that we looked at the two sides is this philosophy when you talk about apologetics or is it theology and What comes what is primarily?

How do you need to equip yourself for apologetics? So then we again said, you know while philosophy can serve theology, you know Your Bible is what you want to be really solid on it. And if you remember last time about this time, I brought my notes you can it's good to have a lot of notes, but That's not what really is the foundation of apologetics.

Foundation of apologetics is knowing the word. So when you know the word you are equipped and you can use philosophy and other tools to assist in your Communication and that we saw two things from first Peter 315.

Actually now that the handouts are given out if someone can read first Peter 315 and 16. Just to refresh ourselves what apologetics is. That'll be great. Anyone who has first Peter 315, please raise your hand.

Thank you. And we saw Peter was written in the context of suffering and when you how must you respond? So the key there is be prepared to make a defense. To anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that you have.

So if anyone asks you why are you a Christian that doesn't make any sense. You want to be able to give them a Response that is reasoned out, but you want to do it with gentleness and respect but if you go all the way to the beginning of verse 15 honor Christ the Lord as holy the goal of Apologetics is to honor God we are to Set apart Christ as sanctified or exalted in our eyes.

We want to please him and that is the main focus of apologetics and when we go about doing it we want to do it with gentleness rather than just beating people over the head and Then last week if you remember we started out with some text.

We looked at What I would call the theory of apologetics. We looked at some text and how do we do this and Then I asked one question. And then we kind of went into the practice of apologetics. What are the kind of responses we would give now if I'm the kind of person who likes theory, you know.

If I'm if I was sitting in my own class I'd rather that I was teaching five points and I can just remember them once people start talking about different things I just kind of lose track and it feels like it's muddled.

In fact yesterday this week as you will I was looking back at what did we cover? It seemed like a lot of the things we discussed might have seemed I don't know how many of you can remember everything we covered last week.

Maybe that. Yeah, I like to hear the laughs. It's it's hard when you have a conversation and discuss various points and You know real apologetics is kind of like that, you know. Sometimes when you're talking theory, I can tell you all the five points of how you know.

Something is right and clear and this is how we communicate. But when you're talking to a person especially an unbeliever here. We're all believers and even here when we speak there's so many ideas that come out and then in the end you can't really synthesize and put them together because they were like all over the place and when you're speaking with an unbeliever often conversations tend to go where you know, they.

The questions they have and while you can direct them like Charlie was telling him, you know guard them from going down certain Rabbit holes you can never come out of but in the end of the day you you can't really say Oh, I gave five points or four points.

It's like you you cover what you can Biblically and I think this honor in Christ as you're engaging in the conversation is it should be a guard to say I want. To make sure everything I say is biblical and it brings glory to God now.

You may not cover everything you want, but that's the nature of conversations. And that's true for the gospel as well. And I know those of you who go evangelism. It's very few people who will say, you know.

Just give me the gospel and wait most people want to say something and you need to adapt what you're saying to what they're asking so. So we looked at one question and the question Charlie brought this up if someone asked or says Jesus never spoke about homosexuality.

How would you respond? So we looked at a few responses. Charlie said, you know. He did speak indirectly and he gave two texts comparing how it is more better for Sodom and Gomorrah than for this generation and then using that to talk about what the view was of Jesus view of homosexuality was and then we broadened it and said the New Testament speaks about it Old Testament speaks about it.

The Bible speaks about it. And then we looked at from a different angle. I think Mark I think said this where he said, okay, let's ask about why this person is asking this, you know. The issue is really not about necessarily just homosexuality.

But it's sin in general and we want to bring that turn that to the gospel. So rather than while on the one hand you want to give a response. You also have to turn it around and then bring the gospel to bear upon them so there's many approaches and in all of them were biblical and Each of us may know certain things with which we can respond and others we will learn as we go through.

2 Peter 1:16 and the Truthfulness of Christ

Now before we go into your notes, I have two texts. I want to just quickly look at if you can just turn over from 1st Peter to 2nd Peter chapter 1 verse 16. If someone can read 2nd Peter 1 16. Can I who if you have it, please raise your hand go ahead.

Lisa. Thank you. Peter in 1st Peter 3 15 tells us to give apologetics and here in 2nd Peter 1 16. He's actually doing that. In the Roman Greco-Roman culture the gods that were doing all this magnificent stuff were actually myths and tales they were made up in order to communicate whatever it is that they were communicating and Peter as he's writing to these churches who are actually facing false doctrine.

Talks about who Christ is this is in sharp contrast to everything else that you you see in the culture about the gods. Because Jesus Christ is not some cleverly fabricated tale to communicate something to you but everything we are saying saying is what we saw and then he goes on to talk about the mount of transfiguration and you you get to see that that there is a There is a manner in which truth is communicated in the Bible to address and Circumvent the questions that are there and if you turn you well.

Maybe you can if well for the sake of time I won't turn there, but you can write it down if you want. Matthew 12 22 to 20 22 to 37 here Jesus does a healing the People call him, you know by the power of Beelzebub you do this and Jesus, you know.

If you think about it, what what could have Jesus said you all know what he said. But what were some of Jesus options if you will many responded he could have said yeah. Choose what you will you will perish if you don't believe what I have said or he could have said I'm God.

The end, you know God doesn't have to give an explanation for who he is, right? But Jesus then goes on to give you mean the healing itself is an evidence. Given to his deity and then he goes on to talk about reasons.

He says, you know Strong man, you know, you you're what you're saying is actually very foolish. You bind the strong man before you plunder his house. That's a reason given for them to and put put an analogy to say here's kind of what you're saying and it makes no sense.

You know, here's what's really happening. So it's it's given those reasons are given by Jesus so they can actually Wake up and say oh, this is kind of silly what I'm saying. And then he goes on to lay the charge and and in that text.

You will see the four methods that we are going to be talking about shortly. There is there is evidence there is reason and then there is going to be conviction where he says He talks about the kingdom and then he says.

You know if you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, you know, there is no forgiveness either here or there. The point being Jesus is not on trial. They are the ones who are on trial and it is God who is judging them in for their sin.

The Four Functions of Apologetics

So with that, let's go to your handout. So if you can just Open the colored one first. If you don't have one, I think. Who who has more handouts to pass out if okay? Somewhere in the Oh near the doors so that our handouts near the doors.

You can pick one you may need to share them with a family because you don't have too many of these. All right, so. The way to read the handout is actually you go down left column and then down right column.

So the first two slides there and as I those of you came in late this material comes from this book it's put together by my friend Alan Byrne and There is a summary of what apologetics is in the first two slides.

I apologize this kind of small but We've covered this already in the last week. But it's just a summary of what what we've covered so far the first two slides if you go to the top, right? You see those four functions in apologetics.

One of them is proof. The next is defense then. Refutation or offense as frame would say we're gonna see this proof defense and offense next week. There isn't there is an apologist called John frame who I like a lot.

Those of you in IBS know who he is. And he uses these three ways in which to communicate so we'll look at that next week but here we're gonna see these three things and then the last one is Persuasion and we're gonna see how we want to communicate the the truth of the gospel in a clear way whether we provide evidences and and reasons behind it defense and that's basically directly coming out of first Peter 315 we want to give a reason and and.

And actually, let me read that clarifying Christian position in light of misunderstanding criticisms intellectual difficulties attacks and misrepresent. Misrepresentations so people can come from a whole lot of areas one of the big areas that people normally come with is in the area of misunderstanding is.

What is the charge that people normally lay against Christians? So if you were to give them the gospel Judge mental and there's one other term that's very close to it. Okay in terms of their views know what about in terms of that's that's so true because they think you know.

You just put your whole head in the hole. You don't know anything about evolution or Intolerant Hypocritical actually all these are kind of tied together because in their mind they think Oh Christian stand for something.

It's righteous. Whether that is a right standard or not. They stand for something and they don't live by that standard and all they do is use that standard to you know. Shoot everybody else who's not committed.

I mean really I mean as a non-christian. That's what it looks like because they stand for something they don't really keep what they do, but all they do is, you know judge everybody else and. And it's one of those things that we as especially if you've been a Christian for a while.

We know theology and we kind of assume they know theology too and most people don't you know when you Let me maybe throw the question back. So if you had to respond to someone who had those three ducks and shot them.

How would you theologically get back to them and get back to them as a bad word? How would you explain it to them in a way that is clear that they are mistaken or misunderstanding? Hopefully they are misunderstanding and it's not true.

Excellent. So we make it clear that there there is a Fallible. I think that's a good good place to start. Excellent, and I think that's that's very important. I mean while there is a high calling in Christ when God is holy He calls us to be holy, but it is not a moral code that we live up to but rather that we have broken.

Every one of us has broken God's law. Every one of us is a sinner before God and then it is the forgiveness that we have by grace. Freely that as we've received so can they and that's the message we give we are sinners forgiven sinners and and part of that thing and I try to explain this as Much as conversations will allow about justification and sanctification, you know.

It's not just necessarily for feel for theologians or for believers only they need to understand. There is something you stand declared righteous and you are being made holy. And that's what happens in believers lives.

And that's what the calling is if they think you know, I'm just called to keep all these laws. It's like okay. I know I can't do it might as well not try right and we want to say it's not about this. It's about the Savior Jesus Christ.

We want to point them to it. So I mean things like this and this is. You know, I we didn't go to Five views of Aquinas we didn't go to Josh McDowell's evidences. It's pretty simple stuff all of you know, and we want to try to direct the scriptures towards where the unbelief comes from.

In fact, we'll see unbelief. Even among believers we have certain things that we don't understand. We don't submit to and we need to use the scriptures in the same way. All right, so let's move on through through these notes.

I'm gonna go quickly through them. So the next slide here is four methods of apologetics and this comes directly from the book. That is on the right column. You see evidential which uses facts. Reformed which uses revelation or scripture.

That's typically what we would be. We would be called presuppositional apologists. So we will use the scripture. We'll talk about it more next week. Then we have the classical which uses reasons and arguments of Like proofs for the existence of God and then you have a fideism which Emphasizes faith more than even scripture.

It's about where you how you commit your life to God how God ought to be Trusted in and and as you think about these things, I'll say right off the bat, you know I'm not putting one against the other.

These are all helpful tools. But we will see that there is a primacy here in which we need to honor Christ and we will we will unpack that next Week, but let's now look at each of these in turn. Just so you get a sense what what kind of apologetic tools we have in our box over here, so the last slide on the first page I Think I wouldn't use the term evidential ism.

You can change it to evidential apologetics because evidential ism is actually Not a good word because evidential ism kind of comes from empiricism. And the idea there being that you don't believe in anything unless you have sufficient evidence to prove it so if I have to have evidence that this Chair will hold my weight.

I need to sit on it ten times and I feel like okay. It holds my weight. Hopefully the 11th time it won't fall and if I have to believe that there is a God then I need to have that Level of evidence in order for me to be convinced that because this is a much bigger claim.

And I need that much evidence in order to believe in This to hold this belief to be true now. That's not something that we would hold on to in so that term is the only thing that you probably want to change in the Note, but other than that everything else that's used here is helpful.

So I'm going to kind of show you how not to go to an extreme in each of these views. But also use the tools that we can from each of these methods. So the Evidentialism here. It grounds the Christian faith primarily on empirically and historically verifiable facts.

So those apologists who emphasize this and I think I'll just use Josh McDowell as an example, I mean, I'm not saying that that's all he does. But he's well known for the fact that he brings a lot of data facts into the picture.

So somebody says, you know, Jesus well, the Bible is not to be relied, you know. So he'll have a lot of manuscript evidence to show. Oh, you know what? Why not? You know you believe in all these other stuff, you know Homer and other stuff was written and now let's compare the amount of evidence for this versus the Bible and it kind of stacks up.

Really really high. In fact as we're looking at this the next slide if you turn to page three There is a bunch of those The not the topmost one, but the second table in the second in the page three you have a several Facts if you will, you know Books of the Bible.

Archaeological sites 25 ,000 archaeological sites that have been discovered. In fact archaeology is like really really cool. You know what the. Actually, can somebody tell me? Corey do you remember anything that you can share?

Yes, I Believe so I actually read it, but I don't remember. Exactly. And and the thing is actually I have a few of Luke's things here. Quirinius governor at time of Jesus, but Lysanias. That they thought the timing of Lysanias in Luke 3 1 and then.

Yeah, the term there is act 17 6 polytarch rulers of the city and They thought you know never heard this Luke's making it up and What happens is in each of these cases what they will come and say are you know?

The Bible is false clearly false because no other historical evidence exists. And then as they keep digging they go find this thing and say oh, this is right. This is right I think there is one famous guy Ramsey William Ramsey in the mid 19th century.

He was trained as a anti, you know. He had the presuppositions of liberal Theology and so he went digging to basically disprove and then he keeps finding one after the other and he's like, okay. You know, I give up this Lucas Luke is like the most accurate historian he's ever seen and the thing is because at that point they didn't have other corroborating evidence.

They were using it as bad data. And then now for us there's like a plethora of data to show. Okay, you want evidence we can show you evidence so that's kind of just a sampling. It's from archaeology then within Bible the biblical prophecies fulfilled, you know thousand years ago David talking about Jesus and these are like documents written like far far apart and fulfilled in Explicit detail and then talking and there's a bunch of data.

So your handout here I'm not going to go through them, but they just give you a sampling of things as you're thinking of okay. What can I tell them that? Or actually, what do I know because it's actually very encouraging to hear things like this for myself as well.

But that's evidence and facts. So the next two pages just talk about different different data over here. The next point in your first page here is it argues for a high degree of probability that a high degree of probability can be established in favor of Christianity and that This is the same kind of credibility as associated with confirmed scientific laws, you know, normally people use like oh science is so Reliable, you know, it's like we can prove these things and Stand upon it, but your faith your Christianity is kind of you know, fluff.

You just believe you just jump into something and swim and the argument made from here is that There's a lot of data here just like in science and There is a high degree of probability if you take this versus everything else.

And so that's the kind of trust that evidential apologetics tries to move to it. I will Give a caveat in the next slide. But but that's basically the thrust here and then and the last point evidence does not necessarily constitute proof.

But it is sufficient to answer objections and to show that belief in Christianity is not unreasonable. So it's not like a slam-dunk, you know, here's the evidence from archaeology. I'll be a Christian and We know especially coming from the reform perspective that no, but nothing no data saves people.

It's the gospel that saves people. But it helps you to clarify things that people may not be aware of most people think oh this book some. Some people just came up with it and you guys are just silly to follow it 2 ,000 years later.

But there's a lot more to it than than just that. All right, let's go to the next slide and then we'll look at some critique of this if you turn over the page under the fact. The strengths and weaknesses are in two columns on the first slide.

So the first point on the left side probability cannot be avoided in apologetic arguments and. And the way in which I just explained makes sense, right? You know if you are going to compare, you know, how do you normally make your beliefs?

That's based on certain data and science from the first century to the 10th century to the 19th century to the 20th century to the 21st century is Changing because it comes up with theories that test them and there seems to be a good reason for holding something and the 22nd century I'm sure they'll Lord tarrying there'll be other things that theories that come up that will change the way we understand and hold to House what science is as as data comes up in fact evolution is one of those things that is facing a lot of trouble because it's trying to put together a lot of data that they have to kind of force fit and at some point it's going to break up and then they'll have to come up with something else because Fundamentally evolution is a mechanism to say I don't like a creator God.

Let me try to come up with something else. And so you come up with a theory that seemed to fit and at some point They'll have to come up with something else if they don't bother me. But on the right side of that same column it it says it this does not provide a worldview context needed to assess probability now.

Can you think of what way it could be wrong? To talk about Probability and the gospel. What would be a wrong way to talk use these two together? Excellent because in the in the example we gave we gave data.

So you have a lot of data. Maybe you get a huge big data. That's against it or you know, just the probability drops. Whereas when you're talking about the gospel when you're talking about scripture. You never ever want to talk about it in terms of it's highly probable that this is true God, okay.

I think you got it because you can talk about you know, why there is a good reason to Trust in the reliability of the scriptures because of archaeological stuff manuscript evidence, you know, they're like what are 25 ,000 documents from the First three centuries when you can give all those stuff and so to them.

Scientifically this may seem like highly probable, but when you're giving them the gospel You don't carry that over into the worldview the Christian worldview that you're trying to communicate. You want to make it clear that this is Authoritative this is true.

This is God speaking to you and you want to make sure that this is their life kind of hangs upon it. Really does and so the come and this is one of the things that we're going to see because people who get use the evidential apologetics can tend to Bring that into the communication of the gospel to say, okay, you know now that this is kind of highly probable.

Maybe you should think about it. In fact, there is one argument in this thing which Has its place in fact on the first page on this table the bottom of it. It's called Pascal's wager. And how many of you know this?

All right, so it while I'm not going to Kind of throw stones at this because it had its role was different than the way in which I'm going to present it. But is the wager goes something as simple as this?

Okay. Here's God you believe in God you gain everything for eternal life and You don't believe in him and you lose your life for eternity. You know, it's not a bad choice, you know, and if you're wrong if there is no God you don't lose much in the in the bargain.

Well, if you if God doesn't exist and you believe in him you don't lose a whole lot that's but whereas, you know, if you If you didn't then you lose everything. So what's the more reasonable thing to do?

You know, if you had to wage, you know flip a coin, you'd probably want to flip the coin on God. I mean, obviously this is not the way to give the gospel, but Anyway, if you have time, we'll get to Pascal's wager itself.

So you want to make sure when you present the gospel, it's a proclamation you speak on behalf of God saying this is what God says, it's what the Bible says and. So you don't want to bring probability into the gospel you can talk about probability in terms of evaluating the data.

But not in terms of presenting the gospel. All right any questions on this before we go to the next one? Okay. Oh actually, we missed the next two points. So the advantage of the evidentialism is a lot of people.

I have some people who have genuine questions. This kind of clarifies things for them. They might think that they can read what is that Da Vinci code and say oh you guys just made this up. And then some of this data is actually kind of helpful.

It's like Oh Da Vinci code was made up the Bible and you know, it's so someone might have a genuine question. It's no nothing wrong in answering that question. And so it actually helps those who are inquiring but at the same time.

And this is one of the strongest critiques of evidentialism is there are hidden presuppositions when people are evaluating data. Evidentialists will say a data is neutral, you know, you just throw the data out there and everybody should see it and bow to it.

I See a lot of shaking heads. Why not? Why don't people bow to data? So the data themselves can be twisted so they could either mistrust what we give or they could present data that is twisted. And you know where you start with and where you want to end and and actually.

So the thing is we everybody has a worldview the way in which they look at the world and underlying them are those Assumptions and presuppositions for the Christian some things are Unquestionable they they you don't come to them on the basis of anything else that there is a God.

That Jesus Christ died for your sin that the Bible is God's Word to you these things you cannot prove. We'll see this in the next point. But when it comes to the unbeliever, you know If he's committed to a position of there is no God and I need to see this data without God as I don't like to Use this was one of the data points that I need to put into the equation every data I look at I now reinterpret with my worldview.

I don't look at it neutrally. Yes, Charlie. Excellent, and and really it is the heart of unbelief that the gospel needs to break through which is why no amount of facts can Save a person it is a gospel the conviction that the Holy Spirit brings of their need for a Savior and There needs to be and there is a role in which the the mind plays so when we come to saving faith in Christ, we need to understand what the scripture says about our sin about the Savior and there is a Conviction that the God only brings where he changes our heart and then makes opens our eyes as it were.

Well and our responsibilities as we give the gospel that we present the truth of the scripture in such a way that the Spirit of God would use it and when you use data you want to remember that this is not the Silver bullet or something that will now clean things up because there is no neutral data.

I saw another yeah, I Know exactly what you're saying. So the way we need to think of this. I was listening to another actually I have to give a caution. Sometimes I find these sources and I don't put a Note on them on the page three.

There is a in the bottom. There are two tables. Can we trust the Bible by Charlie Campbell? I was listening to his material this weekend. He's got some pretty good. He's very clear. He gives a lot of data, but he's clearly Arminian in fact those in the evidential camp normally are Arminian in their theology because what they're thinking is the individual can choose.

Once they know or they can commit once or they can believe they can they they bring faith to the table so bringing as much data helps in their understanding of the Gospel and evangelism to bring the person to a saving faith.

So that's what the system Its presuppositions are, you know when though when someone is firmly committed to evidential apologetics as the primary means now to answer your question. No, obviously the person you're speaking with can be in you know, wide range of in a spectrum.

You know, he could be someone who has a genuine simple question about Data that he just didn't know about and providing that data in this particular case. Let's say this flu Forgot the name already. What is the title?

I just read Know this polytarch. I Should know the Bible at least that. But you can see you know, it's I'm trained to be an apologist. I can't remember this but I know that it's there somewhere if I if I can't answer I'll come back to you.

So if someone just had that question, it's good to provide that data. There's nothing wrong in saying, you know I will withhold that data and I have to just give you this picture and. But what needs to govern our Thinking is I mean if he came as an Armenian, maybe that is all you can do.

But as one who is reformed who understands the sovereignty of God in salvation. We want to make sure that the Bible informs our thinking so when we bring this facts and data We don't present it, you know in that probability sense that I mentioned we present it in the world view of you know.

This is God's world. This is God's truth. And if even if I don't necessarily bring an explicit text of Scripture Scripture still governs my mind in the way I present that evidence. So you want to. We want to do it.

You don't put an apologetics. We want to honor God and that's our primary goal and Whether we use texts of Scripture or the facts of data We want to make sure it's in the world view of God is sovereign and we present it.

That's excellent actually pastor Bob Bowman said last week, you know put a stone in their shoe and he said, you know, don't don't try to Win the conversation and the person in the car, you know at that time.

You're speaking you just tell the truth and let the Lord do the work in the heart. Actually, the person's the apologist name is Greg Kuchel. He is another he's reformed as well. And he uses both reason and evidence in a in a good way to help people think through where they thought everything was Cemented over there's actually a lot of cracks good good point.

Revelation, Presuppositional Apologetics, and the Noetic Effects of Sin

So let's let's move on to Revelation the next slide there those of you who don't have a slide. I think upstairs if you need one, there are Sheets of paper near the doors so you can use them Revelation.

So reformed apologetics argues that we ought to ground Reason and fact on the truth of the Christian faith. Rather than trying to prove or defend the faith on the basis of reason of fact. It's not a tongue twister.

It's just two simple things on the one side you have reason and fact. Fact is what we just looked at evidential reason is the next one. You're going to see classical apologetics, so these are two ways in which we look at Engaging with the unbeliever and the on the other side we have the Christian faith.

Now the question is which comes first. This is not a chicken or egg. This is very simple. Well, even chicken or egg is simple. Alright, so you have you have the truth of scripture that grounds reason and fact.

Not the other way around where reason and fact have to provide the basis of the truth of the scriptures. What do I mean by that? In fact, this is one of those Presuppositional apologetics, I have to thank Dan Rathbun because he gave me the first book on presuppositional apologetics.

I'll probably bring that in next week. It's it's a very abstract form of apologetics. Evidential is very straightforward. You know you he asked you a question. You just give him data job done. They might twist the data, but when you look at Reformed apologetics it has to do with the worldview.

How do we look at the data? How do we look at reason and Maybe I'll just give one half of this and we will cover the rest later now if my Bible for example has to be Validated on the basis of facts and reason.

So let me say I believe this Bible only because I have all these manuscript evidence and only because it makes internal cons in it is internally consistent or Internally coherent or externally consistent with the world that it meets.

So now I have seen these two face sides of the Bible. It's it's it's got all the facts. There's no fact that goes against it and there is no reason that it breaks. There's no Self contradiction it there is no, you know, it doesn't break the law of non-contradiction.

Whatever it is that logically we look at and therefore I now say this is God's Word. All right, I kind of put it as strongly as I can so what's wrong with this what I just said. Okay, so there is something to faith.

That is something more fundamental. Excellent. I said you've given me the framework with which I can explain this now the priest. Well Presupposition is actually a bad term people use it against it because you guys are just pre Suppositionalist you just presuppose and you want us to presuppose to no.