Always Ready: Chap. 22 Not Beguiled As Was Eve

OK, all right. We're still in Greg Bonson's book,

Always Ready. We've concluded the first three sections. There's five sections to it.

We're in section four, the conditions necessary for apologetic success.

We've looked at chapter 19, God must sovereignly grant understanding. Chapter 20, one must believe in order to understand.

And 21, strategy guided by the nature of belief.

And then tonight, we're moving into chapter 22, not being beguiled as Eve was.

One of the things that I've really appreciated about this book is how it brings us back in our defense to the very basic doctrines of our faith, all right?

It's not, and one of the goals of the book is to teach us how to defend the faith using the same presuppositions that we are saved by,

OK? And notice, just in fact, look at these titles up here.

God must sovereignly grant understanding. We need to recognize that one of the things that happens is once we become

Christians, and especially as you mature a little bit, we have a tendency of looking down our nose at other people saying, well, why can't they just understand?

This is what it says. And we can not always necessarily treat those who hold a different opinion.

Now, I'm not talking about just even unbelievers, but other believers. And looking down our nose at them and saying, well, clearly, what's wrong with you?

You know, God must sovereignly grant apologetic success.

There's not one of us here that was saved because we woke up one morning and thought it was a good idea, all right?

We understand that. And the same thing is true with all of the propositions of scripture.

So then one must believe in order to understand. So we understand as we're giving the gospel or defending the faith, what is the ultimate goal?

And far too often, the goal for the Christian is to win the argument. It's not the point.

The idea is to see that the person is brought to faith. So you can't leave that aspect out of it.

And one of the things that Bonson does so well is that he brings us always consistently in every chapter, he's bringing us back to the nature of our faith.

What is our goal in apologetics? So we've seen that. And now we're up to not being beguiled as Eve was.

I love the way he brings us all the way right back to the beginning of the scriptures.

And we'll see that as we go through along. So Christ is the very wisdom of God, even though the world of unbelief sees him and his gospel as folly.

That's exactly what Maria was saying before. Christ is the wisdom of God.

We can never move away from that. That's got to be our starting point. And it says, this fact must take hold of the apologist in order that he might remain faithful to his presuppositions.

And what are those presuppositions? As found in God's revealed word, despite the world's demand for signs and philosophical proofs, what are the signs and philosophical proofs that the world is demanding?

This is what you're going to come up against when you're out there talking to people. So that's why it's important. What signs and proofs?

I'd probably say, oh, proof to me God exists. They want to show me. They want tangible evidence.

Yeah, they want tangible evidence. They want empirical data. They want, or on the other side, the mystical side, they want signs.

So signs and philosophical proofs, which cater to its own assumptions and presumed autonomy.

Notice presumed autonomy in the realm of epistemology.

In consideration of one's own gracious salvation, you can see the utter foolishness of infatuation with human reasoning.

Foolishness and infatuation. I'll go on, because what

I'm going to say next comes next anyway. One did not become a believer by listening to the world and its self -professed intellectual autonomy.

Notice this is what we were talking about a little bit earlier, that nobody here, nobody ever, came to faith based upon listening to the wisdom of the world.

In fact, the wisdom of the world, if you listen to it, will take you in the opposite direction. And his self -professed intellectual autonomy.

What does he mean by that? Self -professed intellectual autonomy. What is that?

What exactly does that look like? Self -professed autonomy.

In other words, they came to the conclusion on their own apart from faith, but they do have faith. Yeah. Yeah.

As soon as you abandon Christ, who becomes the authority?

You do. OK. But by submitting wholeheartedly to the lordship of Jesus Christ in his thinking and behavior.

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with your heart, confess with your mouth, and you will be saved. The Christian must surely reason with those who are outside the faith, but he must ever remember that such reasoning does not require that he abandon his presuppositions so as to play the deceptive part of a neutral man who can self -sufficiently adjudicate all claims of revelation by whatever gods there may be.

This is the point that Bonson has been making over and over again, and this is his opening paragraph.

Notice one of the things that Bonson does, and this is one of the reasons I love his writing style.

Anybody read Bonson's books? Who's read anything by Bonson? It's very logical, but it's repetitive to the sense that he's always bringing us back to where we have to do the starting point, because if we lose the starting point, especially in a topic like this, which can be so complex, you can go off on rabbit trail.

So he's constantly bringing us back. So what he's saying is we're not going to rely on this quote, unquote, neutral man.

What does it mean by a neutral man? What?

It's a false thought that you can be neutral, but that's what we're trying to get you to do. Yeah. Someone without presuppositions.

Yes. And who is that? No one. No one. Everybody's got their own set of presuppositions.

Just a question of what are your presuppositions? All right. So when the believer encounters the unbeliever, he must do so with the wisdom of God.

He must do so with the wisdom of God, not with worldly wisdom, which is confounded by God.

You pick up what he's saying? Is God a neutral party in the apologetic endeavor?

Notice what he says. We must use the wisdom of God, not worldly wisdom.

Why don't we use the worldly wisdom? It's confounded by God. They will never come to any conclusion of truth as long as they're using worldly wisdom and not the wisdom of God, because the wisdom of God is diametrically opposed to the worldly wisdom, the wisdom of this world.

So Paul did not come from Athens to Corinth with the elaborate language and philosophical subtlety of the thinkers he encountered there.

What is he referring to here? What was Paul's encounter in Athens?

Paul was in there with Diana. Diana. What's her name?

That was in Ephesus. Artemis of the Ephesians, Diana. In Athens, all the philosophers are always talking about something new.

And they found that Folly, this guy, is talking about the resurrection of the dead. Oh, that's where he talked about it.

He wants to preach about the unknown. Yeah. Remember the Areopagus, which literally means

Mars Hill? He spoke to the philosophers on Mars Hill. And at the end of the book, we're actually going to do a study in Paul's Apologetic on Mars Hill.

But notice what Bonson is saying. Paul did not come from Athens. In other words, he had just met the, quote, the most intellectual, most worldly wise people in the society at that time.

And yet he doesn't come with that wisdom and says, oh, by the way, I was just talking to the guys in Athens.

And you know what they said? Listen to what they had to say. They got a new spin on this. He doesn't do that.

He uses what? He uses the wisdom of God. All right.

Philosophical subtlety of the thinkers he encountered there. I absolutely love that portion of Acts.

And I read that periodically just to bring my thoughts back to how Paul handled that.

Because it is very instructive for us and how he handled that. Because in our society here in Long Island in the 21st century is more like Mars Hill than it is like one of the other cities,

I think. That's my opinion. He did not utilize

Athenian intellectual wares. He just returned right back to the word of God.

Instead, his proclamation and defense were rooted in the sure word of God. Without this word or revelation from God, there can be no theoretical basis for logic, science, or history.

We need to always keep this in our mind. You've seen some of the great apologists of our day.

You know, guys like Eli, James White, Si, Tim, Brueghen, Cade, if you've looked at any of his.

And you'll see that they always come back to this heading for the logic or the science or the history and show what?

That without Christianity, without the wisdom of God, you can't even debate those things.

You can't assert any of the truth or science apart from using the Christian worldview. Don't ever forget that.

Don't ever place that aside. One's thought has no meaningful content, dependable use, or objective referent and certainty apart from the thinking

God's thoughts after him. That's so well said. Notice what he says.

And he makes no bones about it. He says, the thought, apart from the wisdom of God, the thought has no meaningful content.

Now, you've got to be careful how you say that. But it's true. It's no meaningful and no dependable use.

Sometimes, the wisdom of secular philosophers is true. Sometimes, they hit upon it.

They can't tell you how they hit upon it, but they hit upon it. But it's not dependable.

Just because he's writing one year, he doesn't mean he's writing in the next paragraph. So yes.

When it says it has no meaningful content, it has no meaningful content because there was no

God who created it with meaning. So there's no objective meaning to the universe.

There's just subjective feelings as to what I ascribe meaning to.

Sure, and that's exactly what he says in the next phrase, or object reference, and certainty.

There cannot be, apart from thinking God's thoughts after him. You see how important this is?

Apologetic success hinges on this reality. What is apologetic success?

Let me ask it again. What is apologetic success? Seeing the salvation of the person.

Mm -hmm. Seeing the person come to faith and repentance. It's not winning the argument.

It's not making the guy look foolish. You may wind up along the way making somebody look foolish, but that's not what our goal is.

Our goal is to show them the truth of God's word and to see them come to faith and repentance.

With it, this is, when he says with it, this is thinking God's thoughts after him.

With it, the Christian can be bold in challenging unbelieving presuppositions and be faithful in adhering to his own, thus remaining loyal to Christ's lordship in the realm of thought.

I like that he says that we can be bold. What is boldness?

What does it mean to be bold? Go ahead,

Ryan. Standing on truth amidst adversity. Yeah. Pardon it. Amidst unbelieving adversity.

But bold is what? Go ahead. Unafraid? Unafraid, huh?

Confident? Mm -hmm. What other adjectives can you use? Synonyms for bold.

Let me ask you this. Was Luther's stance at the Diet of Worms, was that bold?

Unless I'm convinced by evident reason or sacred scripture, I cannot recant what?

For to do so is to violate conscience, and violating conscience is neither safe nor right.

Here I stand. Is that bold? Oh, yeah.

Was it arrogant? Quite often in movies or portrayals, you'll see

Luther standing up very, very boldly and arrogantly. That's a misrepresentation.

Luther was far from arrogant. In fact, you know what happened when he was first asked that question?

You know what he said? You know what his first response was? That was not his first response. What was his first response? Can we get another day?

Yeah, can I sleep on it? Because, I mean, here was a man facing dire consequences.

His life was on the line. Then he came back, and he was very humble before the council.

But bold, the two are not mutually exclusive. And it's certainly not arrogant.

The unbeliever can fight against the gospel only by ruining the foundation of his intellectual efforts.

This is something else you got to keep in mind. When you're coming into a situation where you're going looking to defend the faith, you have to understand that you have the strongest case.

If you don't, it's like coming at somebody who's standing there holding a

Colt revolver, and you've got a howitzer. You know, it's that drastic,

OK? And you have to understand that you can't be intimidated by your opposition.

Because the further they try to explain their position, if you're asking them the right questions, what are you going to do?

They're going to wind up ruining the foundation of their own intellectual efforts. To avoid the same plight, the defender must stay true to the sovereign word of God as his most basic presupposition and guideline.

Notice, we have, in other words, to avoid the same thing. Let me put it this way.

Here's what Bonson's saying. If you take the same path that the person you're debating or engaging with, you're going to wind up in the same place.

Because as soon as you come off the word of God, you have no basis for your conclusions and for your thought.

That's why you never put the Bible aside. You never put the wisdom of God aside. He needs to argue from within that perspective, not in a way which is extraneous or contrary to it, giving in to the assumptions of his opponent, not even for a moment.

One minor exception to that, and it's not really an exception, just a caveat, when would you ever stray from your own foundation?

We addressed this a number of weeks ago. Yeah. Yeah, remember

Proverbs, answer a fool according to his folly. Don't answer a fool according to his folly. Only to show the absurdity of where he is standing.

And it's only a momentary departure, but always coming back to it.

The moment one abandons his sure footing in the presupposed word of God, his apologetic becomes unfaithful and precarious.

Just building, constantly building. Do you get the idea that Bonson's against you giving in?

A vivid confrontation of the facts, that fact can be taken from the account of man's falling into sin according to Genesis 3.

And of course, we know Genesis 3, this is where he gets the title from not being beguiled. Even in the garden, man was responsible to submit without question to God's revelation, given by special word to him.

You follow that? Even in the garden, this is before sin entered into the world, man was responsible to submit to God's revelation, unwaveringly, unquestionably.

Satan's strategy then, as now, all right, was to work toward undermining man's presuppositional submission to the authoritative word from God.

And then he goes through a little, a brief apologetic here as to how that works. He began by calling the word into question, verse one.

What it said, what was Satan's first opening? Yeah, has God really said?

Casting doubt, all right? And then contradicting it openly.

How did he contradict it openly? Yeah, you will not really die.

Notice, subtlety first. Don't miss the fact that people that you're going to come in contact with will use similar strategy.

Why? Because they are servants of Satan. The epistemological situation was thrown into upheaval when

Eve began thinking that she could have a meaningful and proper understanding of reality apart from God's revelation.

See it? Notice, where did it begin? With the spoken word as opposed to the spoken word of God.

Calls it into question, then outright denial. And then what happens?

What does Eve do? Eve begins thinking that she could, you know, she goes, hmm, and she ponders it, all right?

In that case, she was free to examine what God had to say and autonomously determine its truth over against the conflicting hypothesis of Satan, okay?

Don't forget, prior to sin entering into the world, we were discussing it coming into right now, but Eve had the ability to actually question.

In fact, that should have been part of her job. Or even better, part of Adam's job.

She suspended thinking God's thoughts after him in order to become the prime authority in the world of thought.

Notice that. What does he mean by that? Think about that for a minute.

What exactly, and why does he bring this up at this point? When we separate ourselves from God's word, we're gonna be like Eve.

We're gonna get better at this. There's no winning in that thought process.

What's one of the greatest apologetic errors that's made from within the church today? Abandoning scripture and what?

Denial of the Lordship of Christ. And how does that very specifically impact our apologetic methodology?

Yes. We become the authority. And that's exactly what we're dealing with.

And here, Bonson is bringing us right back to where sin enters into the world, and it enters in the same way, the same thing that we are being confronted with today, as what did

Solomon say. There's nothing new under the sun. And we see that over and over again.

That's why it's so crucial that we understand exactly what presuppositionalism is all about.

Specifically, she abandoned loyalty to her creator so as to make herself his equal.

Wasn't that exactly what Satan promised? You shall be like God's? You know good and evil?

She took her stand as a neutral judge over God's hypothesis. How do you see that coming into play?

How did she become a neutral judge? And exalting her autonomous reason?

That's an easy one, come on. That's a ground ball, I mean, call it. She abandoned faith for evidence.

Yeah. And what was it that she abandoned by faith?

Yeah, what God had said. God had specifically said, do not eat of the fruit.

And what does she come out and say? Satan says, no, you can eat that. The consequences,

God said, that's not true. So what does she do? She reasons autonomously.

And what happened? By usurping this epistemic prerogatives of the

Lord, she plunged the human race into lawlessness. We see ever about us in thought and behavior.

Notice, in thought and behavior. And don't get me into the argument about, it's

Adam's sin and all. Yes, it's Adam's sin by federal headship, but Eve was the one who committed the act.

And Paul agrees with that and Timothy, so anyway. No, we're more culpable.

Eve was deceived. Yeah, he could have stopped her. Yeah, and he went into it with his eyes wide open.

So Jesus came to atone for such sins, even intellectual transgressions against God's word.

And to call men back to unswerving loyalty to his revealed word. This has got to be part of our apologetic, our presuppositional apologetic.

The apologist cannot turn a deaf ear to that call and demand thinking that he nevertheless defends the

Lord of glory. Paul, the apostle of Christ makes it very clear that we must learn the lesson of Adam and Eve in the garden.

And this is important that Paul brings us right back there. It's not just Bonson. In 2

Corinthians 11 .3, Paul says, but I fear by any means, as the serpent deceived

Eve in his craftiness, your mind should be corrupted so as to turn from the single mindedness and purity that is toward Christ.

Notice Paul, but I fear. You don't hear Paul say I fear very often, but this is a danger.

And I would just reiterate what Paul is saying. Satan is seeking, he's around like a roaring lion and he's crafty, he's sly, he's deceptive.

And he never comes in the way you think he's gonna come in. Because if he did, he wouldn't deceive you, deception.

So we have to be careful. The epistemological implications of the narrative about man's fall into sin were only too obvious to Paul.

Thus he dreaded that the church might, like Eve, be seduced away from absolute loyalty in Christ.

Paul says that more than once. In fact, even to the elders of Ephesus, he tells them that wolves are gonna come in dressed as sheep and devour the flock.

So we need to be very, very cautious. What is required of the

Christian is undivided devotion or single hearted adherence to Christ the Lord. We must be free from duplicity in our thinking.

This is pretty much summing up here now. The double minded man attempting to follow two lords is unstable in all his ways.

That's from James, of course. Being blown about by every wind of doctrine. I love the way

Dr. J. Adams used to call it. He used to say that one of the problems the Christian has is fad surfing.

He says, the Christian's fad surfing, he said like you get a wave of some new teaching coming in and the

Christian is on a surfboard on top of it and then it crashes down because it's not from the word of God. But then he waits and catches the next fad and finds himself fad surfing.

Thus we must be purified from double mindedness. As Paul indicates in 2

Corinthians 11, if we are not thus purified, we shall be guiled by the deceptive thinking of Satan, the father of all lying and his ministers.

The same thing that Eve faced, that the church in Corinth was facing, that every church in the history of the church is facing us today.

And we have to be very cautious in our apologetic method. No extraneous corruptions can be allowed in our thinking for it shall become debauched when we deviate even slightly from the word of Christ.

Genesis 3 must drive home the need for a presuppositional method in apologetics. And I think

Bonson has done a marvelous job showing that over and over again. And then he brings our, here's our conclusion.

By taking such a stand in the argument with unbelief, we may very well be ridiculed as lacking the oratory eloquence and cunning rhetoric of the sophisticated academic mind, which is trained in the ways of autonomous philosophy.

When you do not reason in a way pleasing to your hearer, he will take you for a layman in the matters of intellect.

However, the fact remains that only by resisting the deception which

Eve submitted, can we salvage the epistemic enterprise. We speak a wisdom which is discerned when the spirit frees men's minds from bondage, as Paul declared subsequent to his warning about Eve's deception.

Though I be rude in speech, yet am I not in knowledge. And that's from 2

Corinthians 11. Final thoughts. Yes, Pierre.

I'm always fascinated in Genesis about the way Satan phrased the question.

He used God's word saying, and he kind of twisted the scripture by saying a certain word that he kind of redefined.

Did God say you can't eat of any? Which any can mean, did he say you can't eat of anything here or did he say you can't eat of one tree, of any tree in here?

And so it kind of beguiled Eve, where now she goes and says, no, he said we can't eat of this tree, and he got her.

And I find today that a lot of, when you're doing apologetics, the world will use even the scriptures to try to pull you down.

Well, didn't God say you can't be judgmental? They'll use that scripture and you have to bring it back and say like Jesus did.

No, God said this. So it's easy for them to start redefining terms.

We see they're always trying to redefine words in order to get away from the truth. So I just find how fascinating that we can learn from that, that Satan twisted it and tried to sow doubt.

So we got to be careful what the world is doing, redefining words. And you see that constantly over and over again, how the word of God is just twisted.

Sometimes it's so slight, so subtle that you don't even realize it, but you're absolutely right.

Same strategy. And that's why Paul says we are not ignorant of his devices.

Of all people, the modern church should know and be aware of the devices that Satan uses.

other thoughts? Okay, let's pray. Amen.