Always Ready: Chap. 26 The Heart of the Matter Pt. 2

All right, we're studying Bonson's book, Always Ready. And we're in the section five.

We've completed the first four sections of the book. And section five is

Answers to Apologetic Challenges. And the chapter is

Ready to Reason, which we've already looked at. Then chapter 26,

I love the title of the chapter, The Heart of the Matter. And it really is.

And remember, I decided to break this up into two parts because it's just too much information in it to do it in one night.

So we looked first, the first section was Knowing and Believing. And the second section was

Conflicting Worldviews. And that's what we've studied in chapter 26 so far.

So tonight, we're going to finish chapter 26. The title of this subsection is

The Impossibility of the Contrary. And if you remember, this was the quotation from the book that I left you with the last time we were together.

If the way which people reason and interpret evidence is determined by their presupposed worldviews, and if the worldviews of the believer and unbeliever are, in principle, completely at odds with each other, how can the disagreement between them over the justification of biblical claims be resolved?

If you remember when we came up to the last subsection, Conflicting Worldviews, that's what we saw, that the heart of the matter really is that the non -believer and the believer have two different worldviews that are conflicting with each other, at the basics, at the heart.

And so we come to this question. And once Bronson brought us down to that point where he says, we are completely at odds with each other, then the question comes up, how can the disagreement between them over justification of biblical claims be resolved?

That's really the heart of the issue. What does the evidentiarist do, the

Christian evidentiarist? He says, well, we need to compromise. And we need to step into their arena for a while.

And as presuppositionalists, we say, absolutely not. You can never compromise on the word of God.

You can never put the word of God aside, especially when that's what you're defending. So we continue in chapter 26, and he says, it might seem that all rational argumentation is precluded, since appeals to evidence and logic will be controlled by the respective conflicting worldviews of the believer and unbeliever.

That does seem like a logical conclusion, doesn't it? That if we're completely at odds, how are you going to have any dialogue whatsoever between a believer and a non -believer?

And Bronson very clearly says, however, this is not the case. So then the next question we have to ask is, well, if it's not the case, why and how can we have any meaningful dialogue?

And that's what we get into now in this section of chapter 26.

And Bronson says, differing worldviews can be compared to each other in terms of the important philosophical question about the preconditions of intelligibility.

For such important assumptions as the universality of logical laws, the uniformity of nature, and the reality of moral absolutes.

I just want to pause here for a minute, because he's not really answering the question yet. He's just talking about how you can compare the worldviews.

And we need to understand that what he's getting at here is that you can't argue, you have to go and argue principles, underlying principles.

Don't get caught in of arguing the outworking of it. For example, why would we get into a topic of is abortion moral?

One person will say, no, I don't think it is. The other says, yes, it is. And there's the conflict, because if you don't go any deeper than that, you're going to just get, oh, yeah, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

And it's going to be my opinion versus your opinion. So he says, we can examine a worldview and ask whether its portrayal of nature, man, knowledge, et cetera, provide an outlook in terms which logic, science, and ethics can make sense.

Notice what he says. We can examine a worldview and ask whether its portrayal of basically life, nature, man, knowledge, et cetera, does it provide an outlook in terms of logic, science, and ethics in a way that makes sense.

And he goes on to explain that a little bit more. It does not comport with the practices of natural science to believe that all events are random and unpredictable, for instance.

Notice that the two are not compatible. When you look around this world, it does not make sense to look at the intelligence in this world, the design, the order, and everything that we see in this world and say, well, this is all random chance.

And then to come up and say, there are certain things that are right and certain things that are wrong, you have no basis for that with a worldview such as what the humanist view is.

It does not comport with the demand for honesty in scientific research if no moral principle expresses anything but a personal preference or feeling.

You're following what he's saying? In other words, it's not compatible. How can you have honest scientific research if the results of your scientific research are nothing more than your personal preferences or feelings?

It doesn't make any sense. Now, we'll see a little bit later on that what the humanist does or the atheist does is they borrow from our worldview because they can see that some of these things are mutually exclusive.

Moreover, if there are internal contradictions in a person's worldview, it does not provide the preconditions for making sense out of man's experience.

So if I have certain principles that are in contradiction with other principles that I believe, then how can you make sense out of any experience?

It doesn't make sense. For instance, if one's political dogmas respect the dignity of men to make their own choices while one's psychological theories reject the free will of men, then there is an internal defect in that person's worldview.

In other words, you can't have it both ways. You can't have free choice and then reject the free will of men.

I mean, that just makes no sense whatsoever. It is the

Christian's contention that all, I should have underlined all, all non -Christian worldviews.

Oh, I did underline it. It's OK. I'm redeemed. That all non -Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions as well as with beliefs which do not render logic, science, or ethics intelligible.

Do you see now why he's calling this chapter the heart of the matter?

Because what we're getting down to here now is this whole idea that a non -Christian worldview is rife with internal contradictions.

And if you hold consistently to that worldview, logic, science, and ethics go out the window.

So again, so how do they resolve that? They borrow from our worldview. On the other hand, the

Christian worldview, taken from God's self -revelation in scripture, demands our intellectual commitment.

Why? Because it does provide the preconditions of intelligibility for man's reason, experience, and dignity.

That's one of the things that has struck me and one of the things that God used to draw me to salvation.

I was in my late 20s and thought

I knew everything. And very logical, being a detective, everything to me had to be logic and evidence.

All right? And one of the things that I saw as I was looking around for some meaning to the world was that it was only the

Christian worldview that made any sense, even from a logic. Because other than that, how could I just saw the blatant contradictions that were in every other worldview?

And I looked at all kinds of ones when I was in college, including the

French existentialists, which you want to blow your mind or you want to just hurt your mind, just try to read

Sartre and Camus. All right? In biblical terms, what the

Christian apologist does is demonstrate to unbelievers that because of their rejection of God's revealed truth, they have become vain in their reasonings.

And that's exactly what Romans chapter 1 is all about. So just any question, just go and read chapter 1, and you can see exactly the result of that.

By means of their foolish perspective, they end up opposing themselves.

And I love the way Bonson puts that. They end up opposing themselves. Because they'll say one thing in one respect and another thing in another respect that are contradictory to one another.

And I'm going to just hold that thought for a second. They follow a conception of knowledge which does not deserve the name.

Their philosophy and presuppositions rob one of knowledge, leaving them in ignorance.

And again, all those verses of scripture should be very familiar to you. The aim of the apologist is to cast down their reasonings and to challenge them in the spirit of Paul.

Well, how did Paul go about this? What does Paul say in 2 Corinthians? Where is the wise?

Where is the disputer of the world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? What does he mean by the spirit of Paul?

Paul never put aside the scriptures. He never put aside the word of God. Even when he was arguing and debating with the philosophers on Moore's Hill, he may not have quoted the scripture.

In fact, let me ask you, why do you think Paul never quoted scripture on Moore's Hill?

Yeah, if he told them, well, in the book of Psalms, what book of Psalms?

But he never put aside the principles of scripture. And that's one of the, you'll hear that sometimes from people say, well, the apostle

Paul, when he argued on Moore's Hill, he didn't use scripture. No, but he used biblical principles.

He never put aside the principles. And that's the important thing. You can't put aside biblical truth except in those limited circumstances where you're trying to show the futility of their logic, which we've looked at in the past.

In various forms, the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the

Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. Now, what do you think he means by that?

And this one, I'm going to throw out. He says the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary.

What does he mean by that? Let's get some thoughts. So far,

I've done all the thinking. That's it. I mean, he's basically saying that people, they try to support

Christianity by saying that since everything else is false,

Christianity has to be true. It almost reminds me of the whole thing where people say, what's the

Pascal's wager or whatever, where you pretty much believe in Christianity because the alternative is just would be, it's like fire insurance kind of thing, like where you just believe it just because it's better than the alternative kind of thing, not because there's any actual truth in it.

That's kind of what I think it leads to, that kind of thought. OK. Because Christianity presents the very definition of truth.

Truth can't exist outside of God. OK. All other worldviews, like their views get reduced to absurdity?

Yeah. Yeah, a little bit of each. But the essence of it is that because every other worldview, if you carry it to its logical conclusion, leads to absurdity.

And that's what he means by the, why do we believe that Christianity is true? Because everything else leads to absolute absurdity.

There's no meaning, no purpose. You cannot find meaning in this world apart from the Christian worldview.

You can't find a code of ethics that has a basis in truth apart from the

Christian worldview. I'm not saying you can't find that other religions and philosophies don't have a code of ethics.

But there's no reason for them to hold to the code of ethics. The reason that you find code of ethics in non -Christian religion is because they recognize they have the law of God written on their heart.

And they recognize in it, too, no, it's not OK for me to shoot my neighbor. They know that innately, because God's law is still written.

Even though it might be fractured by the fall, all mankind is still the image bearer of God.

When the perspective of God's revelation is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience.

That's just a summary of what we just talked about. To put it another way, the proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not, you would not be able to prove anything.

That really boils it down. And that is true. What the unbeliever needs is nothing less than a radical change of mind, which is

Repentance, Acts 17, verse 30. Notice how Bonson brings it back.

Yes, we're talking about the intellectual side of faith. We're talking about believing faith and knowing and logic and everything else.

But what does it all come back down to? It always comes back down to a matter of the heart. The non -believer can't know

God in the way that we, especially in saving knowledge. But he continues on in that vein here.

He needs to change his fundamental worldview and submit to the revelation of God in order for any knowledge or experience to make sense.

Let me just back up for a minute. This is something that we covered in the past. But why does a person have to be born again to be able to know truth in an intellectual capacity?

Because everything about us has fallen. The image of God is shattering us. So we need to be made a new creation in order to see the world as it is.

Yeah. Was it last week that you did a primer on Calvinism?

Yeah. That was last Wednesday. Total depravity means what?

That every aspect of our being is depraved.

Not just our spirit, not just our emotions, but our intellect as well.

So we can't trust our own intellect to a degree by itself.

That's why Paul says we're held captive by what?

By the word of God. That's why as Christians we live by the word because that's what we know to be true.

Have you ever come across a circumstance in your life where you know you wanted to do something and you felt that it was right, but inside you know it was wrong?

I can tell you how many times as a police officer making an arrest and saying,

I wish I didn't have to bring this guy in. I'd like to dump him in a garbage dump someplace.

But that wasn't a confession. I'm in the realm of hypothetical here.

No. But you know what I mean. There's times that you really want to do something, but you know it's wrong.

And that's because we still have the image of God. So our intellect also is affected.

So we can't even trust our own logic, even by using the rules of logic.

He at the same time needs to repent of his spiritual rebellion and sin against God. So it's a both -and.

It's not an either -or. Part and parcel of repentance and coming to Christ is that you become a new creation and you are renewed in every aspect, wherever the curse is found in you, which includes your intellect, your emotions, your will, and even your body is affected.

And the curse is overturned through repentance.

Because of the condition of his heart, he cannot see the truth or know God in a saving fashion.

That last phrase is important. He cannot see the truth or know God in a saving fashion because there is a sense, and we're going to get into that in a few moments, there is a sense in that everybody knows the truth, everybody knows

God to a certain degree. All right? Okay.

Last section of this chapter is called self -deception. And this is the outcome of having conflicting worldviews and the impossibility of the contrary.

Look at how Bonson closes it out here. Until the sinner's heart is regenerated and his basic outlook changed, he will continue to resist the knowledge of God.

Notice how Bonson puts it, and it's exactly the wording from Scripture. He will continue to resist the knowledge of God.

That's why Paul says that even the nonbeliever is without excuse because he is, not only is his mind darkened and the ignorance and all of that stuff, but he, as an act of the will, continues to resist

God. Okay? As we just said, given his defective worldview and spiritual attitude, the unbeliever cannot justify any knowledge whatsoever and cannot come to know

God in a saving fashion. Well, here we're right back to the doctrines of grace.

Notice how when you come to the doctrines of grace, all of a sudden you see it everywhere you can in Scripture, places that you never saw it before.

He cannot come to know God. What does it say in Romans 8? Right? Cannot know

God, cannot please God. His heart is not even able to do so. This does not mean, however, and here's an important caveat, this does not mean, however, that unbelievers do not have any knowledge, much less that they do not know

God. All right? And this is an important thing. Sometimes when people come to the doctrines of grace, they understand

Calvinism. They say, oh, total depravity. The other, you know, the nonbeliever, he can't know anything about God.

It's not what the Scripture teaches. He cannot know God in a saving manner.

He says what we said is they cannot justify what they know in terms of their unbelieving worldview, and they cannot know

God in a saving way. The fact that they know

God is what condemns them. The Bible indicates that unbelievers do nevertheless know

God, but it is a knowledge in condemnation. God has given us everything, and his stamp, his fingerprint, is all over it, a knowledge which enables them to know things about themselves and the world around them, even though they suppress the truth of God, which makes such knowledge possible.

So that's, if you ever see somebody who's just absolutely brilliant and giving a speech and just coming along so cogently, and yet they deny

God, and yet everything that they're saying is a product of the fact that they have the image of God on them, and they don't know it, and they actively suppress it.

This is where self -deception comes in. If you ever want to read something interesting on self -deception,

Greg Bonson's doctoral thesis was on self -deception because there's actually a debate in the

Christian seminaries, is self -deception possible? Because if you're deceived, how do you know it?

And can you actively deceive yourself? Because if you're in the act of deceiving yourself... Anyway, Bonson answers that in his doctoral thesis.

There's no way I can answer it in a few minutes here. But it's a good read if you really want to read something about self -deception.

According to Romans 1, 18 to 21, unbelievers actually know God in their heart of hearts.

The fact when somebody says, I don't believe in God, they're actually denying and suppressing the knowledge of God because they do know that there is a

God. In fact, the dentist that I used to go to, he's retired now, he was a

Jewish fellow. He and I got to be good friends. I went to him for over 30 -some years. We got to be very close friends, and yet he was a

Jewish atheist. And every time I'd go visit him, he'd ask me to come in the office when

I finished, and he'd always ask me theological questions. And so we'd sit there and we'd talk, and I gave him the gospel more than once.

So this one time I gave him, he says, what is it exactly that you believe? I said, I haven't got time for you right now.

He said, no, I'm kidding. That's the question you look for. So I sat down and I explained the gospel to him, and I got up to leave when

I was finished, and he says, you know, Rich, if I was ever to believe anything, I'd believe what you just said, you know.

And I just turned around, and as I was walking out, I turned over my shoulder and said, Bob, God doesn't believe in atheists.

And I just walked out. Next time I saw him was a year later.

I came walking through the door. He says, I've been thinking about what you said. He knew.

He knew, all right. And I still pray for him, hoping that he comes to faith, because he's such a good friend.

Indeed, that which is known of God is evident within them, so that they are without excuse for the professed unbelief.

See, what is known of God is evident within them, so that they are without excuse.

What does that mean then? That means they have to actively suppress it.

The person who said, why do you think the scripture says the person who says in his heart there is no

God is a fool? Because he'd have to be, because he knows.

Since he is not far from any of us, even pagan philosophers cannot escape knowing him.

What unbelievers do is suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Notice, as soon as you start talking suppress the truth, you're talking about an act of the will.

There's intellect involved, but more than that, there's an act of the will. So you can see how every aspect of the being is involved in denying the truth of God.

They are guilty of self -deception. And I knew Bonson would get that in here, because that's one of his favorite topics.

And although in one sense they very sincerely deny knowing God or being persuaded by his revelation, they nevertheless are mistaken in this denial.

In fact, they do know God. They are persuaded by his revelation of himself, and they now are doing whatever they can to keep that truth from sight and to keep from dealing honestly with their maker and judge.

In other words, what Bonson is saying is this is not an accident. It's not that they haven't been given enough information.

What is it that they need for them to finally acknowledge God? Not rhetorical.

They need new hearts. They need to be born again. That's why they are apologetic, and as Bonson points out, if we take evangelism, that element out of apologetics, we're whistling in the wind.

In this way, unbelievers who genuinely know God in condemnation work hard even habitually, and in that sense unconsciously, to deceive themselves into believing that they do not believe in God or that revealed truths about him.

Notice Bonson definitely believes that you can work actively on self -deception, and I would agree with him.

It is the knowledge of God, which all unbelievers inescapably have within themselves, that makes it possible for them to know other things about themselves or about the world.

How do unbelieving scientists make these discoveries?

Because they have the knowledge of God in them. They have the image of God on them.

Even though they are actively denying it and deceiving themselves, they still have the possibility because of the image of God.

Yes, Jake. I just had a question regarding one of the parts you just read in terms of being born again.

We call men to be born again for a couple of reasons, one of them being that it's the only way that they're going to have the right relationship with God is when they confess their sins, they believe upon Christ.

Would you say one of the reasons also regarding this chapter of this book is because they've become a law unto themselves and because they have to repent of that autonomy and they have to...

Being born again is... You are, you have no longer held on to that autonomous aspect and you've given it up and you've committed yourself to Christ in the sense that you are subjecting yourself to his lordship.

Would you say that's a fair assessment? Yes, in other words, remember the whole person is totally depraved, which means that the whole person is in need of regeneration.

And so when a person is regenerated, not only are they open to spiritual matters, but their mind will be cleared for intellectual matters and for the matters of the will and for the matters of the emotion.

Everything will begin to work. Now again, not instantaneously. Don't forget we believe in the doctrine of progressive sanctification.

When a person is born again, we are to work out our sanctification with fear and trembling.

But yes, that's part of it. It's not individual. It's not like, well, I'm going to work on my intellect today and make sure that that's sanctified.

No, it's the whole being is sanctified. I think you have to be careful even in separating.

We have to be able to talk about the mind, the will and the emotions, but it's all part of who we are and it's all intertwined.

You can't just cut out. When you do an autopsy, you don't cut out, this is the mind, this is the will, this is the emotion.

It doesn't work that way. But yes. Because they know

God, they have a rationale for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, man's dignity and ethical absolutes.

Notice, because they know God, it's because God's image is on them that they can, in fact, enter into logical argumentation.

They just don't do it consistently. For example,

I mean, just think. In our nation, think of how absurd some of the laws are.

You have a large percentage of the population that wants abortion on demand.

That same portion of the population will reject capital punishment for prisoners, for murderers.

Where's the logic? And consider murdering a pregnant woman a double homicide.

Yes. Yeah. It's because they're double -minded and victims of self -deception.

All right? I mean, just think. Well, just look at how it goes now.

We're told, remember during COVID, what were we told to do? What was the catchphrase? Follow the science.

All right? But now when it determines who's a man and who's a woman, don't follow the science.

I feel like a woman. Accordingly, they can pursue science and other aspects of life with some measure of success, even though they cannot account for that success.

In other words, they cannot provide the preconditions for intelligibility of logic, science, or ethics.

So for this reason, every bit of the unbeliever's knowledge is an evidence supporting the truth of God's revelation and a further indictment against unbelief on the day of judgment.

And that leads to the conclusion of this chapter, the task of apologetics is to strip the believer, unbeliever of his mask, to show him that he really has really known

God all along. That's what I like. That's why I joke. That's why I like that expression.

God doesn't believe in atheists, but suppress the truth unrighteously and that knowledge would be impossible otherwise.

Apologetics in this way goes to the heart of the matter and challenges of the heart, the unbeliever's philosophical outlook, and it confronts the self -deception which grips the believer's personal heart.

Questions? Do you see why I like that he calls this the heart of the matter?

Because I think in this chapter he really gets to it and we're going to get a little bit more practical in some of the following chapters.

But this is really, if you don't grab this one, go back and read this chapter over again because I think it's just that crucial.