This morning in the adult Bible class, we're going to continue with our studies of Christian apologetics. We started this series back in January of this year, and November is the 11th month, but we haven't been in the series for quite 11 months. We've had 14 installments, 14 parts in this series. Today's number 15. And in our last class, we finished the first major section of our studies, the premises of the Christian apologists. Before we go on to new material, I thought it might be good for us to take one class just to go back and review everything that we've covered up to this point. And we'll do this in a guided discussion format. So I'm going to be asking you lots of questions. And some of these things I wouldn't expect you to remember if you haven't prepared, but I'm going to ask you lots of questions, and you'll be able to ask questions and make comments if you have any. And this will give us a chance to review and regroup a little bit before we move on to new material. Maybe some of the things we've covered over this year have been a little fuzzy in your thinking, and so I hope to clear up some of these things. And maybe if we take these 14 classes and shrink them down and look at them all at once in one class. Maybe that'll help us to get a little perspective and help us to know where we are in our studies before we move on. Well, we started with an introduction to the series, and there were five points in the introduction. I don't have my outline in front of me. Did I put the five points in the outline or did I just have an introduction? They're in there? Okay. So if I ask you what they are, You'll know where to look, right? Some of these questions you'll be able to cheat by looking on the sheet. But five things in the introduction. The first point is what? Definition, right? Definition of Christian apologetics. Does anybody remember the definition? And if you can't remember it exactly, just in your own words, what's apologetics? What are we talking about when we're talking about apologetics? Exactly right. Defending the faith. That's exactly right. The word that you should think of when you think of apologetics is defense. That's the key word. Defending the faith. Oh, thank you. So when we talk about apologetics, we're talking about that branch of theology that has to do with defense and proofs of the Christian faith. Where does that term come from? Do you remember? Apologetics? Where does that come from? Did somebody just make it up? Apologetics? Boy, I'm glad we're having this review. Anybody know where it comes from? Really, no one knows. That's right, that's right. You remember what the word is? Well, if you transliterate it into English, it looks like this. Apologia. What does that sound like? Apology, right? So when we talk about apologetics, we're apologizing for our faith, right? Are we apologizing for our faith? Right, not in the sense usually in the English language, but in the Greek meaning, yes, an apology is a defense. It's a formal or legal defense. It was actually a technical term, a legal term in Greek culture and society. So that's what we're doing. We're defending our faith. We're presenting a formal defense, a reasoned statement of the hope that is in us. And we saw that apologetics can take many different forms. It can come as offense, it can come as defense, it can come as proofs and evidences. And by offense, what I mean is that we're presenting arguments against, we're on the offensive, we're on the attack, presenting arguments as an attack against some false religion or false idea or system of belief. And then there's defense. Sometimes arguments are brought against us. So we attempt to respond to those arguments. It's a defense. And sometimes apologetics is in the form of submitting proofs and evidences for people to consider, to think about, to try to persuade them of the truth of our position. That's a definition. Now, secondly, reasons for studying Christian apologetics. And I know I didn't put the reasons on the outline. Do you remember any of the reasons? Why we should study apologetics. Are there reasons for studying apologetics? Of course there are. Yes, Christina. OK, so that we can be prepared to what? We need we need to prepare. It's commanded, isn't it? Where is it commanded in the Bible? Yes, Tom. Let's turn there. And would you read for us, Todd, 1 Peter 3, 15 and 16. But in your hearts, regard Christ the Lord as holy. Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. Yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. Thank you. So we need to be prepared, as Christina has said. So God, in His Word, commands us to be ready. And that means we have to take steps to be ready. That's what apologetics is about. Be ready to give an answer to others. And we're commanded to do this. In the text, very clearly we're commanded. Does anyone see another reason right in this passage why we should do the work of apologetics? Study apologetics? It's right here. It's hint, hint at the end of verse 16. Christina. That's right, putting them to shame, that doesn't sound real positive, does it? This is why we're doing apologetics to to make other people ashamed, but that's that's what the Scripture says here. The wording is very interesting and it goes something like this. If you can read the Greek, The main verb in these verses is sanctify. What does that mean? Set apart, right. We think of it as regard as holy or make holy, but we don't make Christ holy, but we set Him apart. Sanctify. And then if you read on and you cut out all the extraneous things, you've got always. I think always is an adverb. always prepared. I think that's an adjective, prepared or ready. And then you go on from there and you've got having a good conscience. And then you go on from there and you've got so that the opponent may be put to shame. So it reads sort of like, sanctify Christ, always ready, having a good conscience, so that. So the whole thing has this in view so that you can put the opponent to shame. And you might miss that because sometimes this is a participle, having. It's sometimes translated like it is here in the New American Standard as a command. And that's legitimate to do that. Keep a good conscience. You keep a good conscience. We're commanded to do that. But if you literally read it, that's how it reads. Sanctify, always prepared, having a good conscience, so that. So if you read it in the Greek, the purpose behind all of this comes out a little more clearly than it does in some of our English Bibles. So, shaming our opponents is the second reason. What's another reason to study apologetics? Do you remember any more of them? Brenda? Okay, put them to shame, expose error. Anybody else? Somebody else had their hand up. Yeah, Todd? Exactly right. That was one of the reasons. To strengthen our faith. If we know about things, that helps to give us confidence. We're not usually confident about things we don't know about, right? But when you study something and if you specialize in an area and you really know your stuff about that, you're confident about that. The Christian faith is no different. If we know how to argue for the Christian faith and if we know what we believe and why we believe it, we're going to be more confident. That's going to strengthen our faith. And then the last reason was to equip us for evangelism. And this is something I touched on in the introduction. Who can tell us what is the difference between evangelism and apologetics. Give it a shot, Hector, go ahead. OK. OK, but when we when we do apologetics, don't we want those people to come to Christ? OK, so this is a challenge. I mean, evangelism and apologetics aren't the same, are they? The question assumes they're not. They're not the same. What's the difference, Tony? OK, what do you mean by that? Yes, it's more on the offense. We're telling people to do what? To believe. We're telling them to repent and believe. Joe, you had your hand up. Not purely academic, but I agree with that. You're focusing more on the Gospel, because that's what evangelism is. Evangelism isn't a presentation of the existence of God. Evangelism is really a presentation of the gospel. So you're focusing more on that. Todd, you had your hand up. Could be. Could be. Although I know you'd agree with me that when we're dealing with people, God might give us opportunities to deal with some of these stuff with an outsider, so to speak. Well, it is a challenge to think about this. Evangelism has more to do with presenting and proclaiming, whereas apologetics has more to do with proving. In evangelism, you're telling people to believe in Christ. In apologetics, you're telling them more why they ought to believe in Christ. You're saying Christ has certain claims. You should believe Him. You should believe upon Him. Trust Him. Believe His Word and apologetics, you're demonstrating the basis for that, the basis for those claims. Yes. You got it. That's exactly right. See, what happens if we separate evangelism from apologetics altogether? What can happen? What happens if you just... evangelism, no apologetics. Believe, believe, believe, believe. Repent, believe. No reasoning. Why? Well, I don't know. Just believe. Maybe. But you see how that's kind of empty and barren and ineffective. You're telling people to believe, but you're not telling them why. But then what if you have apologetics, but you never call people to faith in Christ? No. Well, all right, brother, you know, Try to be more helpful. But it becomes like a debate. You know, it's like an arguing match. Who's got the best argument for his position? And so when you separate these things, you don't really end up in a healthy place. So we should try to keep them together. And there's a tension between them. There's a relationship between them. And you can basically think of evangelism. We proclaim, we present Christ in the Gospel with apologetics. We're trying to prove the claims of the Gospel. The third item, the task of Christian apologetics. What are we aiming for? What's our task? Don't say to glorify God. And don't say that they'll be saved. Of course. All right. What's the task? What are we aiming to do? Remember, I just said prove. There's a hint. Our goal is to prove. What are we trying to prove? Yes, that's one thing we would do in apologetics. It's not the only thing. Wouldn't we also try to prove that God created all things? Wouldn't we also try to prove that there is a God? OK, so what are we trying to prove? We're trying to prove the Christian worldview. That's essentially what we're trying to do. We're trying to prove all the truth claims of the Christian faith, and we're trying to do it in a convincing way. So that's the task of apologetics. Our task is not to persuade people. That doesn't mean we don't want to try to persuade them. But our task is to prove, to submit proofs. Who does the persuading? Ultimately, who does the persuading? the Holy Spirit. And so we don't try to play the Holy Spirit. It doesn't mean that we don't really try to reason with people and persuade them. But that's not our task. The task is to take enough material so that somebody could be persuaded by the Spirit, to provide enough arguments, enough proofs so that someone can be persuaded to embrace the Christian faith. So our aim, our task, is to make a rational, convincing case for the Christian faith and then we leave it to God to persuade others. Fourthly, the tension involved in Christian apologetics. And I'm going to put it this way, the tension is between faith and reason. I don't like putting it that way because it makes it sound like faith and reason are enemies. Like they exclude each other, but faith and reason are friends. Here's what I mean by a tension between faith and reason. And this is something that you feel or should feel when you engage in apologetics. And that is if salvation is by faith. If people are saved, they're brought into the kingdom of Christ and brought to a relationship with Christ by faith. Why spend all this time on reasons and reasoning? It's almost as though if I present enough reasons, then they'll be saved. And yet we know that reasoning and argument isn't what saves people. Do you feel that tension? People have to believe, and yet at the same time, we're trying to reason with them so that they will believe. Biblical faith involves both trust and reason. Really, biblical faith embraces reason. But this is the tension you should feel and wrestle with when you're doing the work of apologetics. On the one hand, we recognize that all of our arguments and all of our reasoning isn't going to save. They have to believe in Christ. At the same time, reason and argument is a way to cause them to embrace the Lord Jesus Christ. So there's that tension. And then the fifth and final item in the introduction was an overview of what we're studying. The first main point is the premises of the Christian apologist. Next, we're going to deal with the character of the Christian apologist. After that, the strategy and tactics of the Christian apologist. And then the last item, the arguments of the Christian apologist. And when we talk about arguments, we're going to be dealing with the existence of God, the origins of the universe, the infallibility and divine authority and inspiration of scripture, the origin of sin and evil, the existence of sin and evil, the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, other religions, all these things. But we don't start with those arguments. We're not starting there. We could have begun the series by, okay, the first thing we're going to look at is proving the existence of God. But I don't think that's the best place to start. I think it's important that we lay a good foundation. So we start with our premises and we lay a good foundation and we have a good framework to build on. And then before we plunge into arguments, before that we need to talk about character, I think. What kind of people should we be as we engage in evangelism and apologetics? Because we can undermine everything that we're trying to accomplish because our character isn't good. Our hearts aren't right. And then before we get into arguments, how about some strategy and some tactics to make our arguments even better. And then finally, we'll get to the arguments and we'll look at these various things. So that's the approach we're taking. Any questions or comments about any of this introductory material? All right, let's plunge into heading number one, the premises of the Christian apologist. What are premises? I did not say what are our premises. What are premises? Yes? That's right, exactly right. What we understand underneath, what assumptions that we make. Somebody else? Premises? Starting points, that's right. The premises are the assumptions we make, the starting points. It's a foundation underneath before we go building, before we move on. You have to start in the right place. And so there's certain assumptions that we begin with before we present our defense of the Christian faith. If we don't have a good foundation, nothing else is going to be right. Isn't that right, Pastor Ron? When you're building, if you've got a bad foundation, you're just going to be kicking yourself for the rest of the project. Okay, so our premises are of two kinds. Does anybody remember what they are? I wouldn't necessarily expect you to remember this, but can you think for a minute? Two kinds of premises, two general categories. Anybody remember what they are? Joseph? You mean the types, like major, premises, and minor? Nope. We have two kinds of premises. In other words, we're making assumptions in two categories or in connection with two concerns. Do you remember what they are? Tony? Epistemological. I'd like to change that word to a simpler word. Okay, so what word should we use? I don't know. Well, neither do I, so we'll use this. Epistemological, that's exactly right. What? We don't have cosmological premises. That's right. Way in the back. Can't even see her. Anthropological. So you have these two classes. What is this? Not what are our epistemological premises, but what are, what do we mean by the term epistemological premises? Joseph? I'm sure it's connected to the word. Todd? It's how we know what we know. Right. We can make it even simpler. How do we know anything? How do we know things? So these are premises about how we know. Does this ring a bell? Do you remember this? And then anthropological premises, what are those? What? Anthropology is the study of man, so that should tell us what anthropological premises are assumptions about. No. I know. Anthropological premises are assumptions we make about people, the people that we speak to. So before we go to anybody and start the work of apologetics, There are certain assumptions that we make about how do we know anything. Why is that important? It's important because there's all kinds of crazy ideas about how we know things, right? And so we need to lay down some things. Look, this is how we know things. Otherwise, anybody can just say anything and deny even the possibility that we can know anything. And then we also make certain assumptions about who we're talking to. Know your audience, so to speak. the people we speak to aren't really an audience, but that saying, know your audience, know who you're talking to, well that's why we make certain assumptions here. So we have these two categories of assumptions or premises. How many of these epistemological premises are there? Three, that's right, very good. And what are they? What's number one? Very good. Rationality. What's number two? Are they on there? I thought, wow, suddenly things are really starting to pick up here. And number three? Now, let's slow things back down. What's rationality? Not rationalism, right? Not that. Rationality is not rationalism. Rationalism is a philosophy. Anybody know what that philosophy says? Rationalism? The be-all and end-all of everything is what? The mind and reason, that's right. That's not what we mean by rationality. Rationality, we're talking about the validity and the legitimacy of using our minds. The legitimacy of reason, which is not the same thing as saying reason is everything. But we're saying reason is good and reason is valid and legitimate. Rationality. How many rationality premises are there? There are three premise. Let me have a look. So I know I didn't put him on here. Oh, I did. I did. Oh, yeah. Let's pick up again. All right. Let's speed through this. What's the first one? I mean, you're right. I'm there on the outline. What's the first one? Logic and the law of non-contradiction. Second one is what? Law of causality. A third one is what? The analogical use of language. OK, now we can slow down again. Logic. Logic is not opposed to Christianity, and some tend to. Think in this way that if you start talking about logic, suddenly now you're getting away from the Bible and you're getting away from the Christian faith. You know, be careful. You don't want to be. It's almost like you don't want to be logical, almost like the Christian faith isn't logical. Well, the Christian faith is logical. Logic came from God. God is logical. And Christianity is logical, it's not irrational, it's not unreasonable. And again, why is why is logic important to the work of apologetics? What do you think? Why do we have to be logical, Christina? Okay, and feelings can overtake us in an unhealthy kind of a way. Brian? They should, shouldn't they? Yeah. If you just go declaring, like in evangelism, but you don't reason with them logically, then you're not going to get anywhere. Without logic, we can't argue for the Christian faith. Without logic, there's no reasoning. Anybody can say anything, any kind of gibberish, any kind of nonsense. So we have to have some kind of rationality. We have to have some kind of an order. Not because we say so, but because that's the way things are. This is the way God made us. This is the way everything is put together. We think in a logical way. At least we should. But we're designed to think logically. And we make sense of things, we reason things because of logic. So we have to establish logic and the law of non-contradiction. Let me ask you a question. Can the Christian faith be arrived at logically? Good answer. I like that. Nice and definitive. What do you mean when you say no? What do you mean? Because no matter what you say or what you show a person, it might not be. Right. You can have Jesus Christ himself, for example, in my life. It might not be. Logic is going to do it. But when you say yes, what do you mean? If the Holy Spirit is the same. Okay. And I would further say that the Christian faith makes sense. the Christian faith is logical. Yes, you can arrive at it logically, but now how about this question? Can you arrive at the Christian faith by logic alone? No. That's where we need revelation, right? We need revelation. We're even dependent somewhat on this one too, empiricism, so that we can be rational. Yes? And then after that, he lists facts that we know that God is, and He's a rewarder of those who seek Him. Those are facts. By faith, we receive those facts. With the mind, we know them, right? So these things all go together. Okay, the law of non-contradiction. What does that tell us? That first law. Okay, that's one way of putting it. Somebody else want to give it, Todd? Something cannot be true and not true at the same time. Right. Something can't be, and this is what you mean by black and white, can't be true and false at the same time in the same way. And the algebraic expression is A cannot equal not A at the same time in the same way. Contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. Something can't be and not be at the same time. Can't be true and false at the same time in the same way. Truth cannot be contradictory. And then there were three things that we looked at in connection with this, three things that are often confused. Mystery, paradox and contradiction. And sometimes people use those terms and they mix them all up as if they're the same. And we saw that there are certainly mysteries in the Bible. There are paradoxes in the Bible, things that seem, truths that seem to involve contradiction. But there are no contradictions in the Bible. It's important that we that we distinguish those things. How about the law of causality? What does the law of causality tell us? The wheels are turning. You want to give it a shot, Todd? Every effect has a cause. Right on. Right on the money. And how is the law of causality commonly misstated? Every cause has an effect. But that's true, isn't it? Every cause has an effect. That's always true. And every effect has a cause. If something's an effect, It has a cause. If something's a cause, it'll produce an effect. Without those, causes are not causes and effects are not effects. But I'm thinking of a way that this law is commonly misstated. Joseph? But can't effects be causes? No? Of course they can. You and Tony. Here's what I'm thinking of. The law of causality is commonly misstated in this way that everything has a cause. And maybe you've heard people say this. Everything has a cause except God. He's the uncaused cause. Well, if everything has a cause, then why can't God have a cause? And if he has a cause, then at that point he ceases to be God. But when you say every effect has a cause, that's true. Every effect has a cause. And that means that God is not an effect. He is himself an uncaused cause or the uncaused cause. And concerning origins, the origins of things. This law of causality is very helpful because it basically reduces all the possibilities, all the arguments that everybody can bring about the origins of things down to two possibilities. I like this because it just simplifies things. Do you remember the two possibilities? Every effect has a cause. That's true. And so this reduces the possibilities of origins to two choices. Do you remember what they are? OK, either. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by that, Todd. That's that's right. Yeah, you're expressing the concept in your own way. That's exactly right. And that means either that everything that is is one long, eternal, self-existent series, chain of causes and effects, unending, or else there was one cause and everything came from that. It means either that the universe is made up of one long unending string of causes and effects. In other words, the universe is self-existent and eternal. Or there's an uncaused cause and it's God. Think about it, that's what the law of causality tells us. And those are the only two possibilities. So this greatly narrows the playing field. And it simplifies things for us by limiting the possibilities concerning origins. Okay, analogical use of language. This one, I still am foggy about this one, but I know it's important. And I'm not going to ask you questions on this. Does anybody want to tell us what do you mean by analogical use of language? I wasn't happy with how I treated this, and I'm still not happy with how I'm treating it. Basically, we're saying that analogy, you all know what an analogy is, a similitude, something is like something else. Here's a problem. If you say that something is like something else, that this is like this, Well, that assumes that there's some similarity or some kind of correspondence between them, but they are not the same. They're not actually the same. There is a literal correspondence between them, but there's some point, some characteristic in which they're similar to each other. Well, people say because language is analogical, therefore, you can't communicate literal truth with language. And there's a lot of different ways that this thing branches out. But basically, the idea is that language isn't a sufficient vehicle or medium for expressing literal truth. Now, this is real abstract, I know, but if you go to the university, you'll run into this. So people try to say, well, you know, language isn't a legitimate way or a sufficient way to express truth about God. What are these folks trying to do? They're trying to say, you can't assert these things about God that you're saying because language is incapable of expressing literal truth. So you see what they're doing. Well, it's funny because they're affirming the truth with language. Exactly. That's exactly right. They are borrowing for their argument what they're unwilling to grant. And so they're using language to express this literal truth that language can't express literal truth. It's a contradiction. It's illogical, isn't it? So you can just. brush it aside. And so here's what we're forced to recognize is that scripture does speak in analogies, language uses analogies, and every analogy assumes some point of correspondence. If I say to you that God is a rock, that means that a rock is the same thing to God that it is to us, right? A rock is a rock. God knows a whole lot more about that rock than we do, but it's the same, isn't it? At some point, it's the same. And when we say that God is a rock, we learn so much from that. We learn about God's firmness, His stability, His trustworthiness. There's all kinds of concepts that are conveyed when we say that God is a rock in our fortress. Jesus said, I am the bread of life. That's an analogy. And there's all kinds of literal truths that are expressed in this analogy. I am the bread of life. So what we're doing is we're saying that language has an analogical use. OK, so I hope that's not more foggy. I hope it's a little more clear. Those are our rationality premises. Now, the second one, what's what's this? What is empiricism? Take a stab at it, Joseph. Okay, yeah, that's close. Empiricism. Anybody else? Take a guess. Oh, yeah, it's almost like it was written on a paper in front of your face. Excellent. Good job. Good job. Good reading. Now, Joseph's back there saying, why didn't I just. OK, the basic reliability of the senses. Sense perception, we're saying that when it comes to empiricism and how how we know things, one way we know things is through our senses. And that's valid. Now, what are some limitations of empiricism? Yes, they can deceive us. They can be fooled. Can you think of an example? We misunderstand what's really going on. And that brings up another limitation of the senses. They tell us what is, but they don't tell us what ought to be. Okay, so in that case, we're looking, we're seeing, maybe somebody's talking to somebody else and we think, oh, they're angry. All right, well, we're just looking, we're getting the data, we're seeing what is, but we can't interpret it rightly. We need more information. Another example is, remember the cut in the grass? Some of you couldn't relate to this, maybe this never happened to you. It used to happen to me all the time as a child. Cutting the lawn, you know, and you get used to the, you're looking at the mower, and then you get used to the grass going like this, and then when you stop and you look up, then this half of your vision is going like this, and the other half is moving like this. Right? Brian knows, right? You told me, you remember that. Or what if your finger is real cold and your finger is frozen and you stick it in hot water? For a moment you think, hey, it's just fine. It feels good. Until you realize you just stuck your finger in hot water. Too hot. How about at church here? Sometimes we come in and say, whew, it's hot in here. And then you look at the thermostat and it says 70 degrees. And other times you come in and say, whew, it's chilly in here. And you look at the thermostat and it says 70 degrees. How can there be such a difference? So sometimes our senses fool us. The senses tell us what ought to be. They don't tell us what ought to be, they only tell us what is. You know, this is this way, that is that way, but it doesn't tell us what's right, what's wrong, what ought to be. And another way that our senses are limited is we can't be in every place gathering all the sensory data that we can because we're finite. Our senses are finite. So this is important, but it's limited. And with regard to revelation, this is important because this is how we take in revelation. We take in revelation through senses. The heavens are telling of the glory of God. General revelation? If I can't trust my eyes that when I look at the Grand Canyon, it's just glorious and beautiful, it might be really ugly. If I can't trust my sight, but I think it's beautiful. Now, we're assuming that our sense perception is accurate. When I read my Bible and I read these words on the printed page, I'm assuming that my sense perception is accurate so I can take in God's special revelation. And then there's a third epistemological premise, revelation. Revelation is God's self-disclosure. I'm going to fly through this because I want to finish this this morning. We only have 10 minutes. Revelation is God's self-disclosure. How many kinds of revelation are there? Two. The first one is what? General. That's God's revelation, God's self-disclosure in what he's created. And then the other type of revelation is special. And what's, I just gave it away, special revelation. That's God's self-disclosure in other ways. So general revelation is usually non-verbal revelation. that comes to everybody through nature, conscience, and providence. Special revelation, God discloses Himself through supernatural means. And that's usually verbal revelation that comes only to some people through a number of supernatural means like dreams, visions, prophecy, inspiration, and scripturation. And the thing is that God cannot be known apart from this. If he doesn't disclose himself to us, we cannot know God. We can't know God by reason or senses. We can only know him in connection with his self-disclosure. Alright, now we move on to our anthropological premises. What are they? What are our anthropological premises? Go ahead, Tony. I know you're just dying to read them. That's exactly right. There's two that I've combined into one. We're image bearers. Everybody we speak to is an image bearer of God. And everybody we speak to, secondly, is a fallen image bearer of God, subject to the effects of sin. So we've got these two anthropological premises, these assumptions we make about people. So so before you ever know somebody's name, before you ever meet them, before you ever, ever know what they look like. You may only just hear their voice. They're in the next room. You hear their voice. Never met them before. Never saw them before. But you already know at least two things about this person. You know a lot of things about them. But you know, that person is an image bearer of God and that person has fallen in sin and is subject to the effects of sin. And so we need to remember this when we speak to people. We looked at many passages of Scripture to demonstrate this and there were two key New Testament passages that we spend a lot of time in that tell us a lot about the human condition. What are those two passages? Romans 1. Do you remember the verses? The next one is what? Verses? Too far. Twelve to sixteen in particular, twelve, fourteen and fifteen, because these three verses talk about Gentiles without the law of God, people without special revelation, people without a Bible. OK, what are what are the themes? They have the same theme. Basically, what are the themes? of these two passages in Romans 1 and Romans 2. The justice of God in what? Judging people without the law, people without a Bible. And Romans 1 tells us that God is just in pouring out His wrath on people who never had a Bible because they know Him in creation. And we don't have time to read the passage, but you can read it. That's the whole point of those verses. They know God. They know there's a God, and Paul says they're without excuse. They're without an apology. And then the second passage, God is just in punishing people who don't have a Bible because they know what? They know His law. That's right. Let's look at the second one because there was some confusion about this last week. And so what I want to do is take a few minutes to make you more confused. I'm going to try to clear this up a little bit. I'm going to try. Let's turn to Romans 2. Romans chapter 2. And the argument here goes like this. In verse 12, Paul says, all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law. So people who never had a Bible are going to perish without a Bible. And why is that? Do you remember why that is? It's right here in the passage. Verses 12, 14, and 15. Why will Gentiles, without a Bible, perish without a Bible? It's because they're a law to themselves. And that's in verse 14. That's why they will perish. And the question is, how are Gentiles, without the law, a law to themselves? And how are they a law to themselves? That's exactly right. The work of the law is written in their hearts. That's the argument. Now, what is this work of the law? And that's the question. Well, the work of the law involves at least two things, condemning and it involves knowing right from wrong or having a standard, defining right and wrong. And these Gentiles show the work of the law written in their hearts by doing instinctively or doing by nature the things the law does. Condemning, judging, And that involves having some kind of a standard of right and wrong. They're defining right and wrong. And based upon that standard, they're judging, they're condemning, they judge themselves, they judge others by some kind of moral standard. That's what the law does. And that's what these Gentiles do, even though they don't have a Bible. And they do these things by nature. And also, Paul says, he describes the activity of conscience. So that's how they show the work of the law. That's how they manifest it. They're involved in this moralizing work and then the activity of their own conscience. So we learn from this that people without a Bible have a strong moral consciousness. They have an indestructible moral nature. People are very moral. Almost constantly, people are making judgments about what's right, what's wrong, what's good or bad. And they do this without a Bible. They are a law to themselves without a Bible. And the only explanation for this is this is how God made them. God made them moral beings. So I'm going to try to clear up this confusion that we had a little bit last time. Paul writes that the work of the law is written on the heart. He doesn't say that the law is written on the heart. Why might he avoid saying the law is written on the heart? Exactly right. That expression, law written on the heart. Where can you think of that? Where is that found in the Bible, that expression? Jeremiah 31? And I think it's 33. And then in the New Testament, Jeremiah 31, 33 is quoted where? Hebrews 8, verse 10. And it's redemptive in meaning, isn't it? So Paul is very careful not to use that phrase because that might imply that they're saved and we know that they're not saved. Now, does that mean that the law isn't written on the hearts of the Gentiles in any sense? No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Does the scripture anywhere explicitly say that the law is written on the heart? Not to my knowledge. Does that mean that Gentiles don't have any knowledge of the requirements of God's law? It doesn't mean that. They do. I'll show that in a minute. Yeah, I'll show it right now. Back in Romans chapter one. Versus twenty eight to thirty two. Verse twenty eight, just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind. to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil. As I read through this catalog, think of how many of the Ten Commandments are touched on here. Unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful. And if you actually look at these, how many of the Ten Commandments are touched on? They're all there except the fourth and the seventh. I don't see the fourth commandment there or the seventh, but all the others are there. And verse 32 says, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things, things like these are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but they give hearty approval to those who practice them. So we have to say that the Gentiles without the law have a knowledge of the requirements of God's law. That's not the point Paul's making in Romans 2, but the fact is they do have a knowledge of the requirements of God's law. So I would summarize the matter with these two statements. Both Jews and Gentiles possess the law of God, only in a different form and with a different clarity. The Gentiles have it in their hearts in some sense. The Jews, in addition to that, they have it on tablets of stone. It was written there in creation, obscured but not destroyed by the fall, reiterated at Sinai. It's restored and renewed in regeneration. And then the second thing, summary statement, God is just in punishing people who don't have a Bible because they know God and they know His law. Now that's Paul's point in these two passages. Up here in Romans 1, do they know God savingly? Do they know Him exhaustively and extensively? No. Here in Romans 2, do they know the law of God savingly and exhaustively and extensively? No. But in each case, they have some knowledge of God and His law. That's the point. And for the work of apologetics, that's the point that we need to grasp. When we come to people and we speak to them, we're not talking to people who are utter, absolute strangers to God. And we're not speaking to people who are utter, absolute strangers to right and wrong in His law. They have some knowledge of both. They just don't possess it as they need to. They don't possess it savingly. They don't possess it accurately. They know God and His law. At the same time, they're ignorant of God and His law. And that's the point. If you have questions about this, if I just made it more confusing to you, please come and see me and I'll try to clear it up a little bit. But our time's gone. Next time, we'll take up the character of the Christian apologist. Next week, God willing, the character of the Christian apologist. So let's close in prayer. Our Father, we thank You for the light and the guidance and the direction and the instruction that Your Word gives to us, even in this whole realm of presenting the Christian faith and reasoning with people around us about the truth of the Christian faith. And Father, as we give ourselves to this work, we pray that You'll give us courage, that You'll give us love, that we might take the time and make the effort to speak to others about the truth of your Word. But Father, as we do so, help us, Lord, to know the things that we need to know before we take up this work. Help us to be clear about our task. And help us, Father, to be able to speak to others convincingly and persuasively about the truth claims of Christianity to the end. that they may come to know the Savior whom we have come to know, that they may come to love Him and want to serve Him and worship Him, even as we have. Lord, be pleased to use us to bring the gospel to others. And we pray that through us, others would be translated out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. May they come to know the Lord Jesus Christ in truth. We pray this in His name, Amen.