OK, we are in the third message in a series that I've called Remedial Christianity. And in case you're looking at the notes and you feel how thick they are and you're remembering how long I went last week, fret not. I'm very acquainted with your weakness. And we're not going to get through all of this today, and so there's a place where I'm going to stop, but you can take it, you know, home and read it if you want to read it for next week and get a look in advance of what I'll be talking about. And, you know, as we're starting this, really still kind of starting this, I'm not really getting into a lot of the other remedial things that I intend to get into, things that I personally believed at one time and then found to just be you know, silly. But if you've noticed, we're really harping on this idea of how do we know what we know? And, you know, I'm imitating in this, you know, what we read in the great confessions, they always start off with things like of the scriptures. Even if you look at the Westminster Confession, before you start talking about God, you start talking about the scriptures. Why is that? Are the Scriptures more important than God? Well, no, but what we know about God comes from the Scriptures. So we have to establish the starting point of our discussion in order to have the discussion at all. We also see this in the Institutes written by Calvin. Right away he starts off with this idea of knowledge. How do we know things? What's the point of me talking to you if we don't have a common place that we're standing for the discussion? And so it's important for us as we get into this idea of understanding the Christian faith and understanding it properly, to really recognize what our starting place is for determining what is true. So, if you'll join me now, we'll ask God to grant us greater understanding. Father God, we do pray that by your Spirit and by your Word, we would come to understand that which is true, that which is right. Father, help us to be wise people. and help us not to build our homes on weak and shifting sands. But may we be built upon the foundation, and as we read in Ephesians, that foundation being the apostles and the prophets, or the words that they spoke, the words that they wrote. And as we study this good and perfect word this morning, we pray, Father, that you would help us to recognize it for what it is, that you might be glorified through Christ, your Son, our Savior. Amen. Now, we've addressed the need to establish a starting place for truth, knowledge, ethics. I use those three terms, you know, and I use them because if you study philosophy, you recognize philosophy has three subcategories, metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology. Metaphysics is the study of what's real, like what's really happening. Ethics, we all understand, is what's moral. And epistemology is how do we know? So if you study thinking, you really get down to those three things. What is real? What is right? And how do we know? And so I use these terms, but I use a little simpler terms. Instead of metaphysics, I use the word truth. Instead of epistemology, knowledge. And instead of ethics, I use the word ethics. No, just kidding. I did use the word ethics because it's simple enough. Now, if there's no agreement regarding the starting place for truth, as I said just a moment ago, all discussion really will be futile. If one person believes that the starting place for truth or ethics is what he feels is right, he will never come to agree, except by coincidence, with another person who believes the starting place for truth to be the teachings of Gandhi or the Constitution of the United States. We then offer the assertion that the starting place for truth, knowledge, and ethics for the Christian is the Bible. That's our starting place. That's the assertion. We gave a brief overview of what the Bible actually is, 66 books written by 40 different authors over a 1500 year period of time. And then we also gave what the overarching message of the scriptures actually is. And that message, in short, is that there is a God. And He is a good God. And He's a holy God. And He created all things. And He created all things good. God created man who rebelled against God and death entered. It did not please God, though, to leave man at the mercy of death. So God made a promise, in the Bible they call that a covenant, that through the seed of the woman, eventually talking really about the birth of Jesus, the enemy of God's people, sin, death, etc., would be vanquished or destroyed. So the primary message really in Scripture is that there is a God who will glorify himself through his redemptive plan to save sinners through the cross of Christ. If I were to try to put together a mission statement for the Bible, it would be something like that. That there is a God who will glorify himself through his redemptive plan to save sinners through the cross of Christ. And that's what led Jesus to say, you search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life and these are they which testify of me. That's either true, either Jesus was looking at those 39 books of the Old Testament saying, it's all about me, and it was right, or it was the most amazingly egotistic statement ever made, right? Can you imagine any other person saying that? Oh, you've got books... By the way, the Bibles, that's all really about me. It's my story. I mean, if it's not true, then the statement itself is the height of human hubris for Jesus to make. Of course, we do believe it is true. Now, the question before us this morning is, Why should I believe it? I mean, why should we believe that the Bible is the Word of God? See, I have something behind the podium I've stuck under here this morning that I'm going to show you that will prove absolutely, undeniably, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Bible is true. What do you think I was going to pull out of there? Obviously, I don't have anything here but a cup of water. What would impress you? I mean, if you thought about that. I mean, I mentioned last week, we're going to discuss why should we believe the Bible? What do you want to hear? What do you need to see to convince you that the Bible is true? What if I pulled out the Shroud of Turin? Or maybe we could produce the Ark of the Covenant. Or maybe I had an old scroll, you know, some old scroll written by some old, ancient, non-Christian Roman governor talking about how the Bible and everything it said was true. You know, he'd be kind of neutral on it because he wasn't a believer. Maybe he had a piece of the cross. You know, an old piece of wood that was a piece of the cross. Would that be impressive? Would you be then compelled to believe that the Bible is in fact true? Just what would I have to come up with in order to convince you that the Bible is true? And even if I had all those things, How would you know that they're legitimate? How would you know that it's really the case? I could say that we should all believe the Bible because the Bible is true. In fact, I'm going to give you a hint. That's going to be my argument pretty much at the end of the day here, at the end of actually next week. But being reasonable and rational people, we are, we would certainly be unconvinced that such a circular argument, right? If I were to say you should believe the Bible, why? Because the Bible is true. Now, how convincing is that? I mean, it's such a circular argument, isn't it? And see, the conclusion is contained in the premise, right? The Bible is true, therefore you should believe it's true. See, nobody's going to fall for that. I'm begging the question when I make that kind of a statement. Since we are therefore so very rational, what would convince us to make our starting place? Remember, people, we're talking about our starting place, our bedrock, our standard to measure all truth, the Bible. How do we go about establishing that? What if I were to pile payloads of archaeological, anthropological, and historical data demonstrating and affirming the impeccable accuracy of Scripture? Now, this is the modern, remedial, I'm going to argue, remedial approach to proving that the Bible is true. Let's talk about a couple of these. I could produce, and these are very popular at some of the seminaries I've gone to, archaeological recantations of errors regarding cultures, like the Hittites. They said, the archaeologists said, never existed. And then, Later, and the Hittites are obviously in the Bible, so let me give you the argument. There was no archaeological proof that this group of people, the Hittites and their king, ever existed. And the archaeologists used this against the Bible, saying, well yeah, the Bible talks about this huge nation, the Hittites, but obviously it doesn't exist, we've never been able to find it. And then all of a sudden, lo and behold, guess what they found? Somebody trips over a rock, boom, the Hittites. A big dig, and all of a sudden the Hittites are there, and all of a sudden we realize, well, maybe it is, maybe the Bible is trustworthy, and all the archaeologists had to recant. Well, that's pretty impressive, I guess. I think all good science affirms things that are already found in Scripture. This is called evidential arguments for the truth of the Scriptures. And there are bags of this kind. I just mentioned one, but people have made a living out of finding how archaeology affirms what's written in the Bible. In terms of a science, it is, if anything, affirmed what the scripture already teaches. Evidential argumentation for the veracity of the Bible is very common practice. for remedial Christians. And I don't want to say this in a mean way, I just think it is. I think it's not a good way to... as impressive as that might be, it's really not a good way to approach it. As Dr. Greg Bonson stated, these types of arguments work if you have an unsophisticated audience. Why is this unsophisticated reasoning? What I just told you, this idea with... why is that unsophisticated? It should be obvious that if you decide to believe the Bible, due to the testimony of science. Science, and not the Bible, is your starting place for truth. You see that? If I decide to believe the Bible because you've shown me something else to determine that the Bible is true, and now the Bible is going to be my starting place? Well, obviously, the very process whereby which we came to this was acknowledging some other starting place for truth. Let's pursue this just for a second. Do you not find it interesting that scientists never feel the need to justify their starting place for knowledge. You see, there's a whole new group of people on the scene right now called skeptics. You know, they have magazines and stuff. And you know, what's interesting is they're not taking task right now so much with religion as they are with science. They're going after science and the way these scientists are coming up with their conclusions. They're putting some real hardy skepticism toward the scientific process. The empiricist, or the scientist, proudly asserts that they only believe that which they can observe. In order for something to be true, it must fall under what you call the scientific method. I don't know how many of you went to high school and college, but you learned the scientific method. The scientific method is usually something like, it has to be testable, measurable, repeatable, observable. It's this idea that I can take something, stick it in a tank, you know, I could take a bar of, the classic example is I could take a bar of soap, put it in water, it floats, I record it, I pull it out, I put it in again, it floats, I do that a thousand times, and now my theory that soap floats has become a fact. Because I put it under the scientific method. It was testable, I observed it, I repeated it over and over, I was able to measure it. Of course, the scientific method is none of these. It's not testable, measurable, repeatable, or observable. The method itself. Science as a starting place for knowledge or truth crumbles under its own method. You can't test to see whether the method actually is true. You can't take the scientific method and test the method. You see, science just assumes that that must be true. They have a very philosophical and rational, not empirical, starting place for their whole discipline. Do you understand what I'm saying here? The scientific method is not observable. It's just a formula. Now, it works. But they can't explain to you why it works. Christian can. Christian can explain why there is what they call a uniformity of nature. The ore, when placed in the water, appears to be bent. Let's just kind of look at the scientific method here just for a second. You get that ore, you put it in the water, it's got a bend to it. It will appear to be bent if I place it in the water a thousand times. I test it a thousand times, put it in the water, and every time it bends. And yet we all know that it doesn't bend at all, right? Or does it? Does it bend, or does it not bend? Because when you touch it, it feels like it's still straight, but when you look at it, it's bent. Now, you may be thinking, I'm just making this up, but let me tell you, philosophers have run and run and run with this. Is it bent, or is it not bent? Do you trust your sense of sight over your sense of touch? Do you think your eyes are deceiving you, or are your hands deceiving you? There are all sorts of problems with the idea of the scientific method being the starting place for truth. I have great respect for science. I studied a lot of science when I was in college, but science cannot be the starting place for truth. Science is dependent on there being a thing called truth for it to work. Even Einstein said we learn no truth from science. All we learn is how to organize the things that we observe. If this is all too difficult, if what I just said was kind of like, OK, I don't get that, all you have to do is find a 60-year-old science book and see how much truth there still is in it. We realize science as a discipline, it's very dated. And you know, you might go, well, yeah, maybe thousands of years ago, the smartest men on earth thought that the world was flat. And we used to think that the atom was the smallest indivisible unit until they divided the atom. But even now, you know, I mean, these are big things. But of course, that kind of big stuff will never happen again, except when they put the Hubble telescope up there and realize that things are a lot different than we thought they were. All of a sudden you hear things like the speed of light might be changing. Well, how will that affect science if we learn that the speed of light, which was the constant, right? This idea of the theory of relativity, that everything is relative to light, right? You have the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second. And if I'm on a train, and I'm going 100 miles an hour in one direction, and I take two flashlights and light them in both directions, how fast will the beams go? They both still go 186,000 miles per second. This one's not going 100 miles an hour faster. Why? Because light is the constant. Light is that play. It's interesting, right? That Jesus called himself the light. I don't know how much he knew about quantum physics or whatever. But you have that constant and so everything's measured by that. But what if light is actually changing? What if things are getting what if the speed of light is getting slower or getting faster? We don't know and that's actually I mentioned that because it's an actual theory at this point Anyway science cannot be a starting place for truth science is dependent upon truth in order for science to actually work so when you hear scientists give their Theories about the origins of the universe you have to recognize they're just that their theories and many of them aren't even theories their hypothesis Let me tell you a little more about science and it's not in the notes. But you know, I studied this quite a bit and Enjoyed the study but in order for something to be a fact All right. It first has to be a theory. Well, let me go the other way. You have a hypothesis a theory a fact and These are the three levels. Hypothesis is, James and I get together and we say, what if? What if the moon is made out of green cheese? That's our hypothesis. Now, in order for the hypothesis to become a theory, what we have to do is establish that, given enough time, we can prove it. Then we go to the government for a grant. We can prove the moon is made out of green cheese, if you give us enough money and time. And if we can show that we can prove it, now it becomes a theory. And then once you have now tested the theory, and you've applied your scientific method to it, then it becomes a fact. Now, apply that to the origins of the universe. How can you actually know? How can you put under a microscope or observe that which happened hypothetically 550 million years ago, or a billion years ago, or 500? How can you do that? You can't. You simply can't observe it. How can I know if radiometric dating is actually accurate? take a fossil. You know, they've only been studying this stuff for about a hundred years, and sure, radiometric dating is very, you know, it's very reliable. But how do I know what a universal flood would do to that? How would that affect it? And what about God? What if He created things with a parent age? What if He created a tree, or He created a man, and instead of creating a man as a baby, He created him as a grown man? If I were to take a tree that God created, when He created trees in the very beginning, and cut the tree down, would there be rings? If I took Adam, you know, and cut his leg off, would there be rings? I mean, how old was Adam when God made him? And if I tested his DNA, how old would he appear? You see, you simply can't test that kind of stuff. And yet, we have an entire generation of people who bow the knee before science, as if science is the starting place for truth. Let me tell you, it's not. And it shouldn't be that hard, especially the young people who are going to college, to recognize that when you have a professor who's speaking so authoritatively in terms of science being the basis for truth, What folly that is! He's a scientist, he's not a philosopher. Not that the philosophy professors have any better rock to stand on. We'll get to that when the time comes. But I just say that because I think a good healthy dose of skepticism is necessary on our part as well to test their claims of truth. Now, another very popular evidential argument for the truth of the Bible is found in the assertion that the Bible is historically verifiable. Things are cited like clear testimonies from non-Christian ancient Roman governors, certain guys, Pliny, and I went and heard a whole talk on this, and the guy had 19 non-biblical, non-Christian sources affirming the truth of the cross of Christ and all of this. And we were all supposed to be very impressed at that, the fact that non-Christians observed that there was a Christ and there was a cross. An argument that I was fond of using myself. Maybe you've heard this because this is very popular with the campus crusade when I was with them years ago. The fact of the cross of Christ is historically as verifiable as the fact that Napoleon was at the Battle of Waterloo. Anybody ever heard of that one? Because that was a big one on Campus Crusade. You talk to somebody and you say, you know, the fact that he was there in the Viennese is as verifiable historically as the fact that Napoleon was at the Battle of Waterloo. Of course, we all know that Napoleon was at the Battle of Waterloo. And I used to say that all the time until the fact that I'm not sure if I could really even find Waterloo on a map. And I don't know really for sure that Napoleon was there, do you? What if he had a twin brother? And would you rest your eternal soul on the fact that Napoleon was at the Battle of Waterloo? See, the argument goes something like this. That I can show that the Bible is true to you the same way I showed to you that other historical things are true. That there was a man named Julius Caesar. You know, we all know that to be true, that there was a Plato, that there was a Socrates. Well, you know what? I don't really know that to be true at all. I don't know what was going on 2,000, 3,000 years ago. I have a hard enough time figuring out what happened a week ago. You know, I mean, we're hearing, we got this war going on right now, and it's so televised, right? And yet you still get all these contradictory reports in terms of what's actually happening now. It just can't be the place that God has called us to rest our souls on the fact that through some type of historicity, the science of historicity, we can know enough to verify that the Bible is true and then rest our souls on it. Another tactic for remedial Christians is to seek to impress people with the effect the Bible has had in the lives of people. Have you ever heard that? You know, the one undeniable thing, the one reason you can't deny the truth of the Bible is that look at the changed lives. I was talking with a young man who went and spoke with some non-Christians. He was evangelizing, and he wasn't really knowledgeable, but I appreciated his enthusiasm. And he got kind of worked by these guys, because they were very educated. And he was losing the argument, and so he said, what he did was he proceeded to give his testimony. And his comment, you know, to me was, because they can't deny my testimony. Really? And why can't they deny your testimony? Why can't somebody, you have a testimony, but don't other people have testimonies? Don't Muslims have testimonies? Don't Jews have testimonies? Don't members of AA have testimonies? Don't the followers of Tony Robbins have testimonies? A lot of people have testimonies and those testimonies can be testimonies of the good things that have happened to them. See, there's nothing really compelling about the fact that you have a testimony. Does the cross change lives? Does the Bible change lives? Absolutely. Hundreds of millions, if not billions. I don't mean to take away from that one bit. All I'm saying is it's not a good argument. If you're really trying to convince somebody. Because if they're a sophisticated thinker, they'll know that somebody down the road, who doesn't believe what you believe, has their testimony too, and they seem happier than you. Then you have fulfilled prophecies. There were numerous and detailed prophecies made about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ in the Old Testament that came to pass in the New Testament. That sounds compelling, right? I know Josh McDowell did a whole book, his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, kind of runs with this, you know, the idea that you had all these prophecies And prophecies that were fulfilled, some before Jesus was even born, like where he would be born and under what circumstances he would be born and things like that, things that Jesus himself could not possibly have, as a person, have manipulated. And then he makes this very strong argument that if these 11 of the 250 of them were made, if only 11 of them actually were true, the odds against that happening were 1 in 10 to the 245th power, some mathematical thing. You've heard, right, the silver dollars in Texas? You've heard that one? The odds against Jesus actually being born where and when and under what circumstances would be the same as you and me walking into the state of Texas, blindfolded, with it three feet high in silver dollars, but one's marked with a red X, and we're walking through Texas, and we just pick up one, and it happens to be the one with the red X. That's the odds against the fact that Jesus would have been born fulfilling all the prophecies that were made in the Old Testament. Is that impressive? It is impressive. I mean, I think it's amazingly impressive, but what if you don't believe in the Old or New Testament? Then it's not very impressive at all. You see, it's begging the question that you're asking your listener to believe in the beginning what you're trying to prove by your argumentation. So that kind of argumentation really falls by the wayside. It is my opinion that all arguments in the world, no matter how sound, will not convince someone to believe in the Bible. I'm thoroughly convinced of that. that I could argue, I think that all good science, all good archaeology, anthropology, philosophy, whatever it is, whatever discipline, if it's good, it'll affirm that the Bible is true. But I could talk, we could bring that stuff and put it on the table until the cows come home, and I don't think it will convince anybody that the Bible is in fact true. If someone is committed to unbelief, which the Bible says people are, they will interpret all arguments through their grid of unbelief. Now I'm saying this to us, most of you here are Christians, but if a non-Christian gets this tape, or if you happen to be sitting here, I want you to think about this as well, because a lot of non-Christians think that they are approaching life in a very rational way, and that Christians approach life in a very irrational way. You know, this whole leap of faith and all this stuff. And I'm going to argue that Unbelievers approach the world through a grid of unbelief. They're committed. They have faith in their own unbelieving hearts. Those who hold the position, for example, that miracles can't happen, will never believe it was a miracle. You see your starting place? Your starting place is miracles can't happen. So, no matter what you tell me, no matter what you show me, it's simply not an option. considering the event to be miraculous is something that simply does not fall into... it's not one of the things I would consider that actually took place. They will employ the Sherlock Holmes methodology, eliminate the impossible, and then whatever is left, regardless of how improbable, is your only option. If your starting place for knowledge doesn't allow for miracles, and you saw me perform a miracle, you would simply assert that there is some natural explanation, even if you do not know what it is yet. And if that were to happen, like I said, if there was a magnet that could lift wood, and he stepped back and it went up in the air, would he not think that there were kids on the roof with a wood magnet? Would he not find some other explanation, other than the fact that there was a God who did it? How would you know that it was God who did it? The miracles taking place, when Jesus performed miracles, did they confirm and affirm his deity? Absolutely. Were they impressive? Not really. Did it change people? The fact that he did miracles? He'd do a miracle and a thousand people would follow him. And then he'd turn around and give a sermon. And what would happen? They'd all just walk away. You think about the people in the Bible who saw the most miracles. Probably, right? Those who were delivered out of Egypt. And they all died in the wilderness through their unbelief. It's just not You know whether whether you're going to argue or show evidences or even show miracles. It's just unconvincing So what do I do since I've titled this sermon? Why should we believe the Bible? I guess I could just dismiss everybody right now And I'm sure I wouldn't get a big argument out of a lot of people I've miserably failed at accomplishing the thesis of my sermon, but since I believe that that which is impossible with man is possible with God, I would like to go ahead and make a three-fold argument for the truth of the Bible. I know that sounds kind of contradictory, but just bear with me here. My first argument will be a weak argument. My second argument will also be weak. But my third argument will be absolutely undeniable. My first argument, in short, is that no other worldview can give a plausible explanation for reality as we know it. My first argument is that no other worldview can give a plausible explanation for the world that we see. My second argument is that the Bible does give a plausible explanation for the world that we see, the reality we all observe. And my third argument, well, we'll get to that when the time comes. My first argument has pretty much already been made. There is no worldview, other than the one found in the Bible, that can explain the reality that we observe. Those who believe that the universe is eternal, you've maybe heard that, it simply always has been, cannot explain how we reach today, since it is impossible to cross an infinite span of time. Is somebody watching the game here? And if it's for me, I'm not here, alright? All right, you understand that? There are people who believe that the universe is eternal. Let's go back to the whole universal worldview thing. If it's eternal, then how did we reach today? You understand the argument there is that you cannot cross an infinite amount of space or time. You can't. If that's your worldview, if your worldview is that the world is eternal, it always was. The question is, how did we get to today? Let me explain. If you said, I came this morning from Orange County, how long would that take? An hour, right? Forty minutes? If you said, I came from San Diego, oh, two hours. Say you came from, you know, South America. Well, I had to drive for two days. What if you came from eternity past? What if the distance to get here was infinite? How long would it take for you to get here? You'd never get here. You just never would make it. So the idea that the universe is eternal falls under its own weight because you can never really get to the day that you're at. It's philosophically, mathematically impossible. We'll let you stew on that for a while. Those who believe that the universe did not exist at one time cannot give any explanation as to where the material came from that started the universe or why it exploded when it was not acted upon by an outside force. You know the laws of physics, right? That which is idle will remain idle until acted upon by an outside force. So if you believe the universe is eternal, you can't really explain how we got to today, but if you believe that it's not eternal, then where did the material come from that exploded? And if it was there for so long, what happened to it that made it explode? There are no plausible explanations for this. Like Dr. Bonson used to say, the naturalist has to borrow from the Christian worldview just to get started in their worldview. Those who don't believe the Bible and the biblical account of creation cannot explain the essence of ethics. How are there things that are absolutely right or absolutely wrong if there's not an eternal self-existent deity whereby which we come to recognize that things are right and wrong? You can't explain ethics apart from the existence of God and a God who would reveal those ethics to us. If man, and not the Bible, is the final determiner of what is right and wrong, then which man? In short, those who reject the Bible cannot give any rational explanation for the material or immaterial world we all observe. I'm giving a very short synopsis here of something you can read books and books on, but I just want to give you the idea of the difficulty of observing this world and giving an explanation of this world apart from the existence of God and the existence of the scriptures, in terms of it being true. C.S. Lewis said it in his usual humorous and thought-provoking fashion. He said this, and I don't agree with a lot of things that he said, but when he said it, when he was right, he was really right. and said things in ways that very few people could say it. Lewis said this, If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident. And the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents, the accidental byproducts of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts, that is, of materialism and astronomy, are merely accidental byproducts, why should I believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset the milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. Lewis is great at things like that. But I remember this type of argument being quite compelling. I think the statements that I've just read and talked about are accurate, and we should all be properly impressed to at least think this out. But I certainly haven't proven the Bible is true, have I? All I've done is, I think, to a certain extent, kind of demolished that which was taking rank against the truth. But I haven't proven my point. All I've done was kind of disproved another point. My second argument has already been made as well. The Bible's account of creation gives a plausible explanation for the reality that has caused philosophers and scientists to scratch their heads for centuries. There is an eternal self-existent God who has created everything both material and immaterial. The reasons philosophers have any ability to think clearly is because they have been made in the image of God. And the reason science works is because God has created a uniform nature. We learn all this in the Bible. I remember having a conversation with somebody along these lines, where, you know, they had, you ever hear somebody try to explain reality, you know, they just start making stuff up? Well, what if this happened, what if that happened, you know? What if there was a race of, you know, Martians before Adam, you know, or something, and they made Adam? And you start asking, well, where'd they come from? Like, well, I don't know where they came from. You know, you start kind of, you know, going down the road, and they're willing to accept, like, the most cockamamie things. And I remember having a conversation, and I go, well, you know, for me, it's just the Bible says there is an eternal self-existent God, and he created man. And we look around, we see a bunch of men and women, right? The Bible says God created man and woman. Why is that so difficult? Why is it so much easier to believe, you know, that God created primordial slime? Would that be harder for Him to do, or easier to make? You know, if you have the ability to create, wouldn't it be just as easy? I mean, if you were God, and there was a God that really... Wouldn't it be just as easy to create me, as it would be to create mud? Why is that easier for you to believe? Well, you know, I remember having this conversation with some guy who goes, well, you always just go back to God. It's like, He's an explanation for everything. Yeah, that's right! That's the explanation. And it's so easy, and yet people bend over backwards to find some other, less tenable worldview. Now, I believe what I just said, this kind of argument. I believe that the Bible is the only plausible worldview. I think it is the only explanation. But though I believe this to be true, I also recognize that men can simply assert that the quest of history will find some other explanation for the reality we all observe. You say, they may give me their wild stories and I may refute them, but they can finally just go, you know what? I don't really know, but I'll find out someday, and maybe someday I'll find out what it actually is. I haven't really proven my case. I might be able to disprove somebody else's position, and I can assert my position. But that's completely different than me proving to you that the Bible is in fact true. I haven't made my argument. Let's cruise into my third argument, and we're going to finish in just a second with a little history lesson. I know we've been talking a lot about science and a lot about history and stuff, and as I was writing this I was thinking, this is really not a normal sermon, but it is a sermon on the theory of knowledge. So I really would like a congregation of people who are good thinkers in that respect, so you're really thinking clearly about why you believe what you believe and what good arguments are and what bad arguments are. So I want to go into this third argument with a little history lesson. In the 1640s, many of you are familiar with one of the greatest confessions ever written by men wiser than me, I must say. And they began by addressing and defending the Bible. Chapter 1, paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession, they wrote this. Our natural understanding and the works of creation and providence so clearly show God's goodness, wisdom, and power that human beings have no excuse. However, these means alone cannot provide that knowledge of God and of His will which is necessary for salvation. Therefore, it pleased the Lord at different times and in various ways to reveal Himself and to declare that this revelation contains His will for His Church. Afterward, it pleased God to put this entire revelation into writing so that the truth might be better preserved and transmitted and that the church, confronted with the corruption of the flesh and the evil purposes of Satan and the world, might be more securely established and comforted. Since God no longer reveals himself to his people in those earlier ways, holy scripture is absolutely essential. In short, what this paragraph is saying is that there's a thing called general revelation, that all people can observe in nature and learn enough about God to be saved, No. To be without excuse. And if you read Romans 1 and 2, you see that. That the nature... God, you know, Psalm 19 says the same thing, right? The heavens declare the handiwork of God. Romans 1 says, through His creation, we all know enough to be without excuse. Further revelation is necessary for salvation. God revealed Himself in a special way. Right? Prophets, apostles. And then he committed that revelation to writing, that it might be better preserved. So we have it. We have a book. We study it. We learn it. We view that book as a starting place for knowledge. Now, having put forth the essential nature of the Holy Scriptures, how would these... I'm going to go here with this. How would these brilliant teachers justify their assertion that the Scriptures are the Word of God? You know, I'm going to stand on their shoulders, OK? A little bit, if you don't mind. I'm going to appeal to people I think are wiser than myself. How would they approach it? If you went to the 121 divines of Westminster in 1643 and said, walked into this hall of brilliant theologians and said, you guys proved to me that the Bible is true. Come on, show me what you got. What would they say? What would be their approach? And that's what we're going to talk about next week. Let's pray. Father God, we do pray that you would open our eyes to see that which is obviously true. That which we cannot deny without, Father, impugning our own souls. Grant us wisdom, Father, to know folly when we see it. Help us, Father, to know those things that claim to be the starting place for truth, but are simply a vapor. Father, we have created here a Christian culture that is satisfied with romance, and sentimentality when it comes to our faith. And Father, we have relegated that which is substantial to other venues. May the Church take it back. May the Church, Father, be the place where the wisest and most brilliant bring the message of a holy and righteous God. May the Church, Father, be full of wisdom and pith. Father, grant back to the Church that which the world so desperately needs, and soundness of thinking, holiness of heart, and lives built upon the rock. Through Christ we pray. Amen. And just to remind you what the overarching message of scripture is. And that is that there is a God who will glorify himself through his redemptive plan to save sinners through the cross of Christ. We're talking all morning about knowledge. And I certainly don't want the church service to be reduced to a classroom. Because this isn't a classroom. It's more like a meal. It's the family getting together and having a meal. It's the marriage supper of the Lamb. And it's a time for us to recognize more fully what Jesus has done for us. And this, what we're about to participate in, is the means by which Christ expresses His death, His resurrection to us, in the deepest way. It's the way that He determined. Jesus said, do this. We are about to participate in something that Christ, in no uncertain terms, has told his people to do, his church to do. And the great theologians of history have called this a means of grace. It is a means by which that which was done for us becomes more fully evident to us. Now, if you are a believer, it's for you. If you've been baptized, it's for you. If you're a member in good standing of a Christian church, these are all things the Bible clearly says Christians should be. You should trust in the Lord, you should be baptized, and you should associate yourself with the Church. If that's you, then I would encourage you to take and eat and participate and enjoy what has been done for you. If not, I have to put forth a warning, not only to not take, but I would warn you and I would encourage you to rectify that. To call on the name of the Lord, to be baptized, to associate yourself with the Church that He's established for your own good and for your own benefit. And there's a membership thing on the back. You don't have to commit to it, but write it down and I'd be glad to speak to you. And also, you know, on the notes, I put my personal email address for those of you who don't really want to, you know, maybe you're too shy to talk. I don't get a lot of emails. It's not like I'm flooded with them. I encourage you to email me and ask me the questions that you need to have answered. Because it's not enough to just sit here and hear. and be a spectator, you need to be a participant in what's taking place in order for this to mean anything. Let's pray. Father God, we do pray that you would consecrate these elements from a common to a sacred use. We pray, Father, that we would recognize that they are the body and blood of Christ and His Spirit, that this is a cup of blessing. And we pray, Father, that you would communicate to us the riches of that grace, more so even through the sacrament that you called us to this morning, through Christ our Savior. Amen.