But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness. (James 3:13-18)

A central theme of this letter addresses the inconsistency between claim and reality in one's spiritual life.

James 1:22 says that when a person listens to God's word but does not do what it says, he deceives himself. That is, what he thinks has happened is inconsistent with what has actually happened. Perhaps he thinks that he has accepted the word, or that he has benefited from it, but the reality is that he has not. He has been exposed to the word, but he has not done with it what he thinks he has, or all that he needs to. James says that he is like a person who looks at himself in a mirror but as he walks away he immediately forgets what he looks like. But a person is blessed only when he looks into the word, and continues to look at it, and then acts and behaves according to what it teaches.

There is the popular idea that faith is more than mere assent, belief, or agreement to God's word, but that there must be something more, such as trust or commitment, so that faith consists of knowledge, assent, and trust. However, this causes confusion in Christians because it is a false teaching and it presents a hindrance in properly understanding some biblical passages. It becomes a stronghold in the mind that obscures the plain scriptural idea of faith.

James does not just say that the man agrees with God's word and then does nothing about it; rather, he says that the man, whether in fact or in a manner of speaking, "forgets" what he hears.

As a child, once I learned and accepted the name that my parents gave me, it became an integral part of my identity. It was not a trivial sound or fact, but it was a name – my name. Even as a child I understood that and from then on I never forgot it and I never wavered as to what it was. If you believe that you name is Ezekiel, and that it has always been Ezekiel, but then the next day you introduce yourself as Elizabeth, or if you say that you do not know your name, would we say, belief must be more than agreement? No, we would say that you are either mentally defective, that you are dishonest, or some such thing. Whatever the precise reason, we may suspect that you have never really accepted your name as Ezekiel, that is, that Ezekiel is your name, that it is not something trivial, and that it can be nothing other than Ezekiel. When you have a belief in something, by definition both the belief and the something must be present. If there is belief without the something, then there is no belief in that something. And if there is the something but no belief, then again there is no belief in that something. Thus if there is agreement but no name, or if there is a name but no agreement, there is no agreement in a name. And because what is agreed to is a name, it is agreed to as a name, not just a word or a sound. If it is agreed to as a word or a sound, when the thing is a name, then there is in fact no agreement.

The above can serve as an illustration, but an imperfect one, because God's word is by its very nature something that is intended to be much more integral to a man's personality, thinking, and behavior than his own name. If a man does not look at God's word this way, then he has never regarded it as God's word in the first place, and there is no assent. And if he looks at God's word as what it truly is, then assent to it would be assent to something that is intended to be integral to a man's personality, thinking, and behavior. Therefore, there is no assent in a doctrine without both the assent and the doctrine, and if there is assent in a doctrine, there will always be assent in the doctrine. And when the doctrine concerns God, man, salvation, and the like, there is no reason for the doctrine to be absent or irrelevant at any time in a person's life, since the doctrine concerns all of his life. Can a person assent to the resurrection of Christ and then say that Christ did not rise from the dead? This is a contradiction. He does not really assent to the resurrection. Can a person assent to the sovereignty of God and then refuse to accept the necessary implications that follow? No, a proposition and its necessary implications possess equal force, since the implications, being logically necessary, have always been in the proposition. They are inseparable. Thus when a person says that he believes in the absolute sovereignty of God but then denies the sovereignty of God when it comes to certain things, creatures, and events, he deceives himself. He does not really assent to the absolute sovereignty of God.

Therefore, it makes no sense to add to true assent an additional element like trust or commitment. Rather, to assent to Christ, to believe in Christ, to have faith in Christ, to trust in Christ, and to commit to Christ, all mean the same thing. If you do not trust Christ, then neither do you assent to Christ. If there is no trust, there is no assent, because assent to Christ as Christ must entail trust, commitment, obedience, and the like. Here assent and trust would be one. However, anyone can claim that there is assent. Thus the distinction is made not between assent and trust, but claim and reality. One can claim to assent to Christ, but in reality he does not. This is the same as to say that he can claim to trust Christ, but in reality he does not. You say, "But he indeed agrees that Christ is true, only that he does not commit himself to him!" No, he does not agree. He claims to agree. He deceives himself, and apparently he has deceived you as well.

Again, this is important because James does not say that we must add something to true assent or belief, but the point is that a person can lie, even to himself, when he claims to agree with the word of God. This is the true spiritual diagnosis. Thus it is not that faith involves more than belief in biblical doctrines, but the real issue is that there is true faith and there is false faith, or it is possible for a man to falsely claim to have faith. There is only assent, or agreement, or belief, since these are the same. But because a man can lie, we make a distinction between true and false assent, true and false agreement, or true and false faith. True faith in God's revelation, or the biblical doctrines, will produce the necessary implications and effects of belief in these doctrines.

Let us dismiss the ultra-pious interpretations of Scripture that complicate the nature of faith. If you believe the Bible, you agree with it. If you claim to believe it but consistently act like you do not (we have not reached perfection), then you do not believe. Jesus said that the Pharisees did not really believe Moses, because if they did, they would have welcomed and followed Jesus. He did not say that they believed but did not trust, or some such thing; instead, he said that they claimed that they believed, but they lied. So we say to the theologians, "I think your teaching is a sham designed to confuse me and to sell books, and to make me learn three Latin words instead of two, when I should not need to learn even one."

We should focus on incongruity and deception, and the fact that it is possible to claim something about oneself that is not true.

James 1:26 says that if a person considers himself religious but fails to keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. In other words, a man can claim to be religious or spiritual, but in reality he is irreligious and unspiritual. Verse 27 talks about caring for orphans and widows. A similar thought will come up in 2:15-16.

James 2:14 indicates that a man can claim to have faith, but if his actions are inconsistent with this claim, then it shows that his claim is false. Remember, there is no additional element to assent in 1:22, because the man "forgets" the word. There is no true assent. And there is no additional element to being religious or spiritual in 1:26, since the man is not in fact religious or spiritual – he thinks he is, but he is wrong. Likewise, there is no real faith in 2:14. There is not even two thirds faith, because there is either true faith or false faith, and false faith is no faith.

(Since 2:14 sets the direction for the section on faith, and not 2:19, it is 2:14 that determines how we should understand 2:19, and we have 1:22, 1:26, and 3:13 to reinforce this. The verse has been misused to teach that faith is more than assent, since it is thought that demons assent, but they do not have faith. But this infers too much from the proposition provided. James indicates that the demons yield a negative reaction to the doctrine, but since he expects true faith to react differently to the same doctrine, this means that the proposition does not produce only one reaction, or it does not produce the same implication for everyone. Thus the demons is in fact reacting to an implication of the doctrine, an implication that applies to them because they are demons. If those who have true faith do not face the same implication, they would naturally not yield the same reaction. Each implication can be stated as a proposition, and two different implications would produce two different propositions. The two groups, therefore, would be assenting to two different propositions, so that there is nothing in the verse to show that faith is more than assent. If demons understand and assent to more orthodox doctrines than even Christians, as it is sometimes said, we may ask, do demons assent to all Christian beliefs, including propositions that say they should and would worship and obey God — propositions that say they will actually do it? If so, then the problem is demonic schizophrenia, and not the definition of faith. Rather, James is just making the point that by their behavior they show that they have no faith.)

You may claim to have faith, but if you are cold and cruel, and if you show no mercy to others, then you do not have faith. You may claim to have faith, but if you do not believe in the promise of God and the resurrection of the dead, then your claim is false. How can you have Christian faith and not believe in Christian doctrines? It is a contradiction. You may claim to have faith, but if you will not turn against your race and culture for the sake of Christ, then your faith is a mere claim. It is not real. Many people induct the Christian faith to serve their own ideologies. You see that their Christianity has been thoroughly Americanized, or feminized, or that it has undergone some other kind of transformation that robs it of its heavenly culture. Some wish to subjugate Christianity to the scientific mindset, or to the concern for racial equality and liberation. They claim to have converted, but their priorities have never changed. Now they want to use Jesus Christ to serve their ideologies – ideologies that they are eager to promote in the first place with or without Christ. Can this "faith" save them? True faith Christianizes everything – it reorders all priorities, subjugates all ideologies, and transforms all relationships, and compels all of them to conform to the doctrines of Christ.

James continues the motif in 3:13. Who is wise among you? Let him, James says, show it by his good life, but if this so-called wisdom is characterized by envy and ambition, "do not boast about it or deny the truth." A man may claim to have received God's word in a positive and meaningful manner, but unless he does what God says, his claim is false (1:22). It is not that this man really received the word but that he must add something to it – he never truly received the word, since he turned away and forgot about it. One may claim to be religious, or very devout and spiritual, but if his speech is full of hatred and falsehood, or if he is merciless toward orphans and widows, then his claim is also false (1:26). It is not that he needs to add self-control, mercy, and the like to spirituality – he has never been spiritual in the first place. And a person may claim to have faith, but if he has no deeds that correspond, then his claim is false (2:14). It is not that he must add deeds to his faith – he never had any faith, since true faith would have naturally and inevitably produced the deeds.

James does not say that the man in 3:13 is indeed wise, only that he needs to add something else on top of it to build it up into heavenly wisdom. Rather, in accordance with his motif, he means that a man may claim that he has wisdom, but if this wisdom produces envy and ambition instead of spiritual virtues, this is not wisdom at all. Christians would often refer to an unbeliever thus: "He is an extremely intelligent man, but…." No, if he is a non-Christian, he is not intelligent, not even a little bit. An "intelligent" non-Christian is only a fool who is stupid in a complicated fashion. This is the way with non-Christian scientists, philosophers, and other so-called intellectuals. Other non-Christians remain relatively simple in their stupidity, but the scholars think themselves into a deep hole. And when the blind leads the blind, they both fall into the ditch. It is a betrayal of biblical teaching and the entire spirit of this letter from James for a Christian to attribute any wisdom, understanding, or intelligence to non-Christians, except in some metaphorical or animalistic sense, and except in a measure that barely allows them to count as human, as those made in the image of God. The Bible takes the fall of man seriously, and when Christians praise non-Christians, it shows that they do not take it seriously enough and that they deny the truth in order to sound a little more cordial.

Just as a non-Christian has no love, no faith, and no righteousness, he has no wisdom. If a man has even a little true love, or a little true faith, or a little true righteousness, since these things come only from Jesus Christ through the Spirit of God, this person would already be a Christian. A non-Christian can have none of these. But if he has no love, no faith, and no righteousness, then neither does he possess any true wisdom, intelligence, or understanding. The Christian must pick a side and make a choice. I side with the Bible and say that a non-Christian is completely stupid. This is an essential premise. Now, although the non-Christian has no love at all, because he is still human, his own constitution testifies against him that love is a good thing, and that he has none of it, so that he is inferior and stands condemned. The same is true of faith, righteousness, patience, kindness, and all other virtues. The non-Christian invents qualities that are obviously different, and then he applies the names of these divine virtues on the counterfeits.

So he worships a bird and calls that faith, he makes a system of conjectures and calls that reason, and he arranges relationships that are barely more advanced than those of the beasts and calls that love. This is the best that non-Christians can do, because what they cannot do is to become honest and admit that they have nothing. They cannot face the fact that they have no faith at all, but only despair. They are too stupid and proud to acknowledge that they have no reason, but that all their scientists and scholars are like madmen trapped in a crazy house, banging their heads against the wall. They laugh and congratulate one another on their progress, and offer one another grants and prizes. Love sounds like something that is good to have, but they do not even know what it is. So they make something up and pretend that it is love. They can preserve the illusion if everybody assures everybody else that what they have is real. Then some Christians come along and say, as Paul said to the Athenians, "What you do not know, I will now declare to you." They hate us for this.

You say, "But isn't James writing to Christians?" He is certainly writing to people who claim to be – people to claim to have received the word, who claim to be religious and spiritual, who claim to have faith, and who claim to have wisdom. But not everyone who claims to be a Christian is indeed a Christian, and even a true Christian must renew his mind to rid himself of all traces of non-Christian thinking. A non-Christian is incapable of doing this. If the Christian's idea of wisdom is still anything like the non-Christian's idea of wisdom, then he should change his thinking and seek the true wisdom that comes from heaven. James writes to help him make this happen.

The non-Christian has no wisdom, but he claims to have lots of it. What he calls "wisdom" is not really wisdom at all. It harbors bitter envy and selfish ambition. This may manifest itself in skills and strategies on "getting ahead" in the world, without regard to biblical godliness, and often at the expense of others. And since Christian congregations are often cultivated in a way that is indistinguishable from non-Christian society, this kind of "wisdom" also thrives in the church. Why, if you have some "wisdom" about you, you would know how to manipulate your way to the position of associate pastor! And then you will be the envy of all your underlings! After all, why should that other fellow, who has only two advanced degrees instead of three like you, be promoted before you? What? They promoted a man who has never even been to seminary because he has the best working knowledge of the Bible, the most pure and forceful theology, the trust of the people, and…Christian character? Are they insane? You are the one who put in all those hours at church, who tirelessly flattered the pastor and the board members, and who bought expensive presents for their kids! Did they really think that you were doing it for Christ? You see, bitter envy and selfish ambition.

James does not say that such a man lacks something, if only he will add that to his wisdom. He does not say that he has true wisdom, only not enough of it. He does not lament, "If only he will use his intelligence for good." No, he writes that this so-called "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, even of the devil. The wisdom that comes from heaven is not just more of the same, or something at a higher point on the same scale, but it is something altogether different and superior. It is pure, peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.

Sometimes even Christians, or those who claim to be Christians, are so unfamiliar with true wisdom that they think to promote peace means to speak and behave in a weak and effeminate manner. However, Scripture offers us examples like Moses, Elijah, Jesus, and Paul. Along with many others in the Bible, they were often much more harsh and fierce than even the more unfriendly non-Christians that we know in both their words and mannerisms. This is a fact. If you deny it, you might as well throw your Bible away, because it is obvious that you see only what you want to see from it. So the peace that wisdom brings is not the peace of non-Christian social etiquette. How far Christians have demeaned and trampled the Bible in the name of Christian love! Learn the definition of true wisdom from Scripture, but then do not run away with it and ask the world to explain the definition to you.

What the Scripture defines, let the Scripture also explain and demonstrate. For example, when Peter says to speak with "gentleness and respect" to authority figures, learn what this means from Peter and the apostles, not from your non-Christian friends, and in this day, not even from other Christians. It may be that Peter does not have in mind "pleases" and "thank-yous" and curtsies, but only that you should not stab someone in the eye with a knife when you preach the gospel. Or does he mean something else? Interpret Peter's words relative to Peter's cultural and religious background as recorded in the Bible. Christian scholars teach you to read biblical texts in context, but they practice it only when it is convenient for them, and when the conclusions do not contradict their preferred attitudes and theologies.

The "wisdom" of demons may promote men within the world's own corrupt system, but it will also lead them to destroy one another and to destroy this world. Then, the men are so stupid that they think Christians are the problem, and they despise the wisdom from heaven. It is the wisdom of God that will save the soul and save the world. And this wisdom begins in reverence toward God and faith in Jesus Christ, promoting peace among men on the basis that Christ is the hope for everyone, that he is the only hope for true peace and love, and everlasting life.

If a man claims to have wisdom, if he claims to understand the nature of people and of the universe, then let him show it by his life. Does he believe in God? Does he believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the only way to salvation? Does he believe that men ought to seek first the kingdom of God, and that a man's life does not consist of the abundance of his possessions? Does he agree that the most important things in life are faith, repentance, honesty, humility, grace, forgiveness, doctrine, and other things that pertain to truth and holiness? If he does not think like this, then he has no wisdom. True wisdom does not consist in one's expertise in manipulating other men and gaining some advantage over them, but in faith and reverence toward God, and in relating to other people on this foundation.

God teaches us to think in two categories, not three, not ten, not five thousand. There are only two sides. There is that which is of God and that which is of Satan. He speaks in terms of light and darkness, good and evil, humility and pride, love and hate, Christ and anti-Christ, Christians and non-Christians. Then there is the wisdom from heaven and the wisdom from hell, and just as darkness is not light, evil is not good, pride is not humility, and hate is not love, the wisdom of demons is not wisdom at all. Thus God would have us view all things in this clear and simple manner, and follow the way of true wisdom and holiness. Any reluctance to think this way in the name of humility, tolerance, and such, is itself a manifestation of the mind of the devil. Rather, if anyone claims to have wisdom and understanding, let him show it by a good life, where "good" is defined by the mind of Christ and not by the standards of the world.

Vincent Cheung vs. Derek Sansone

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SECTIONS 1-12

3. AFTERWORD

4. SOME COMMENTS FROM READERS

5. FREE BOOKS AND ARTICLES

INTRODUCTION

The following written exchange started when Derek Sansone, an atheist, contacted me and asked me if I would be interested in a formal debate with him. I declined a formal debate, and although I was reluctant to begin a prolonged discussion, I finally took time to correspond with him.

We did not cover the details of our worldviews. In fact, I did not permit him to make any progress throughout. There are many ways to engage an opponent, and how you do it often depends on what you wish to accomplish. In this instance, I did not have the time or the desire to fully engage him, and told him so in the first place, so my aim was to quickly disarm him and to be rid of him without appearing to be intimidated by him. I have accomplished this and much more.

Although I want you to learn from what follows, you should not mechanically imitate my approach. Again, it depends on what you wish to accomplish, and also the method, arguments, and attitude of your opponent. In many situations, and especially when speaking with your friends and relatives so that extended discussions are possible, you should get into the details of the worldviews involved over the course of several hours, days, or weeks.

In this case, although we did not get into the details of our worldviews, in my writings I have provided answers to the very questions that I asked him. So it was not as if I used those questions to distract him or to avoid answering anything myself.

Sansone likes to make up words that his opponents do not use and then apply these words to them, such as "presupper," "theo-logic," "theo-metaphysics," "theo meta concepts," and so on. Therefore, it is only fair that I make up one term that he does not use, but that seems appropriate to his position. That is, I will call his method "psycho assertionism" (or PA), where "psycho" means crazy, and "assertionism" refers to his practice of asserting his views again and again without providing arguments to support them.

Since his method is to assert his view over and over again, it was tiresome for me to comment on his text line by line; nevertheless, I did it. For the same reason, you might find parts of the dialogue tedious to read, but since there are also some very humorous and instructive parts, I encourage you to persist to the end.

–
Vincent Cheung
http://www.vincentcheung.com

1A. DEREK

Mr. Cheung,

Greetings. My name is Derek Sansone.

I am interested in a formal debate with you. I am a former Calvinist Christian, and have just recently debated Pastor C. I am on a Presupper binge at the moment and have a desire to probe the Reformed theistic position. 

1B. VINCENT

Thank you for contacting me. At this moment I am not accepting debate invitations.

However, if you are interested in knowing more about my approach to apologetics, please read my Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations, probably best in that order. Also, my answer to "the problem of evil" is in chapter 4 of my The Light of Our Minds. My apologetic books are mainly meant to teach Christians how to do apologetics, so it contains many biblical expositions, "in-house" issues, and at times assumptions that are not justified right there but elsewhere in my books. So, the books are best taken as a whole, as should be the case for the works of almost any writer. This will require some patience on your part, that is, to read the whole presentation before considering how really to deal with it. You can read two short examples of my approach in chapter 1 of Ultimate Questions and chapter 1 of Presuppositional Confrontations.

Since you already have some contact with Reformed presuppositional apologetics, I should add that although my approach can be called "presuppositional," and that although I mention the transcendental argument in my works, my approach is different from Van Til and Bahnsen. In fact, I reject much of what they taught, because as I show in my books, their philosophy represents a basic synthesis rather than an antithesis with non-Christian thought.

I mention this to you because I have noticed that some readers, including Christians, who upon seeing that I am "presuppositional," automatically assume that I agree with Van Til and Bahnsen, and thus read my works through their perspective. Sometimes they think I teach the same thing even when I teach something different, even when I state that they are wrong on some things. When they do this, they invariably misunderstand my arguments and fail to grasp the advantages in my approach. So it is best not to group me with them.

As many people misunderstand my approach or confuse me with other presuppositionalists, I am willing to answer questions that you may have about it after you read my materials. However, please understand that I will only have time to give very brief answers. At any rate, I think that my books are indeed clear enough.

2A. DEREK

I understand. I don't mind reading theological material, I have tons of it left from when I was an apologist…R.C. Sproul and J.I.Packer are still on my book shelf, as with D.A. Carson's Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility…to name a few…

I'll read your books. Send me the link.

2B. VINCENT

Since you mentioned Sproul, Packer, and Carson, I will also point out that my theology also differ from them on several important points. For example, they say that election is active and reprobation is passive — I do not believe that, but I believe that both are active. On this matter I am more like Herman Hoeksema and Gordon Clark. At any rate, I am better read on my own terms without being first categorized with others. That said, I affirm that I am in essential agreement with most Reformed theologians and confessions.

All of my books are available for download at http://www.vincentcheung.com.

3A. DEREK

Yes, the problem with all theological perspectives is they argue from ignorance, make false dichotomies, lack specificity, and make composition mistakes. Among others…

I will look at your material soon.

3B. VINCENT

You wrote, "Yes, the problem with all theological perspectives is they argue from ignorance, make false dichotomies, lack specificity, and make composition mistakes. Among others…"

Now, of course I would not agree with this very broad statement, although this does apply to many people's theologies. I would say that in those cases they speak neither for Scripture nor for me, just as not every atheist represents all atheists. But we will not argue about it here. In any case, to read what I affirm regarding theology, please read my Systematic Theology.

4A. DEREK

I must agree, my statements can be broad and "un" properly directed. I owe that to my past of effect observations from debates and dialogs with many, not all, types of theists.  I do not wish to blanket you with the rest…But you are considered to be a "presupper."

I am going out of town this weekend, and will not get to your material. However, I look forward to engaging your theological perspective…

4B. VINCENT

(No reply)

5A. DEREK

Greetings Vincent,

As I looked at the several on-line books you offer, I was starting to think that this engagement would be better served if I just asked you one simple question…

I already know you have some Reformer/Presupper undertones, with differences here and there, differences that could be considered "nonessentials" in some Theistic circles….

….And instead of trimming the branches of your theology, which is still supported by circular theo-logic, I would jump down and confront your roots…

Now, on to the question.

Where do you apply "faith"? 

or…

What do you have faith in as a believer?

5B. VINCENT

I would disagree that my system is fallaciously circular. Perhaps it would be easier for you simply to identify me with others whom you consider to be fallaciously circular without actually dealing with my arguments, but until you show it, it is still just an unjustified assumption — or even fallaciously circular ("You are circular because you are a presuppositionalist, because presuppositionalists are circular")!

As for faith, as I have stated in my books, Christians ought to believe in all the propositions in Scripture, and all the propositions that is necessarily deduced from it.

Now, without wanting to start a debate with you, since like I said I do not have the time and I am unwilling to help out just any atheist who is trying to make a name for himself (without thinking that you are necessarily one of them), I also think that our "engagement" can be better served — and will both start and end here – if I will ask you a simple question. When you asked me, "What do you have faith in as a believer?", how did you learn the word "as"? Since this question is logically prior, logically I could ask you this question before I answered your question about faith, but I answered it first anyway.

Now, until you logically show me how you non-fallaciously learned the word, logically your question is nonsense and could not be uttered, and the "engagement" cannot even continue without my permitting it. Nevertheless, if you have an answer, give it and justify it, write out the logical process by means of which it was done. My books provide my own answer to this question.

6A. DEREK

Your books will provide "an" answer, not the only possible answer. This isn't my first presupper rodeo, Mr. Cheung.  You have fundamental problems. I am trying to find the core and start there, then move into the rest of your theo-metaphysics… 

I learned the word "as" through sensory input…my social construct has provided the necessary observable effects…

Now, answer my faith question…Don't red herring me, please…

If you can't take this simple question on, then, kindly say so. I understand desire and priority…Maybe another time…

6B. VINCENT

"Your books will provide "an" answer, not the only possible answer."  

This is for you to show.  

 

"This isn't my first presupper rodeo, Mr. Cheung."

Again you identify me with others. Fine, but I am telling you that you are going to embarrass yourself if you do this.

"You have fundamental problems.  I am trying to find the core and start there, then move into the rest of your theo-metaphysics…"

Fine. This is for you to show.

"I learned the word "as" through sensory input…my social construct has provided the necessary observable effects…"  

How can knowledge come through sensory input? Please write out the reasoning process by which you non-fallaciously derive knowledge from sensory input. How could you avoid the problems with induction? Also, if you learned "as" through sensory input, does that means you have seen or heard "as" itself? Not the word, but the "thing" that the word designates.

What is a social construct? How do you know your social construct? How do you know that your social construct provided you with "the necessary observable effects"? How do you know what "effects" are "necessary" in order for you to non-fallaciously learn the word (or any word)?

"Now, answer my faith question…Don't red herring me, please… If you can't take this simple question on, then, kindly say so. I understand desire and priority…Maybe another time…"

As I said, my question is logically prior to yours, since if you cannot know the word, you could not have asked the question. So it is not a red herring.

I already answered it in my message. I wrote: "As for faith, as I have stated in my books, Christians ought to believe in all the propositions in Scripture, and all the propositions that is necessarily deduced from it." I hope you are reading my emails with greater care!

Now, what about the word "as"? Until you give me a non-fallacious answer, I have the logical right to dismiss you at anytime. If you cannot or do not answer the question, then what logical right do you have to ask me anymore?

7A. DEREK

Before I move on…

You aren't going to attack the senses, using your senses, are you?

7B. VINCENT

No.

And you aren't going to defend the senses, using your senses, are you?

8A. DEREK

Of course I will.

When a person comes along and argues from false assumption, among other fallacies, and states Psalm 14:1 proves their god is a precondition for my ability to argue against his existence.

Supposing is a flawed way of knowing Theo-metaphysical claims, Mr. Cheung.

You would not know ANYTHING without external forces of observable effects, in which you had NO control. You're a sentient being, picking up the causal chain through sensory input to the brain…

Your memory bank stores these effect observations and it is built through social conditioning started on the day you were born, sir.

8B. VINCENT

"Of course I will."

Then how are you not circular?  

"When a person comes along and argues from false assumption, among other fallacies,"

You have yet to show that my assumptions are false.  

"and states Psalm 14:1 proves their god is a precondition for my ability to argue against his existence."

Have I done this? Where? 

"Supposing is a flawed way of knowing Theo-metaphysical claims, Mr. Cheung."

Right, and therefore your way of knowing is flawed.

"You would not know ANYTHING without external forces of observable effects,"

How do you know this? Show it.

"in which you had NO control."

How do you know this? Show it.

"You're a sentient being, picking up the causal chain through sensory input to the brain…"

How do you know this? Show it.

And what is a "causal chain"? How did you come to know about it?

And how did you learn about causation? By sensation? How have you seen or heard "cause" itself?

What is "sensory input"?

How do you know that you have a brain?

"Your memory bank stores these effect observations"

What is a "memory bank"? How did you come to know about it? Have you "sensed" your memory bank? Even if so, how do you know that I (or any other person) have such a thing as a "memory bank"?

And what are these "effect" or "effects" that you are talking about? How do you know that they are "effects," as if they are caused by something else?

"and it is built through social conditioning started on the day you were born, sir." 

Yes, you already said this before. But this is just an assertion. Maybe I misunderstood the game that we are playing. If it is a game of assertions, then I can assert just as well as you can, but I probably can't stand being as circular as you.

And you still haven't answered my simple, and even more fundamental questions.

9A. DEREK

"How can knowledge come through sensory input? Please write out the reasoning process by which you non-fallaciously derive knowledge from sensory input."

My circularities come from the within limits of human axiomatic identity, which is based on the material universe. You incorporate the incorporeal Theo meta concepts in your circularities.  Which are unfalsifiable or testable…

I am irreducible and can be observed. I exist therefore I am…Existence precedes awareness of oneself…

"How could you avoid the problems with induction? Also, if you learned "as" through sensory input, does that means you have seen or heard "as" itself? Not the word, but the "thing" that the word designates."

No, the English language that I learned through observing effects from my teachers through my social construct, has taught me the word "as" and how to apply it…

"What is a social construct? How do you know your social construct?"

How do I know a social construct? Can you be more specific? 

"How do you know that your social construct provided you with "the necessary observable effects"?" 

There can be no other possible source. Matter of fact, all information comes externally. You may have internal forces working within, but they don't give you info, they are utility functions only.  You are passive, in a re-active sense…you initiate nothing ultimately…

"How do you know what "effects" are "necessary" in order for you to non-fallaciously learn the word (or any word)?"

It's simple, in order to have knowledge you must have had been exposed through the senses. That exposer comes within the causal chain.  You didn't choose the effects you observed and stored. And language comes through this method.

9B. VINCENT

"My circularities come from the within limits of human axiomatic identity,"  

But how do you know these limits? Again by sensation? How do you "sense" limits?

So you admit that you are circular, but it seems that you are claiming that you are somehow non-fallaciously circular.

"which is based on the material universe."  

But how do you know that there is a material universe? Again by sensation?

"You incorporate the incorporeal Theo meta concepts in your circularities.  Which are unfalsifiable or testable…" 

How do you know that the incorporeal is unfalsifiable and untestable? Again by sensation?  

"I am irreducible and can be observed. I exist therefore I am…Existence precedes awareness of oneself…"

So you have your axioms and presuppositions. But whereas I proceed from my first principle via deduction, you incorporate induction into your system. How do you defend induction as non-fallacious?

"No, the English language that I learned through observing effects from my teachers through my social construct, has taught me the word "as" and how to apply it…"

Right, so you use sensation and induction. But you have yet to justify sensation and induction. Also, how could your teachers "teach" you anything before you even know the word "as"? And still, you have not shown that you have seen or heard "as" itself. So you have never sensed it. But you claim to have observed the "effects." Again how do you know that "as" is an effect?  

"How do I know a social construct? Can you be more specific?"

That is, what is a social construct, and how did you come to know about it?  

"There can be no other possible source."  

How do you know this?

"Matter of fact, all information comes externally."  

How do you know this?

"You may have internal forces working within, but they don't give you info, they are utility functions only."

How do you know this?

"You are passive, in a re-active sense…you initiate nothing ultimately…"

How do you know this?

"It's simple, in order to have knowledge you must have had been exposed through the senses."  

How do you know this? I know that you believe this, but you have yet to justify it.

"That exposer comes within the causal chain."

Again, how do you know this? What is a "causal chain"? How do you sense a "cause"?

"You didn't choose the effects you observed and stored."

How do you know this?

 

"And language comes through this method."

As it is, you still have not justified how you can know anything. Yes, you have asserted, and when questioned, you re-asserted. But where are the arguments? Where is your justification and defense?

Thus I am still waiting for you to answer all of the above questions, as well as all the other ones in the previous messages.

10A. DEREK

I have to say…that this connection or dialog would have probably been better off if I just asked you to defend the goodness that is in you, instead of asking about your application of faith.

But since we have started as we have, I must engage what is…

And what is, is the apparent attack on my epistemic foundation or standards for such justification of trusting the senses.

One of your emails was an obvious sign that you are skeptical of my sense or perceptual understandings.

So, with that assumed by your language, I will proceed. 

Your fundamental problem is that you can't demonstrate how my epistemological standards are invalid.  The main problem with the TAG (the transcendental argument for the existence of God).

You also have not justified your epistemological standard as being:
A.) The only possible standard
B.) A standard prescribed by a transcendental entity.
C.) The work of the God of the Bible

Again I am reminded of one of my emails to you in stating that most theists, especially Reformed Presuppers, make, again, the false dichotomy, lack of specificity, composition and spacial pleading fallacies.

Mr. Cheung, it appears that you are setting me up to give an account for your rejection of my epistemic standards and with them, my whole way of thinking and speaking about the world.

The problem, is that if I am forced to accept your conclusion of this skepticism, we shall find ourselves saying things that make no sense. We must say things like, I'don't know if I or anyone else has a head"., which is nonsense.

That this makes no sense is admittingly an epistemic consideration, but it is also decisive.

For the goal of thought and language is to make sense of our observations. What makes sense is certified by our epistemic standards…those standards reflect our conceptions of reality.

You, are on the doorstep of rejecting those very standards and conceptions. And by doing so, you are rejecting the very language you speak.

So, Mr. Cheung, your treachery has been exposed, and I conclude, your skepticism is a sham and delusion.  As is your faith.

You are attacking the senses using the senses.

So, care to start over and give me a defense for the goodness that is in you?

I am open, and if you can uncover something that I have missed that draws a conclusive distinction to the mechanism in which your disembodied incorporeal non spatial system, acted on the embodied corporeal spatial system, I could not deny it intellectually. 

I can't deny that there is a computer on my desk can I? No.  So, let's look at the objective evidence that points to your transcendental entity…

10B. VINCENT

"I have to say…that this connection or dialog would have probably been better off if I just asked you to defend the goodness that is in you, instead of asking about your application of faith." 

I do not know what you mean by this yet, but I will read on.

"But since we have started as we have, I must engage what is…And what is, is the apparent attack on my epistemic foundation or standards for such justification of trusting the senses. One of your emails was an obvious sign that you are skeptical of my sense or perceptual understandings. So, with that assumed by your language, I will proceed."

Ok.  

"Your fundamental problem is that you can't demonstrate how my epistemological standards are invalid."  

This is just an assertion. I can just as easily assert the opposite.

In addition, I have provided arguments in my books, which you have yet to engage.

"The main problem with the TAG (the transcendental argument for the existence of God)." 

What does the TAG have to do with me?  

"You also have not justified your epistemological standard as being:
A.) The only possible standard
B.) A standard prescribed by a transcendental entity.
C.) The work of the God of the Bible."

But what is my epistemological standard? Do you even know? I explain and provide arguments for it in my books, which you have not engaged.

And when I ask about your views, you assert, and re-assert, and then you assert again.  

"Again I am reminded of one of my emails to you in stating that most theists, especially Reformed Presuppers, make, again, the false dichotomy, lack of specificity, composition and spacial pleading  fallacies."  

I don't know what you are talking about. Where have I done this? Please show it.

"Mr. Cheung, it appears that you are setting me up to give an account for your rejection of my epistemic standards and with them, my whole way of thinking and speaking about the world." 

I am not setting you up for anything. I am just asking you questions that are logically prior to anything that you can ask me. To be fair, I have provided my answers to those same questions in my books, which you have not engaged.  

"The problem, is that if I am forced to accept your conclusion of this skepticism, we shall find ourselves saying things that make no sense."

Please speak for yourself — not "we," but just you.

"We must say things like, "I don't know if I or anyone else has a head," which is nonsense."

Why is this nonsense?

Now, is the argument something like this? "If X (your epistemology) is false, then nonsense results; Nonsense is impossible or unacceptable; Therefore, X is true." But you have to show that X is necessary to avoid nonsense. Even if nonsense is impossible, it does not necessarily follow that X is true — maybe Y, Z, A, B, etc. are true.

"That this makes no sense is admittingly an epistemic consideration, but it is also decisive." 

Why? How is it decisive? Try to write this out as a syllogism so that I can follow your reasoning and see that it is valid.  

"For the goal of thought and language is to make sense of our observations."

This is yet another assertion. How do you know it? By sensation? What did you sense that helped you understand this "goal"?  

"What makes sense is certified by our epistemic standards…those standards reflect our conceptions of reality.
You are on the doorstep of rejecting those very standards and conceptions."  

What are "those" standards and conceptions? What standards and conceptions? What are you talking about?

And do you mean that I reject your standards and conceptions? Since when did it become "our"?!

"And by doing so, you are rejecting the very language you speak."

Not really. I have my theory of linguistics and language acquisition, which are stated in my books, which you again fail to engage.

As for you, I asked about your theory of knowledge and language, and I am still waiting for a rational reply.

"So, Mr. Cheung, your treachery has been exposed, and I conclude, your skepticism is a sham and delusion.  As is your faith."

What treachery? Treachery against what? What are you talking about?

How can skepticism be "a sham and delusion"? 

Then, how does that jump to my faith being "a sham and delusion"? 

Is there a process of reasoning here? If so, please re-state it clearly.

Now, do you believe in doubting assumptions, or do you doubt only what you want to get rid of?

In addition, I am just asking you questions that everyone has to answer in the study of philosophy — it doesn't take a Christian or a theist to ask these questions. If you can't handle it, then why play the game? But I suppose that you believe you can handle it. If so, just answer the questions, so that we can know where you stand and why, and then, having these answers in mind, move on to discuss whatever interests you.   

"You are attacking the senses using the senses."

How have I done this? And how do you know this without a circular appeal to sensation?  

Maybe we are both in a dream, or maybe we are both disembodied beings, in which case neither of us would be using (physical) senses. Since my question to you is purely logical, it could occur even if we are both in a dream or if we are both disembodied beings. It is possible to ask you this question in a dream or in a non-material world; that is, my question to you does not depend on our being in a material world. However, since you claim that we are both using our senses, your answer does depend on us being in a material world and using our senses; therefore, you must defend how you can know anything by sensation.

To accuse me of attacking the senses using the senses begs the question, since as I said, maybe we are both in a dream, or some other situation in which I can still ask the question without depending on the senses.  

"So, care to start over and give me a defense for the goodness that is in you?"

You keep making assertions without arguments, then conclude that I am wrong, and now you want to "start over"? (Here Sansone teaches us that, if you ever get into trouble in a debate, just ask if you may "start over.")

As for "a defense for the goodness that is in you," I don't understand what you mean. 

And you still have not settled the logically prior issues of knowledge and language.  

"I am open, and if you can uncover something that I have missed that draws a conclusive distinction to the mechanism in which your disembodied incorporeal non spatial system, acted on the embodied corporeal spatial system, I could not deny it intellectually."

I have provided arguments in my books, which you have not engaged.  

"I can't deny that there is a computer on my desk can I? No."

Why not? If it is so obvious, show it. Write out your syllogism and end this part of the discussion once for all.

"So, let's look at the objective evidence that points to your transcendental entity…"

But what is "objective"? Your epistemology sounds pretty subjective to me. If you disagree, please show how your epistemology is objective, and why I must adopt it. 

And this brings us to "evidence." What is "evidence"? I suppose that you will not accept the Bible as evidence for my view. But why? You have yet to tell and show me. 

 

(10B. VINCENT, continued)

I thank you for this message and for your attempt. But whereas I at least responded to your statements almost line by line, you have ignored many of my statements and questions. And so the unanswered questions keep piling up. If your statements are still logically nonsense to me, how I can understand and then respond to your questions?

Although I do not want to increase your burden, seeing that you have not yet justified even one of your "sensational" claims, there are other things that I, to put it mildly, wonder about. Nevertheless, since in one of your previous messages you said that it was "simple" to answer from your view, you should easily be able to answer all of the following without fallaciously begging the question.

Since sensation is so important to your view, I would like to understand what you are talking about. What is a sensation? How did you learn the meaning of a sensation? How do you know when you are having a sensation? You said that all information comes externally and from sensation. So do you sense the sensation to know that you have a sensation? If you sense a sensation, then how do you know that? Do you sense the sensation that senses the sensation? Then, do you sense the sensation that senses the sensation that senses the sensation? If this is not your view, then please explain. That is, if all information comes from sensation, then how do you know when you are having a sensation?

Do you ever not have a sensation? How do you know that? Is a lack of sensation itself a sensation? Then, do you sense that you are not having a sensation?

Can you have a sensation and not be conscious of it? How do you know that? Have you ever sensed that you are not conscious of a particular sensation? If so, then are you not in fact conscious of it? Does this not return us to the original question, that is, can you have a sensation and not be conscious of it?

Or, are you conscious of all the sensations that you are having? How do you know that? Do you sense that you are sensing all? But then, do you sense that you sense that you are sensing all? How do you know? By sensation again?

Do you always sense everything around you? If not, how do you know that you are not sensing everything around you if you are not sensing what you are sensing?

How about radio waves? Are there radio waves? If so, do you sense radio waves? All the radio and TV stations at the same time? If you use a radio device to pick up these waves, then what are you sensing? The sound from the radio, or the radio waves? Do you hear words and music from the radio? If so, then are radio waves words and music? Ah, but you might say that these are the "effects" of the radio waves. But then, you are only sensing the effects and not the cause. If so, how do you know the cause? If you infer from the effects to the cause, then how do you know that the inference is valid? By sensation again? What do you sense that would confirm this?

Also, how do you know that you do not know certain things? By sensation? Again, is the lack of sensation a sensation? How do you know this? Do you sense that a lack of sensation is a sensation?

Then, if you know that you do not know certain things, what are these "certain things"? If you know what they are, then you must know what they are by sensation, but then, this means that you have sensed them — if so, in what sense do you not know them?

Now, do you believe that the earth is flat, or that it is a sphere? If you believe that it is a sphere, then how do you know this? By sensation? How? Have you seen the earth from space?

Or do you trust the experts and the scientists? But then you did not sense what you claim to know, but you sensed only the testimony of these "experts." Maybe you have seen a picture of the earth? But a picture is not the earth, so at best you sensed a picture. How do you know that the picture was not "doctored"? By sensation? How do you sense "not doctored"? Also, a picture is flat, so how is the earth a sphere?

The sun looks pretty flat to me. Now suppose that I look at the sun from space and see that it is spherical, then what am I suppose to believe? If we assert that the sun and the earth are spheres and that they rotate, then the rotation is not really sensed, but calculated. Even then, how do you confirm that no errors in calculation were made? Again by sensation? What do you sense?

Also, do you believe in atoms? Have you sensed an atom? Even if you have, how do you know that there are atoms other than the one that you have sensed? Or are we just supposed to trust the scientists? Are they your pope? If you do not believe all that they say, then why do you accept some of what they say and not others when you have sensed neither (except for their testimonies, if even that)? Have they seen atoms? Have they seen the effects of atoms? If so, how do they know that those effects were produced by atoms? And still, maybe they sensed the effects (if even that), and not the atoms.

How did you learn your name? Did you accept a word as your name, just because people called you something enough times? I can think of a number of things to call you other than "Derek," but will you accept one or more of those words as your name or names if I call you those things often enough? Why or why not?  If I call you "Ralph" twice, would you accept that as your new name? How about six hundred times? Why or why not? How often is "often enough"? How did you know that it was enough when you first accepted your name as "Derek"? Did you sense "enough"? Or the effects of "enough"? How? Are you Pavlov's dog? But there is not always food after the sensation of the bell's ring, is there? Or did you somehow infer from what you heard that "Derek" was your name? If so, did you sense the inference? Please write out the process of inference in syllogistic form so you can exhibit its logical validity.

Do you like logic? Do you want to be rational? Then how did you learn the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction)? If you learn all things by sensation, then how did you sense the law of contradiction? If you sensed (seen or heard) it used or applied and then inferred this law, then is your knowledge still from sensation? Or is it from sensation plus logical inference? But then, how come you used logical inference before you learned the law of contradiction? Also, before you learned the law of contradiction, did you have sensations? If so, did you apply the law of contradiction to those sensations, so that a sensation could not mean one thing and its contradictory at the same time? If you did not apply the law, then how come all sensations were not nonsense? If you did apply the law, how could you do it before you learned it?

How did you learn the word "God"? If all knowledge comes from sensation, then have you sensed God? If you have sensed God, then why are you an atheist? If you have not sensed God, then maybe you heard the word and inferred the meaning of the word, but then by sensation you only learned the sound and not the meaning, since you inferred the meaning. But then, did you and I infer the same thing out of the sound? Do we mean the same thing when we say "God"? If we do not mean the same thing, then all the arguments you have against "God" do not apply to me.

As for the question of personal identity, how do you know that you are the same person today as you were yesterday? Do you sense that you are the same person? But cannot two different things give you the same sensation? If so, then the problem remains. If not, then how do you know? That is, how or what have you sensed that no two thing in this universe can give you the same sensation, so that you can always distinguish between different things?

Now, I also wonder about several things that you wrote.

For example, you wrote, "the English language that I learned through observing effects from my teachers through my social construct, has taught me the word "as" and how to apply it…"

You said that you learned the word "as" because your teachers taught you the word. But is this not relying on testimony instead of by sensation? Or at least both? But how do you know that what they told you was correct? Again by sensation? What did you sense to verify whether they were correct? Also, what would be "correct" in this case? How do you know? If you somehow verified what they taught by sensation, then did the teachers teach you the word or not? Also, have you verified by sensation every word that you use?

Also, has the word "as" (or any other word that you use) changed its meaning? How do you know that it has or has not changed? If it has changed, then how do you know that you will necessarily know about it? If you do not know whether it has changed, then why do you use it? And what reason do you have to suppose that I would understand the same thing when you use the word? By sensation? How? And what do you sense?

Also, how do you know that you were not dreaming when your teachers taught the words to you? How do you know that you are not dreaming now? By sensation? What do you sense that tells you that you are not dreaming? Do you have sensations when you are dreaming, like sight and sound? How do you know? Again by sensation? Perhaps I am just one of your nightmares, and that you will wake up to a sensation friendly world soon. Either way, how do you know?

Then, you wrote, "Matter of fact, all information comes externally….You may have internal forces working within, but they don't give you info, they are utility functions only."

How to you know that these "internal forces" that are "utility functions" (whatever they mean) do not change what you sense, so that what you think you sensed does not really correspond to the object of sensation? Now, if you try to verify that what you think you sensed indeed corresponds to the object of sensation, then do you still do this verification by sensation? And then you accuse other people of being circular? 

Also, you wrote, "You incorporate the incorporeal Theo meta concepts in your circularities. Which are unfalsifiable or testable…"

How do you know that the incorporeal is unfalsifiable and untestable? Have you sensed the incorporeal or the effects of the incorporeal, then somehow inferred that the incorporeal is unfalsifiable and untestable? Then, is this claim about the incorporeal itself falsifiable and testable? If your claim about the incorporeal is falsifiable and testable, then how come other claims about the incorporeal are not? If your claim about the incorporeal is unfalsifiable and untestable, then by your own standard, why should I pay any attention to you when you talk about the incorporeal?

Now, if I claim to have seen and sensed Christ, how would you refute me? It would be my testimony. How would you refute me by sensation?

Moreover, you wrote, "Supposing is a flawed way of knowing Theo-metaphysical claims Mr. Cheung…."

But how do you know this by sensation? Do you know something about "Theo-metaphysical claims" by sensation, and then by sensation know that "supposing" is a flawed way of knowing about these claims? What did you sense that helped you to know this? How did you infer this from sensation? Was the inference valid? Show that it is valid.

My questions about the incorporeal would also apply here.

Then, you wrote, "You would not know ANYTHING without external forces of observable effects, in which you had NO control."

But how do you sense a lack of control, or the effects of a lack of control then validly inferred to be the effects of a lack of control? 

Now if any of the above questions are irrelevant, unimportant, stupid, and a waste of time, then how do you know that? By sensation yet again? How do you sense "irrelevant," "unimportant," "stupid," and "a waste of time"? Perhaps you learned what they mean by sensing yourself? No? Then what and how?  

In any case, since I have taken the time to write these thoughtful questions, please have the decency to explain to me your answers to them, and defend your answers. Again, according to you, this should be a simple task.

Are we trying to be logical or not? Are we trying to be rational or not? If we are, then why did you ask me about "faith" or "defense of the goodness" before you have shown me how you can logically know or say anything, which is the logically prior issue? Whereas I have been very focused and specific with my questions, you have been going all over the place. Are you trying to "red herring me"? And then you accuse Christians for being irrational?!

You are the one who wrote, "I am trying to find the core and start there." Throughout, I have been trying to accommodate you on precisely this point, and to give you an opportunity to present and defend your view on "the core." My view on the core issues are stated in detail in my books for public scrutiny. As for you, you have failed to answer the simplest questions on the core issues. If I do not know where you stand on the core issues and why, then how I can engage your view? Without knowing where you are intellectually coming from and why, how do I know what kind of answer to give you?

You have an epistemology, and you will probably accept as true only those answers consistent with your epistemology, or perhaps you think that you are even willing to change your epistemology upon hearing a compelling argument. So I am trying to "find the core and start there" by asking you, what is your epistemology, and how do you justify it? You sound so confident about your view, so you must have ready answers and arguments for it. If so, then just show me. But you did not do this.

You said that this is not your first "presupper rodeo," then surely you must have had your presuppositions challenged before. Since you still sound so confident about your view, then I suppose you must have been successful in defending it against these presuppositionalists? If this is so, then it should be easy for you to state your view and defend it. Yes, I think I understand something about your view, but you have just asserted it. But you need to defend it, and exhibit its rationality and validity.

Recall how this dialogue started. You are the one who first emailed me, and then you asked me a question. I answered your question (the one about faith), and then I asked you about things that logically come before your original question. Even by non-Christian standard, this should be quite fair and charitable. Then, you accused me of trying to set you up for something. But you asked me about faith, and after I answered, you changed and asked me about some "defense of the goodness" (whatever that means). Were you trying to set me up? If so, doubtless you could not logically do this without first answering the logically prior issues of knowledge and language from your worldview, and defending those answers.

You said more than once that I have fundamental problems, but you have not justified how you can even make the assertion, let alone justify the content of the assertion itself. I understand that you are trying to oppose my system of thought, but you also have a system of thought, from which you make assertions against my system of thought. But unless you justify your system of thought as true, then how can you use your system of thought to oppose mine? Can't I do the same to you? Can't anyone do this to anyone? You said that you want to get to "the core," and here I am asking you simple and direct questions about the core — that is, about the way that you know anything and the basis upon which you make any assertions, including assertions against my system of thought. So surely this is what you want to discuss and tell me. Until you give me some strict rational argument, your position is too irrational for me, such that it cannot even be logically understood.

And surely I am not too skeptical for an atheist to handle? Who has heard of such a thing?

As an opponent, you have been much more disappointing than I anticipated. For this reason, and since I have already been very generous with my time with you, I must safeguard future attempts to waste my time by stating in advance that I would (except for some unexpected and special reason that I cannot think of right now) neither read nor answer additional emails that you send me for at least two years. It might take you at least that long to improve your arguments and presentation, although they will probably never improve at all. Right now, it is as if you are wallowing in intellectual feces, and the intellectual stench is very unpleasant, even if amusing at first. Perhaps you will find other less skilled "presuppositionalists" to entertain your sensational nonsense; as for me, this is enough nonsense to last a while.

In any case, I will take this opportunity to also exhort you to repent of your sins and believe the gospel. You have probably heard it many times. You wanted to think that it is intellectual nonsense, and you thought you could intellectually resist its claims. But instead, your view has been exposed as foolish and groundless. On the other hand, since I stand on the infallible foundation of Scripture, when you argue against me, you are arguing against the wisdom of God, which is like fighting a supernova with a toothpick. Even without quoting Psa 14:1, as you say that we often do, but just by using standard philosophy questions, and by giving you repeated opportunities to answer them, I have exposed you as a complete moron, and an intellectual midget and an intellectual fraud. You are an embarrassment to philosophers everywhere, and indeed to humanity. Only God can save your wretched soul and feeble mind. 

Red = Derek's statement
Blue = Derek quotes Vincent
Black = Vincent's response
Green = Vincent speaks to the readers

Why does to "die daily" mean to deal with you? Please give me an exegetical argument from the relevant biblical passages.

Right, and that is what I am trying to do by focusing on my work in preaching the word, and giving you a little time, and then showing as many people as I can the text of our dialogue. Also, I am commanded not to give what is sacred to the dogs and to cast pearls before pigs, and rather shake the dust off my feet. Therefore, I am just trying to scrape the intellectual feces (you) that I stepped on from my feet.

Where am I commanded to give a defense for "the goodness" that is in me? Did you just make that up?

Specifically, what are you referring to when you say "goodness"?

What do you mean by it? What do you think I mean by it? Do we mean the same thing by it?

What do you mean by "defense"? I suppose that you are referring to an intellectual defense by argumentation. If so, what would be the conclusion in the argument? That is, what conclusion am I trying to assert or prove by the "defense"? "The goodness"? What does that mean? Do you mean that I should argue that what I believe to be goodness is indeed good? Or do you mean that I should argue that there is indeed goodness in me? Or what?

You are the one who says that we (Christians? presuppositionalists?) often use Psa. 14:1, which says, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Also, Romans 1:22 says, "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools." The root here is moros. So of course it is the most Christian response to call an atheist a moron. If Christians have been using Psa. 14:1 against you so many times, as you say, then you should already know this. But here you speak as if you have no idea that this is the Christian thing to say.

You moron!

(I have now established that this is indeed the Christian thing to say; therefore, I will keep on saying it. Unless one first refutes Christianity, to claim that I should not speak this way begs the question. For more on this, see Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology, Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, Apologetics in Conversation, Commentary on Ephesians [especially p. 103-106], "A Moron by Any Other Name," and "Professional Morons"; Douglas Wilson, The Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking [Canon Press, 2003]; Robert A. Morey, "And God Mocked Them" [audio]; and James E. Adams, War Psalms of the Prince of Peace: Lessons From the Imprecatory Psalms [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1991].)

Well, I doubt that I would be embarassed by you, and I doubt that the people reading this will think that I would be embarassed by you. But you are right that I am the "lucky" one — I do not believe in "luck," but apparently you do — since then you would be wasting even more of my time, and then it would be a public waste of time!

But if this is the transcendental argument, then you were trying to use the transcendental argument yourself, and then you acknowledge that my response refuted it. So, whereas I successfully refuted your transcendental argument, where in our dialogue did I use the transcendental argument? Yes, I do mention the transcendental argument in my books, but I also mention the cosmological argument; however, it is clear in my books that I depend on neither.

I had warned you at the beginning not to identify me with other presuppositionalists that you had debated. Then, during the course of our dialogue, I wrote, "What does the TAG have to do with me?" — and you did not say.

Also, what you say here still does not prove that your epistemology is right, but rather seems to say that even you admit that it could be wrong, that is, not necessarily true.

But this is just another assertion, you have yet to show this. You claim above that the transcendental argument fails if the Christian cannot show that one must necessarily presuppose Christianity to avoid nonsense, but you have not taken any actual example or formulation of the transcendental argument for the existence of God to show that it fails to show that Christianity is a necessary presupposition.

So you prove nothing here.

What "specificity" is lacking? What have you asked me to specify? What are you talking about?

And a "dichotomy" between what and what? Where have I posed a "dichotomy" that is false? What are you talking about?

Most of my argument is just skepticism? But I thought you think that I use, or even depend on, the transcendental argument? Which is it?

But no, my argument is not skepticism as such, but I have been asking you standard questions that every person who engages in philosophical thinking must answer. So skepticism is not my argument; rather, my method and my argument are stated in my books, which you still fail to engage.

No, the intent is to find out what you believe, how you know anything, and why.

Great! So all you have to show is that your axioms (Existence, Sentience, Sensory Observation, Logical Universe) are necessary; otherwise, you admit that you are intellectually dishonest.

As for me, my arguments are presented in my books, which you still fail to engage. As for you, I have given you repeated opportunities to explain and defend you view, but you have yet to show that your basic axioms are necessary.

I admit that I don't want to waste time on you, but how do the sentences quoted above reflect that I was in a hurry? How did you infer "in such a hurry" from these quoted statements? If this is how you practice logical inference, then how can we expect you to infer the right things from sensation? You can't even read!

What is a "chill pill"? Is it corporeal, or incorporeal? If it is corporeal, where can I buy some? If it is incorporeal, then why do you think that there is such a thing?

Why does "this haste" not suit me? Why did you think that I would have been more patient? By sensation? What did you sense that made you think that I would have been more patient? In any case, your sensation gave you the wrong information, then, did it not?

I am referring to the questions below.

But at best, you are just listing different kinds of sensations. But what is a sensation?

English identifies the meaning of sensation?! How about German or Chinese?

But how do you know the meaning of a sensation, so that you can express this meaning in English (even if you cannot do it in German or Chinese)?

 

But what is the meaning of a sensation? That you are "exposed to external foces" does not tell me what you mean by sensation.

And what are these "external forces"? What "forces"?

But how do you know this? You said that "all information comes externally" and is known by sensation. So how do you know by sensation that your senses stop when you are sleeping? That is, if the senses stop, then how do you know that they stopped? According to you, you must know "all information," including this piece of information, by sensation.

Also, if your senses stop when you are sleeping, does this mean that I can punch you as hard as I can in the face while you are sleeping, and you will just keep on sleeping?

Or, do you mean that sensation must be connected to active awareness? But you wrote, "all information comes externally…You are passive." Which one is it?

 

But how do you know this by sensation?

But how do you know this by sensation?

What is your "sentience"? How have you sensed it?

Of course it is self-evident that a sense is a sense, just like a dog is a dog, a Derek is a Derek, and a moron and a moron.

But what is a moron? Who is a moron? You are!

So what is a sensation?

This is just an assertion. Show it! Show it!

And what do you mean that it is "constant"?

And I am not talking about "pre-senses." I am asking you how you know when you are having a sensation. If, as you say, "all information" comes externally and from sensation, then the knowledge that you are having a sensation must also come from sensation, so you must sense your sensation, and then sense the sensation that senses the sensation, and so on.

You moron!

Tell me, then! Tell me! And show me!

Then let's "dispute" about how and what the senses can "report." But you just assert, then re-assert, and then you assert again.

But how do you know this by sensation? You said that "all information" must come externally and by sensation.

 

But how do you know this by sensation? You said that "all information" must come externally and by sensation.

How can you have this information about "stop having senses" if "all information" must come externally and by sensation?

So again I wonder what happens if I punch you really hard in the face while you are sleeping.

Do you believe in science? Do you believe in experimentation? Then tell someone to try it on you tonight.

But that's the problem — you have not yet shown how one can see anything, so how can anyone "see above"?

Suppose that someone stands behind you for several seconds and then leaves, and none of your senses registered his presence. This means that something was around you and you did you sense it.

So, if you say (although you do not), "I always sense everything around me," then this would be wrong because you did not sense this person.

But if you say (as you admit), "I do not always sense everything around me," then how do you know? You never sensed this person who stood behind you, so how can you know that he was behind you and that you did not sense him?

But you are begging the question. You wrote, "I know that I didn't sense something until after I eventually sense it." You "know"?! But you wrote that "all information" must come externally and by sensation.

How?

And how do you know this?

Which?

 

"Most"? But if "all information" comes externally and from sensation, then to make this statement, you must have sensed all radio waves, then counted (again by sensation) how many of them are "readily accessible from Earth's surface"? To say "most," you must know all, and then count that the majority are "accessible" (what does that mean?!).

But how do you know all radio waves by sensation? Don't just assert it, show it!

How do you know that these instruments are reliable? In your view, you would be sensing only the "effects" of these radio waves through the instruments. To know that the instruments do not distort the objection of sensation (the radio waves), you must directly sense the radio waves and then sense the effects of these radio waves through the instruments, and then compare the two sensations.

But if you can do that, you wouldn't need the instruments!

You moron!

Why? And how do you know? Don't just say it, show it, prove it!

 

What are you seeing and hearing? The radio waves, or the sound from the radio?

 

Really?

 

You assume? (He "assumes.")

"From space"? Have you sensed space? Ah, but you "assume."

How do you know this by sensation?

What are you talking about? You mean the origin of the "natural phenomena" is theory, or what?

Please learn to write clearly.

But if "all information" comes externally and by sensation, then you must sense that you don't know something in order to know that you don't know this "something." But if you sense this "something," then how is it that you do not know this "something"?

Are you saying that "you do not know certain things" or that "you know that you do not know certain things" is the "consequent of sensory input"? But if you have "sensory input" of these "certain things," then how do you not know them?

 

Here you just re-state your view, and then say "come on…this is elemental," as if I missed something. "Lack of sensory input means, lack of sensation" — fine, but this is not what I asked you. I asked you that if "all information" must come from sensation, then how can you know about a lack of sensation? How do you sense a lack of sensation? How do you sense a lack of sensory input?

Is this supposed to answer my question?! I asked "What are these certain things (that you do not know)?" and "In what sense do you not know them?"

And you answered, "Sight and memory of past sight and experience."

So, do you mean, "I do not know sight and memory of past sight and experience"?

Or, do you mean, "I do not know them in the sense of sight and memory of past sight and experience"?

Now, what in the world does this mean?!

(Does it not seem like that Sansone is trying to psycho-assert me into submission?)

But I already wrote (and as you quote below), "Maybe you have seen a picture of the earth? But a picture is not the earth, so at best you sensed a picture….Also, a picture is flat, so how is the earth a sphere?"

What surrounding elements?

What surrounding elements will tell you that the earth is a sphere when you cannot see it as a sphere?

What surrounding elements will tell you that the earth is a sphere when a picture of the earth is flat?

What surrounding elements will tell you that the earth is a sphere when you have only the testimonies of "experts"? And how do you know that they are really experts by sensation?

 

I probed your souces, I examined your view, I scratched below the surfaces, and that is why I call you

A MORON!

What technology? How do you know that the technology is reliable to test something if you need the technology to test that something in the first place?

"Sufficient data"? Sufficient according to whom? Sufficient according to you? If so, then your standard is subjective, but you said that you depend on "objective evidence." What objective evidence defines that there is "sufficient data"?

So you trust "scientific experiment"? But I have shown in my books that the method of experimentation commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. That is,

If X is true, then Y is true.
Y is true.
Therefore, X is true.

But this is a fallacy because it may be that A, B, or C causes Y to be true, not X. To repeat experiments is only to repeat this fallacious procedure over and over again.

As even the atheist Bertrand Russell admits:

All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.

And Karl Popper writes:

Although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it….In science there is no "knowledge," in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.…Einstein declared that his theory was false – he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.

But Derek Sansone writes:

"This works for me."

"For me"?! But you claimed to be objective.

If you want to know or claim to know anything by science, then you must overcome this objection about affirming the consequent, and establish by argumentation your philosophy of science.

(See also "Is Science Superstitious?" by Bertrand Russell. Near the end of this essay, he writes, "The great scandals in the philosophy of science ever since the time of Hume have been causality and induction….Hume made it appear that our belief is a blind faith for which no rational ground can be assigned….This state of affairs is profoundly unsatisfactory…We must hope that an answer will be found; but I am quite unable to believe that it has been found." Sansone offers no argument to support his "blind faith" in causality and induction; instead, he seems to superstitiously believe in science. As for me, I have explained and defended my view of science in my books, which Sansone fails to engage.)

How do you know when something is an error and when it is not? If you cannot tell, then how do you know that you are not in error now?

This is just an assertion, not an argument or a proof.

How do you know that "current cosmology" is correct? Don't just say it, show it!

And when you say, "current cosmology," do you mean that it may change? If so, then how do you "know" that it is correct now? Which is it?

LOL.

How, how, how do you know this?! How do you get this information ("just because of my angle") from sensation?

If I look at the sun from space, and it looks like a sphere, I can just as easily say, "It looks like a sphere to me, but that is just because of my angle."

So is the sun flat, or is it a sphere? How do you know?

On the other hand, so far you show yourself to be a MORON from any angle.

ROFL.

What is the logical process by which you infer this expectation from your experience?

Don't just psycho-assert, show it! Write out the process of reasoning.

There are "axiomatic laws of…nature" now? What are you talking about? What are they? How do you know about them?

But this does not answer the question, why or why not?

How would you know?

But who are your parents? How did you know? Or is that also an axiom?

 

So you are Pavlov's dog. But like I said, "There is not always food after the sensation of the bell's ring." So the question remains, how did you learn your name by sensation? Nothing you have said so far even comes close to being a real answer.

Hey, answer the question! Or do you give up? Why is it "enough"? Enough of what? You haven't answered anything.

Again, how do you know that there is "enough of this"? How do you sense "enough"? Or, what do you sense from which you infer that this is enough? Is the inference valid? Please show it.

And "enough of this" according to whom? According to you? If I had known that "enough of this" is a proper move in debate, then I could have just do the same to you and saved me some time, but then you probably would have accused me of avoiding your questions.

(Please see the section marked "10B. VINCENT, continued" to see all the remaining questions that Sansone does not even try to answer.)

How is this question relevant to me?

Also, are you saying that if "we already know with certainty that we use" something, then we do not presuppose it? Isn't it the other way around, that if you already know with certainty that we use something, that you do presuppose it? What are you talking about?

Call what "something else"? Logic? You say "their label" (plural) — so are you talking about the label for the characteristics, or logic? What are you talking about?

"It's fundamental characteristics"? The "fundamental characteristics" of what? Logic? What are you talking about?

(Dear readers, have I not been more than patient with Sansone? I am doing this only for you.)

So you do not believe in logic? What are you talking about?

Or, by "no believing," do you  mean no presupposing or assuming (without justification)? What are you talking about?

 

I am not sure, but you might be talking about how some people use the transcendental argument to justify logic, and say that it cannot be justified otherwise? Is that it?

If so, then where have I done this? Are you talking to me, or to Bahnsen and Van Til?

Bahnsen and Van Til are not here, so why don't you talk to me instead?

Are you still talking about logic? How can you use logic to "find" something? Logic itself is without content. And how is logic a "brain emission"?

Also, you are the one who says that "all information" comes externally, and is known only by sensation. So again, does information about logic come externally and by sensation or not? But if logic is your "brain emission," then your brain must be outside of you. Here you seem to say that you know and defend logic because logic is unavoidable and self-evident, but on your view, you can and must only know that logic is unavoidable and self-evident externally and by sensation.

Please make up your mind.

Where have I doubted logic?

But I would like to know how you learned it if "all information" must come externally and by sensation, as you psycho-asserted.

This is just an assertion. How do you know? Show it.

What is a moral machine? And how do you know that you are a part of it by sensation? What are you talking about?

How do you know?

How do you know?

And without justifying this, you jump to…

 

So whatever is learned is not supernatural or spiritual? Why?

How do you know?

And if "morality requires knowledge," how does this speak "to motivations"?

How do you know? And by what standard of morality do you say this? And how do you justify this standard of morality?

If you want to avoid punishment, you are being "obedient"?! Shouldn't you say "prudent"? Why or why not?

How can morality be mature or immature? How do you know?

The "act itself is found to be good"? By what standard?

I thought you said that you were a former Calvinist, but Calvinists teach that we are moral because we are grateful to God.

You must have been as stupid a Calvinist as you are an atheist.

Again, this is just an assertion. Write out an argument for it.

I offer arguments in my books, which you have yet to engage. You are just making an assertion. You are attempting "to make ignorance into a philosophy."

What is "deep" philosophical content? Do you mean what you have been saying so far?

And this is what you have done.

This is just an assertion. (It's just a dodge, a trick, a way to dodge the fact that Sansone has no real justification at all. Well, at this point, Sansone hasn't even given us a fake justification.)

But how do we know "everything we know"? You said you wanted to get to "the core," but when I asked you about it, you just kept on making assertions.

But what is faith? You said earlier that you believe in atoms by "faith."

Any philosophy can be a system, but maybe not a true system. Any proposed epistemological principle is an epistemology, but just not necessarily a true or good one.

Your lack of precision is annoying to me, and probably to my readers also.

This is just an assertion. How do you know it? Show it.

Have I asked you to establish meaning to life? Where?

Or are you still talking to other "presuppositionalists"?

(By now he has ignored me, and is just ranting and ranting.)

How? Don't just assert it? Show it.

And what do you mean by "meaning" to life?

"To me," again? So are you objective or subjective?

How does this apply to me?

But you just said, "That there is a "meaning" to life is begging the question." So you are now begging the question.

"By definition"? How? I can just as easily say, "A meaning of life must be God-chosen, by definition!"

If theistic claims are unknowable, then how do you know that they are unknowable?

Did I say this? Where?

Did I say this? Where?

(To find out what I say about God's "incomprehensibility," please see my Systematic Theology.)

And therefore there is no "veridical basis or platform for such speculations" for this statement you made.

Are there any "empirical laws of nature"? Show me one and prove it.

"As we understand them"? But you claimed to be objective.

And therefore we cannot base your worldview on logic.

True.

Did I say this? Where?

Also, why is "above logic" necessarily the same as "alogical"? Show it!

(Please see my books to learn what I say about logic, and its relation to God.)

Ok. Please explain…

Why are laws limits? You are assuming without argument that all laws are prescriptive rather than descriptive. Don't just assert it, show it!

"Omni-" means "all, universally."

"Potent" means "powerful."

(Please see Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)

 

Fine, then I will just say "all-powerful" – a positive characteristic.

Why would the "universe" have to be without limits if only the "being" has to be omnipotent?

How do you know this? Don't just assert it, show it!

But how is it verified? By sensation? You have yet to prove that this is possible.

 

Why?

 

Why must it be specifically "testable" (empirically again?) instead of just rationally demonstrated by argument?

 

So that which is not testable "violates" the laws of logic? Show the contradiction. Write it out and let us see.

It's so simple actually. The senses cannot be used to prove the validity of the senses! This is a contradiction!

No, and that is why I don't believe your nonsense.

Do I say this? Where? Whose assertion or argument are you trying to address here?

(It seems that by this point, Sansone is getting confused and hysterical.)

This depends on what you mean by "faith" or "by faith."

As for you, at least when it comes to atoms, you said, "This is where you use faith."

So you "hold to a belief" in atoms "based on desire."

As for me, this is not what I mean by faith. I have both told you what I mean by it, and I have explained it in detail in my Systematic Theology. If you assert that "faith" must mean what you assert it to mean, then you must show it, and not just psycho-assert it.

 

So you "hold to a belief" in atoms "based on desire" "without ANY epistemological justification"? Well done! 

But you also said, "But, me having faith in atoms is a belief based on expectations of things already experienced or humanly experience-able."

So which is it, you flip-flopping moron?

Are you trying to refute me or refute yourself? Can't you just do this alone instead of writing to me and wasting my time?

Also, what you say here is just an assertion. What is the proper "epistemological justification"? Although you have asserted it many, many, many times (like a psycho), you have yet to defend your view on this.

Therefore, your "faith" in atoms is "anti-knowledge." That's it. That's all your faith is, and it is all your faith can be.

Also, this is just an assertion. But at least you are consistent in your method of "debate" — assert, re-assert, and then assert again.

But why must I grant your definition of faith? You have made no argument to show that it must mean what you say that it means.

I can just as easily say, "Derek Sansone = a psycho moron. If you want to argue that Derek Sansone is something more, two errors occur: 1. You make Sansone into something that he is not: a human being with even below average intelligence, and 2. You change the nature of Sansone so that it no longer serves its intended goal — to be the public example by which Vincent Cheung shows the world that atheism and empiricism is intellectual manure."

In any case, now I also understand that, 1. Your "faith" in atoms is not (or is not based on) "reasonable expectation, probability, etc.", and 2. Your "faith" in atoms is held "where no evidence exists."

You are the one who confuses what "faith" is. But unlike you, I have shown it (above), rather than just psycho-assert it.

Who are you talking to? Or who are you talking about? I certainly do not say this.

At the beginning of our dialogue, when I cautioned you about confusing me with others, you responded, "I understand. I don't mind reading theological material." But here, you are certainly not talking about what's in my books. So why don't you say this to whoever you are thinking about? Why are you saying this to me?

Right — they (whoever you are talking about), but not necessarily me. You are just ignoring me, aren't you?

Have you asked everyone?

Also, I give reasons for believing in God in my books, which you have failed to engage. To psycho-assert is not to prove or to argue.

Which theist? Do I know him?

Right, we have already read about your irrational faith in atoms.

Like your faith in atoms?

But again, which theist? Who are you talking about? What does this have to do with me? Is this how you do debates? Do I even need to be here? Come on, man, talk to me.

LOL. No, you don't. You told us you have "faith" in atoms, you flip-flopping moron.

Yes, according to you, without it, we cannot believe in atoms.

So is it faith or not? Is it "faith in people" but "not really faith"? Which is it?

You are saying that "experience with strangers" will tell you something about "people you've never met before, people you have no experience with."

How does this work? Are there good people and bad people?

If I have met only good people, then am I supposed to believe that all people are good? This is a logical fallacy.

If I have met only bad people, then am I supposed to believe that all people are bad? This is also a logical fallacy.

What if I have met both kinds? Is the new stranger then good or bad?

 

No, even after infanthood, according to you, we still need to have faith in atoms.

But when it comes to atoms, you work on faith, which you then stated is contrary to "reasonable expecation, probability, etc."

I can psycho-assert too. Let me try:

The natural world violates everything that we know about the supernatural world. This is definitional!

Here, I will do it again:

In fact, the only way to define "natural" is in this negative sense — what is not supernatural, is natural.

Logic is not a "process," you moron, let alone a "process of…observation." Reasoning is a process.

But I will psycho-assert again: Logic is God's reasoning system, the structure of his divine mind, which he has implanted in man as his image, and by which we have now defeated Derek Sansone.

I will psycho-assert again: Logic is non-experiential and is not grounded in induction and empiricism.

Now, induction is a fallacy, and you have yet to show how you can know anything by empiricism.

Again, this is just an assertion. Show it, prove it!

And therefore, atheism is wrong, and Sansone is a moron.

Why? Don't just assert it, show it!

Again, you are not talking to me. I never said that logic is only contingently true.

I never said that God is beyond logic.

John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The word translated "Word" is logos, which is just as (or even more so) properly translated "Reason" or "Logic."

Thus in the beginning was Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.

Now what?

Who? Who says this? Do I know him? I don't say this, do I?

Which two systems?

But what is nature?

So material = energy = thing? How do you know? Oh, you are just psycho-asserting again.

How do you know this?

How did you arrive at this conclusion? So far you have just been psycho-asserting.

Also, what if I define nature differently? And what if I do not use the word "supernatural," so that the whole thing is one system but that God is still different from the material world?

It seems that you are just defining and asserting, then accepting your own definitions and assertions, and then asserting the conclusion, and then congratulating yourself.

Again, why do you need me here?

(What do you mean by "ration"? I think that this is a typo, but since I am not sure, I will not delete it.)

But you have yet to show what we really know about reality. I can just as easily say, "Atheism, therefore, is an assault on everything that man knows about reality: God, reason, logic, predestination, and so on."

What is "rational metaphysics"? Yours? How is your metaphysics rational? And if everything is material, then how can you have a meta physics, instead of just physics?

This is getting tedious, but I don't want to let anything slip by without making a comment. So, again, this is just an assertion. Show it.

Why? And you have yet to show the "existence over consciousness" nonsense.

Why?

Then what caused the universe?

What is the "metaphysically given"? And why and how do you know that no one can alter it? And what does this have to do with omnipotence?

Who says that "infinite means without any specific quality"? And how do you know this by sensation? How have you sensed "infinite"? Even if you can know anything at all by sensation, how can you sense "infinite," or anything that is "infinite" in order to know it? If it is infinite, you can never finish sensing it to know that it is infinite. You can at best sense a part of it, but if you sense only a part of it, how do you know that it is infinite?

Also, who says that God is just "infinite"? What if he is "infinitely X" or some other specified quality or qualities?

 

What is your definition of a miracle? What are "the laws of identity"? Do you mean the "law" of identity (A = A)? How does a miracle contradict it?

(Please see my Systematic Theology for my definition on "miracle.")

This is just an assertion. How do you know that "consciousness is a faculty of living organisms"? Show it. Write out your argument for it.

Do you mean that "living organisms" = "physical beings"? How do you know? Where is your argument for this?

And why must God be an "organism" to have consciousness? What is an "organism"? How do you know?

Do you mean every argument commonly offered for the "notion" of God, or for the "existence" of God? What would be an argument for the "notion" of God? Please give me an example of arguing for a "notion." Any "notion."

Also, whatever this means, this is just an assertion. You must show it. List "every argument commonly offered for the notion of god" and refute each. Otherwise, I can just as easily say the opposite: "Every argument commonly offered against the notion of God leads to a contradiction of the axioms of logic and reality itself."

Then, what is "reality"? Or what are the "axioms of…reality"? I suppose you have excluded God from "reality" by definition? If so, does this not beg the question? 

What are "the axioms of logic"? Do you mean that logic are the axioms, or that there are axioms for logic?

If you can't even talk clearly, how do you present and defend your view, let alone refute mine?

Are you drunk?

This is just an assertion. Show it. What are these "preconditions of thought"? And exactly how does "the notion of god" contradict these "preconditions of thought"?

What do you mean "no logic"? Do you mean "no argument"? "Logic" itself, as in a law of logic (or all the laws of logic), has no content in itself. Only an argument has content.

Again, you need to be more precise. If you are going to speak nonsense, at least do it like a professional.

What do you mean by "observation of nature (i.e. logic)"? Do you mean that "observation of nature" is "logic"? If not, what?

And why is the supernatural the "very antithesis of nature"?

 

Again, who are you talking to? Where have I made an inference from the natural to the supernatural?

Right, and therefore God exists.

But how do you know this by sensation? Also, are you "existence"? If not, then do you exist?

How do you know this by sensation?

What is "the world of logic"? And how does one "leave" it?

How does one contradict the world of logic? What in the world do you mean?! Do you just mean "contradict logic," rather than "contradict the world of logic"? Even so, how does one "contradict logic"? What is logic that you can contradict it?

And therefore your axiom must be false.

But how do you know this by sensation?

How do you know this by sensation? How have you sensed "any attempt"?

How do you know this by sensation? And please define "existence."

How do you know this by sensation?

So, again, how did you learn the word "as"?

(I encourage my readers to read again my short closing statement in section 11B — all that I have said there still applies. Sansone has added nothing new to the discussion by his final statement, but his many incoherent and unjustified assertions may disorient some of you, and whether it is intentional or not, this seems to be the only strength in his tactic — that is, he tries to wear out the reader's resistance by his numerous but groundless assertions. Reviewing my closing statement will help reorient you about the "core" issues, as Sansone himself puts it, and to see that I have successfully defeated him.)

 

AFTERWORD

As you can see, Sansone is crazy. He speaks nonsense, and then he keeps on asserting his view over and over again. Therefore, I call his method "psycho assertionism" — that is, his method is to repeatedly assert his view like a madman. As my wife observes, it is possible that Sansone may have psycho-asserted himself into adopting atheism in the first place.

It seems that Sansone has been stirring up some trouble on and off the Internet, and challenging people to debate him, especially "presuppositionalists." So I decided to correspond with him several times. Now we see that he is nothing.

I usually do not deal with amateurs like Sansone, but would deal only with the arguments of professional atheistic philosophers, such as those presented in their publications. Although professional atheistic philosophers are almost always more precise and coherent than Sansone, the substance of their arguments never really rises above Sansone's level.

I hope that the above dialogue has encouraged you, showing you that Christians do not need to be intimidated by atheists. Contrary to what they try to have people believe, they are the irrational fools of this world.

If you would like to learn more about theology and apologetics, I have several books that you may download at our ministry web site.

–
Vincent Cheung
http://www.vincentcheung.com

SOME COMMENTS FROM READERS

"Poor little Sansone. His days are over…world is finished. "

"Cheung not only prevails, but he prevails with style."

"…it was absolutely poetic and powerful."

"I must say you had both my wife and me rolling with laughter."

"Nice job. 'Psycho assertionism' says it all. This guy could be any of about 1000 people I used to speak to at Brown University."

"It is encouraging for me to see men of God like yourself standing for the truths of Christianity."

"Your Sansone fiasco is very interesting. He certainly presents no challange at all!!!"

"Derek…I would have loved to hear what you think of Vincent Cheung handing you your head on a platter. Do you 'sense' what I'm saying?"

"I am quite taken with your dialogue. I think it astounding."

"Wow, truly amazing. Thanks for sharing the conversation with us. It's really encouraging and it would definitely stir me up to think through my understanding of your essays."

FREE BOOKS AND ARTICLES

These and other free books and articles are available from our web site at http://www.vincentcheung.com.

To download, right-click on the link corresponding to the file you wish to acquire, and then choose "Save Target As."

Ultimate Questions
Presuppositional Confrontations
Apologetics in Conversation
The Problem of Evil
Professional Morons

So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense.

But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God's weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.

Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world's eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important.

As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God. God has united you with Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made him to be wisdom itself. Christ made us right with God; he made us pure and holy, and he freed us from sin. Therefore, as the Scriptures say, "If you want to boast, boast only about the LORD." (1 Corinthians 1:18-31, NLT)

The Christian faith, this message about Jesus Christ, is a revelation of the wisdom and power of God. Non-Christians do not think so because they have different standards – false and irrational standards. The Jews and the Greeks had different perspectives. One respected power and the other sought the ultimate philosophy, and neither thought that a doctrine about a crucified man could be the answer to humanity's questions and problems.

Non-Christians are essentially the same but they do not all think exactly alike. Some lean toward politics, others emphasize economics, and still others think that science is the savior of mankind. Then, there are others who perceive that these are futile, but that the key is in religion and spirituality. So they make an idol and bow down to it. Some make five hundred and bow down to them. Others try a little meditation. Although they appear to differ, by their standards of judgment they all agree that a message about a man who was nailed to a cross cannot be the only and final solution to all human ills. Of course, if they did not think like this, they would already be Christians.

Non-Christians use the wrong standards of judgment because although they think that they are smart, they are all stupid. And although they think that they are intellectually honest, they are all delusional hypocrites. They do not think that they need God to tell them anything. If something is there, they will find out about it by their own methods. If something is true, they will figure it out by their own wisdom. Even God, they insist, cannot hide from them. If they cannot discover or understand something, then it must not be there in the first place. Thus they consider themselves the ultimate reference point for all thinking and investigation, the center of all existence.

This is remarkably similar to those theologians who declare that certain biblical doctrines are beyond human understanding, and incomprehensible to our finite human minds, not because there is biblical evidence stating this, but because they themselves cannot grasp these doctrines. In other words, they follow the demonic wisdom of the non-Christians in making themselves the ultimate reference point for all thinking and investigation, the center of all existence, and the very standard of what is possible for the human intellect. If they cannot understand something, this means that no man in all of history can understand it. This is what they call humility! In any case, the non-Christians call the gospel foolishness, not because the gospel is indeed foolishness, but because they are so stupid and self-centered that they fail to recognize the wisdom of God. And what these unbelievers call nonsense and foolishness, theologians call mysteries and paradoxes. Thus non-Christians openly blaspheme, and the theologians do the same thing, but hide behind euphemisms. These are some of the most heinous and destructive troublemakers in the church.

All of this is by God's design. Since non-Christians and those Christians who follow their way of thinking refuse to humble themselves and learn from God, but rather make their unrenewed intellect the judge of all things, "God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom." God sees to it that the non-Christians would never succeed, but would forever wallow in perpetual speculation and confusion. And rather than allowing the theologians to grasp the simplicity and coherence of the faith, he causes them to spiral deeper and deeper into mysteries, paradoxes, and absurdities. They claim to honor God with their minds, but they refuse to accept what God teaches, and to acknowledge the inherent coherence and perfection of God's revelation. They are like the non-Christians because they also perceive the Christian faith as foolish, only they realize that they are not supposed to say this, so they use different words to express the same opinion.

So God makes a mockery of them. He makes fools out of them. He allows non-Christians to pursue their sciences and philosophies, but all these compound fallacies upon fallacies, resulting in absurdities upon absurdities. He makes sure that they will never know him by their own methods and powers. But since God is the most basic principle to all of reality, it means that by their sciences and philosophies non-Christians can never discover the truth about reality. They think that science is a direct contact with reality, but the truth is that it has no intelligent contact with it at all. They think that their philosophy is an exercise in reason, but the truth is that it is completely out of touch with the actual and the rational. And there is only hellfire in the end. God watches, and laughs at them.

Then, he allows the Christian theologians to boast of their finitude and confusion. Rather than learning the plain truth and teaching it to God's people in all its simplicity and perfection, they make a magic show out of the gospel. Here a mystery, there a paradox, and everywhere a contradiction. Now they believe this, then they believe the opposite, and then they believe both at the same time! They blame the Bible, and claim that the Bible teaches both sides of a contradiction. The truth is that the Bible teaches only one side, but they want to believe the opposite as well, and so they want to affirm both. God declares a teaching in simple and direct statements, and they immediately obscure it with religious sounding slogans, till the hiss of the serpent drowns out the voice of the shepherd. They refuse to enter the place of rest and clarity, neither will they let others go in. The world watches, and laughs at them. The theologians rise up and defend themselves, but they do not even know which way is up or down, or perhaps both are up and down – because they cannot make any sense and are proud of it – the world rolls over in laughter and becomes hardened in their unbelief. This is God's punishment against the theologians, and against a church that admires them.

God says to the non-Christians, "You think you are so clever. I will make sure your cleverness never touches the truth. I will present the truth in a way that offends your intellectual assumptions. You think you are so powerful. I will make sure your power never achieves anything worthwhile. I will manifest my power in a manner that you will perceive as extreme weakness. I will make sure that you will never attain salvation by any means that is comfortable to your thinking." Thus the history of non-Christians is a story of failure, and also of self-delusion regarding its success and progress. They mock the gospel, but the gospel is the very thing – the only thing – that could save them. So God mocks them in return by showing them what they would not expect, and what they would refuse. He makes them suffer their own mockery, by making the way of salvation something that they could not accept. And what happens to those preachers and theologians who pretend to be experts but make a mockery of the Christian faith? God makes a mockery out of them, and embarrasses them before the world. The Christian who has a pure heart, like a little child, and who does not care if someone is reverend this or doctor that, exclaims, "Hey, the theologians have no clothes!"

"God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important." We see this in so many things that God does. Non-Christians esteem human power and wisdom, but God placed their only hope on a cross. The Jews trusted in their natural ancestry and their own effort, but God saved the Gentiles by Jesus Christ through faith. Some are educated and influential, but God chose the weaklings of the world, filled them with his Spirit, and unleashed them to defy the human powers and to preach his message.

There are those who claim to be Christians, but who have trouble with the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. They think that they are honest and thinking men, but in reality they are non-Christian hypocrites who pretend to be Christians. God compiled his thoughts into a book, recorded by men that the world despised but who were carried along by his Spirit. The scholars profess to seek wisdom, but they refuse to hear from God. So he places before them the most powerful and the only true intellectual system in existence – the very thing that they are supposedly after, their life's quest, and the holy grail of all intellectuals – and they cannot take it.

Again, "God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom." The treasure is protected in plain sight. The Christian faith is a testimony against the non-Christians' foolishness and dishonesty. And it exposes those who infiltrate the church and pretend to be one of us. A non-Christian cannot truly accept the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scripture, or the deity of Christ, or the atonement. He will always see God's revelation as foolish, as wrong. If he forces himself to profess the faith, he will always see mysteries, paradoxes, and contradictions. He will always see problems. He will always see something that is not there. And when Christians offer solutions, he will refuse them even if he cannot refute them. This is God's design. He sees to it that those who persist in unbelief and who are heading toward destruction will never get their filthy hands on his wisdom and knowledge.

Non-Christians, who are themselves foolish, do not know how to judge, or to distinguish truth and error. They regard what is good as evil, and what is evil as good. And they regard what is wise as foolish, and what is foolish as wise. Christians were at one time non-Christians, and subject to the same confusion. But God gives insight to those whom he desires to save from his wrath, so that they now perceive the Christian faith as what it really is – the very wisdom and power of God. They perceive that there is no imperfection in the Christian faith, not even apparent ones. There is nothing that confounds or mystifies. There is only truth, beauty, and ultimate power. One theologian said that all biblical doctrines end in paradox, although he presented nothing that could not be resolved in a moment. This is not a sign of wisdom and reverence, but of profound unbelief, depravity, and intellectual incompetence. As a Christian, I see only simplicity, coherence, and perfection.

"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'

"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:25-33)

Some aspects of Jesus' ministry were very attractive. His preaching carried authority and conveyed truth, defied man-made traditions, and relieved the people from the burdens imposed on them by the religious establishment. Then, there were the miracles, hundreds and hundreds of miracles. He healed the sick, cast out demons, raised the dead, and multiplied food. Contrary to those who attempt to undermine the place of miracles, not all those who sought signs and wonders did it out of unworthy motives, such as to satisfy their curiosity or their stomachs. Many of them had genuine and desperate needs, and they came to Jesus in faith. All those blind men and lepers were not looking for amusement, but help from their God. The Lord did not rebuke them, but he commended them and healed them.

That said, there were indeed many who followed him that did not strive to understand him or to obey his teachings. Jesus was deliberate in chasing away insincere seekers. He preached some of the scariest messages, and often behaved in a manner calculated to push people away. I had counseled some believers, who after reading his Sermon on the Mount, feared that they were never converted. A rich man eagerly came to him and inquired about salvation. He told him to give everything away, and the man left, saddened. Jesus gave hard teachings to the people. He told them that he was the bread that came down from heaven, and that he would ascend to where he was before. And he said that no one could come to him unless the Father enabled him. From then on, many of those who followed him turned back, and no longer followed.

Christians need to learn the difference between running after a lost sheep and inviting a wolf into the sheepfold. The sheep may be wayward, but it knows the shepherd's voice, and it will not follow a stranger. On the other hand, a wolf is governed by its self-interest, and its hunger for satisfaction. Due to their spiritual insecurity and desperation to produce an appearance of success, Christians have gathered multitudes of wolves into the church. The sheep run for their lives, and sometimes the safest move is to leave the sheepfold, where the person in charge is nothing but a hireling anyway.

The Lord was not desperate for followers. He knew that a man could not come to him unless the Father enabled and compelled him. And he knew that he would lose none of those whom the Father had given into his hands. So he turned to his closest disciples and asked if they wanted to leave as well. Peter answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." For them, it was Jesus Christ, or nothing at all. Those who left did not think like this. So they were never true disciples. They were walking along with Jesus, but their hearts were somewhere else.

I had been seeking salvation for a while before I was converted. I knew it was only through Jesus Christ that anyone could be saved. And I wanted it. I wanted it more than anything else. I did not need any "seeker friendly" ministry. What was at work within me could not be destroyed by a few harsh words or hard sayings. If you had told me that I was a sinner, that I was a useless piece of garbage, I would have said, "Yes, I know. Please help me." If you had said that I was a fool, that I was the most stupid person who ever lived, I would have said, "That's how I feel too. Please teach me." You could have kicked me in the face and I would have thanked you, if you would only teach me how to come to Christ.

There was no other option, and there was nothing to go back to. Without Christ, my life was over. That was it. For me, it was Jesus Christ, or nothing at all. I did not know then that God was already at work, that this earnest desire for salvation through Jesus Christ was the initial effect of an invincible divine summons to faith. Finally, I apprehended him, because he first apprehended me, and in a moment, divine love and mercy invaded my heart, and the power of sin was broken. Before this, I did not think that I would enter the ministry – I took it for granted that I was not good enough. But after that day, I knew that I must dedicate my life to serve the Lord Jesus, and I took it for granted that I could never do anything else.

The work of the Holy Spirit is robust, not fragile. You can beat on it again and again with a hammer, and all you will get is a broken hammer. A Pentecostal minister said that he could not talk to people before he preached, or the anointing would leave. The Bible indeed says that the Spirit descended on Jesus in the form of a dove. This may mean that the Spirit is pure, but surely it does not mean that he is a wimp. And a Pentecostal should at least consult Acts 2, where the Spirit came as a mighty wind and as tongues of fire. The Spirit would scare you off before you scare him off.

While I affirm the benefits of extended prayer and solitude, and that the regular chores of a church or family should not distract a minister from the ministry of the word, I also insist that the anointing is poured out on a man so that he can serve in power and humility, and to be an example. If a preacher has become too good to help in the nursery with all the dirty crying babies, or to scrub some toilets alongside the young people, because he might lose the anointing, then his anointing must be so weak that it would be better to play an audio recording of the Bible from the pulpit than to have him teach the people. Do you want to preach with power? Go study and pray, but then go wash the dishes and help your wife do the laundry. The power is in the Holy Spirit, not in your tranquil state of mind or your undisturbed tailored suit.

Accordingly, we need to preach the truth to potential converts and established believers, but we do not need to baby them. Some will be offended no matter what you do (Luke 7:31-35), but the Holy Spirit is not offended by the truth. When God works in your hearers, they will believe in Christ and receive his teachings. Try to push them away, and they will come right back. When Elijah called Elisha, Elisha slaughtered his oxen and burned his plowing equipment to cook the meat and gave it to the people. When Elijah was about to be received into heaven, three times he told Elisha, "Stay here," but Elisha said, "As long as the Lord lives and as you live, I will not leave you." Likewise, Peter and the others left all to follow Jesus.

This aspect is often neglected in preaching and evangelism, but it was integral to Jesus' ministry. Christians often say to people, "Jesus loves you and wants to save you. Just repeat this prayer after me." There! Another convert. But Jesus said, in effect, "You better think about what you are doing. Do not begin if you are not going to finish." To be a Christian, to be a follower of Jesus Christ, means that you can no longer think and behave and live like a non-Christian anymore. If you belong to another religion, and any other religion is a false religion, you will have to give it up and become its enemy. If you are on a career path that is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ, you will have to give it up. If you are in a family or a country where the people oppose the Christian faith, be prepared to lose your income, your position, your friends, and in some cases even your life.

So I will not say to you, "Just repeat this prayer" or "Pleeeeease accept Jesus." No, if you are not serious, if you think there is another option, if you do not understand what you are doing, then please do not come. My brothers have already packed our churches with losers like you. We do not need more. You are either all in or all out. The evangelists will tell you, "Today is the day of salvation. Come now!" Yes, come, but first think about what you are doing. You will be throwing away your old life. If you are going to go back, then do not come at all and waste our time. Do not vomit if you are just going to eat it. But if, for you, it is Jesus Christ or nothing at all, then you are ready. We have been waiting for you. Come and enter into the joy of the Lord.

I have heard differing perspectives from pastors and theologians about sharing the gospel with people at work. Some say don't do it because one's employer doesn't give one pay to evangelize. But at the same time, others have said that because one is on salary and what matters with salary employees is getting work done, nothing is necessarily wrong with evangelizing at work. Do you have a perspective on this?

If you are in favor of evangelism at work, would you recommend the same approach as you do in your books? I'm just worried that using such a blunt approach, which you've aptly defended from Scripture, could get me to lose my job, or hinder work relationships and stifle career progress. I know that my career does not precede my faith, but just like approaching those in authority with the gospel, would one have the same approach here?

To begin, we will consider the two arguments in an almost purely human context, since things change once we broaden the discussion.

The argument that the worker operates on the employer's money and should not pursue another agenda at work is compelling. It would be a form of theft or fraud for a person to receive a salary without offering the kind of service and the amount of productivity expected from him.

In fact, this first argument refutes the second, which claims that the salary is paid for getting work done, and as long as the work is done, the worker should be free to evangelize. This is a naïve view of employment. It is unrealistic, and it cannot be consistently carried out. The truth is that an employer never pays only for the work as such, but he also expects the worker to integrate himself into the company and adhere to the culture that the decision-makers wish to develop.

Thus, to illustrate, one cannot not say that as long as he gets the work done, he does not have to show up for work on time, or that he may wear a bunny suit to the office. Employment is not just about getting the job done, but it entails getting the job done in a specified manner, or within specified perimeters. The worker is expected to behave in a way that is consistent with the company's culture and practice. Even those who use the second argument know this, and in general follow this principle without thinking about it. But when evangelism or some other issue of interest comes up, suddenly it is only about getting the job done.

This mentality is shared by those who are very centered on individual rights, on democracy, who despise wealth and the wealthy, or those in authority, and who lack the kind of work ethic and respect for property rights that Scripture teaches. They are generally inferior workers and inferior human beings, and a nuisance and vexation to employers.

When I was in college, a professor of economics mentioned an actual case for the students to consider. A young couple was caught fornicating in the storage room of the company that employed them. They were terminated on the basis of a clause in the contract that targeted this kind of behavior. But they sued to get their jobs back and to recover lost wages. The argument was that they were not on duty at the time, although they were on the company's property. The case was settled by binding arbitration.

The professor gave us several minutes to think about it, and asked how we would have decided the case. I was surprised, much more so than I would now, that in a large class only a few sided with management. Many students were indignant that the couple was fired in the first place! Forget the contract – as long as they were not on the clock, they could do whatever they wanted even though they were on company property. The arbitrator in the case decided in favor of the employer. Doubtless the couple thought that they were cheated by the rich and powerful once again.

That said, at least in a relatively free society, workers possess certain rights even when they are operating on the company's time, money, and property. It would be unreasonable to forbid lunch breaks and bathroom breaks, or to forbid personal friendships among the workers. But when we refer to rights on this level, it is all relative to human culture and opinion, so that no universal principle can be established.

In the United States, a company that forbids bathroom breaks would be considered inhumane, but this thinking is based on certain ethical and biological assumptions that a company in another culture might not share, and as along as the discussion remains on this level, does not have to share. Thus it is impossible to further postpone a reference to the authority of God, since nothing definitive can be said on the basis of human law and culture alone.

There is no such thing as intrinsic human rights. When a person possesses a right, it means that others are obligated to treat him in a way that is consistent with this right. It is owed to him. This, of course, contradicts the sovereignty of God. He is the creator and ruler of all things, and he can do with any person whatever he wants. He can kill or make alive, and he can prosper and bring low. If man has inherent rights – rights that he possesses just because he is a man, without reference to any principle external to himself – then even God would be obligated to treat him in accordance with these rights. But since God is sovereign, there is no such thing as intrinsic human rights.

Instead, a right is something that is owed to a person because God has commanded that this person is to be treated certain ways or given certain things. These commands refer to how men are to treat one another, not to how God must treat them, and so these rights are only derived and relative, and not intrinsic or absolute. For example, God forbids one person to kill another, but he can kill whoever he wants, and he can command one man to kill another (as in the case of the death penalty). So God does not owe a man the right to live. Then, in the context of his covenant with man, God has promised to treat him in certain ways and to give him certain things through Jesus Christ, and this tells him how God would treat him. This is not a right intrinsic to man, but a promise freely given by God. Thus the only basis for thinking about rights is the word of God.

We learn how God thinks about these things in his law. There even slaves and animals have rights. They must be treated in the ways specified, not because they have these rights inherent in themselves, but because God has commanded that they must be treated in these ways. For example, Deuteronomy 25:4 says, "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." The idea is that the ox should be allowed to eat while it works, or it should be allowed to benefit from its labor. Paul applied this to the ministers of the gospel, and said that those who preach the gospel should have their needs supplied by or because of their preaching – that is, they should be paid. This and other divine laws form the basis for a universal principle of rights for workers.

This discussion is not a detour, but it shows that both arguments, although the first is compelling and refutes the second, are in themselves futile. And the first seems to have force only because the divine law against theft is assumed. Unless God's word is considered and submitted to, neither the employers nor the employees have rights. There would be no authoritative and universal basis to say that theft and fraud are wrong, or that oppression is forbidden. Lunch breaks and bathroom privileges are thus taken away, but the workers retaliate by stealing office furniture.

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ possesses authority over all realms and all spheres of human life (Matthew 28:18-20). This trumps all human laws and customs. There is the complaint that the missionary enterprise is subversive of the people's beliefs, cultures, and lifestyles. They protest that Christians invade a people and tell them that they are thinking wrong and living wrong, and that they need to change. Yet this is what Jesus has commanded us to do. Indeed, each people group has its habits, languages, and idiosyncrasies that often do not conflict with the Christian faith, and these can remain undisturbed. But we are under divine command to run over their religions, their philosophies, and to disregard their preference to be left alone. Their resistance is irrelevant. We are going in anyway.

Therefore, when it comes to our topic, the starting point of our thinking is the Great Commission, and this means that Christians are authorized to preach the gospel at the workplace. This is the starting point, or the general principle, but it does not settle the issue. Although we may disregard man's laws, customs, and preferences when they are against God's commands, we may not break God's own commands while fulfilling his other commands.

To illustrate, although we are commanded to preach the gospel, we are also commanded to respect other people's possessions, so that we cannot rob a bank to finance the gospel. We cannot break into a house while people are sleeping and wake them to call them to repentance. We are forbidden to use violence to advance the faith, and so we cannot threaten to murder a man's children if he refuses to accept our religion. Of course the command to announce eternal life in Christ is more important than personal property or even physical life, but the Bible does not teach graded absolutism.

So as a general principle, God's command authorizes us to preach the gospel to anyone in any setting, but his other commands establish restrictions on how this is carried out. This provides biblical support to the first argument mentioned at the beginning, that workers should honor the employer's rights and expectations. The second argument, that we are at liberty to preach as long as we get the job done, is unworthy of the saints of God, and ought to be abandoned. Rather, we say that we may preach the gospel at work, but we add to this the restrictions that God himself has imposed, and also other restrictions that the employer has imposed, provided the employer's restrictions do not contradict God's word, since God's word says that we are to submit under "every authority instituted among men" (1 Peter 2:13).

What this means in practice is that the Christian could preach the gospel at the workplace when he functions within that circle of liberty that remains after the divine and human restrictions have been observed. For example, earlier we said that a company could not within reason prevent workers from forming personal friendships. And friends talk about things. Here is one context where the preaching of the gospel can happen. I am not referring to "friendship evangelism," but to the bold preaching and vindication of the faith in the context of personal conversations. If a Christian can talk to another worker about why he likes sushi, then he can also explain why he believes that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. If extended personal conversations are frowned upon in the office, then do it during a lunch break.

You wrote, "If you are in favor of evangelism at work, would you recommend the same approach as you do in your books?" This depends on what you meant by the approach advocated in my books. If by "blunt" you meant harsh, the truth is that I do not simply push for a harsh approach – I never did. In fact, time and time again I have stated that the relatively calm and gentle approach is the default, especially in personal conversation. I have been surprised a few times at how harsh some Christians are at the outset, before it becomes necessary, and I have urged them to soften a little.

Although this is the principle, it is also true that a harsher approach, when the hearer is shown to be hard-hearted or blasphemous, is very often needed. My position is that although it often ends up this way, it is usually not necessary to start out like this. In some situations, it is appropriate to start blasting right away. My complaint against other Christians, especially those who teach others, is that they make it a matter of principle that we should never be harsh. This is unbiblical, and implies a condemnation against the prophets, the apostles, and even the Lord Jesus.

However, if by "blunt" you had in mind direct speech, then this is necessary, because it is the only way to preach the gospel. There is no such thing as an indirect preaching of the gospel. The Bible does not teach us to suggest or to imply the message, but to preach it – to assert it, declare it, proclaim it. The sentences themselves, even if spoken in a soft tone and with kind words, must be clear and direct.

Then, you wrote, "I'm just worried that using such a blunt approach, which you've aptly defended from Scripture, could get me to lose my job, or hinder work relationships and stifle career progress." Yes, this is called persecution. I always caution against unnecessary persecution. Avoid it without compromising the gospel, but if it is inevitable, face it with courage and honor. Do not bring disgrace to the Lord Jesus. Tact must not become an excuse for cowardice; rather, divine wisdom fills us with boldness, because by it we understand the power and the faithfulness of God, and also that he is to be feared more than men (Luke 12:4-5).

Finally, "I know that my career does not precede my faith, but just like approaching those in authority with the gospel, would one have the same approach here?" Of course not, unless you are speaking to your boss. And from biblical examples, we know that 1 Peter 3:15 does not exclude stern speech even against authority figures. Moreover, Peter commanded "gentleness and respect" in the context of his background, not ours. The meaning of these terms, therefore, refer to what gentleness and respect meant to Peter, and what gentleness and respect contrasted against in Peter's culture. Back then they tried to stone Jesus and to push him off a cliff, they arranged false witnesses against him, and sent him to a criminal's death, and as Pilate observed, all for religious jealousy. It would not take too much to behave with "gentleness and respect" against this background. On the other hand, Paul also commanded that some people ought to be harshly rebuked. Imagine what he considered harsh against the same cultural background. If we think about it this way, I have never been very harsh at all. It is just that other people are wimps or that they have been indoctrinated by culture instead of revelation, taught by men instead of taught by God.

Preach the gospel hard, or preach it soft, but it is impossible to avoid direct speech. If you are preaching the gospel at all, you will have to tell the person that he was born a sinner, and that unless he relies on Jesus Christ to save him, God will throw him into a lake of fire. Tell him "God will burn you in hell" in the most gentle and respectful manner, following all the mannerisms that the culture demands. If you want, bow down to him and put your face to the floor when you say it. It will still sound like "God will burn you in hell." How else can you say it? "God will heat up your being to an extremely painful degree in the cosmic inferno"? Will the unbeliever be pleased by this? If you preach the gospel at all, it is going to be direct, and it is going to be offensive, because it is not really the volume or the vocabulary that offends him, but the voice of God in the message.

If all this puts a lot of pressure on you, then you need to grow stronger in the faith. But perhaps I can provide some immediate relief. When it comes to evangelism, I disagree with the simplistic thinking often advanced. Some people say that if you have known a person for a week or a month, and he still does not know that you are a Christian, then there must be something wrong with you. In many cases this might be true, but the generalization itself is not. Just because you must preach the gospel does not mean that you must always charge at someone screaming "Repent, you heathen!" the moment he walks into your visual range. I have used this approach with great effect, but I would not do it all the time. Much depends on the personalities and circumstances.

When we are referring to evangelism in the context of personal conversation, and with individuals that you regularly meet, then I recommend praying for natural opportunities to arise, and patience in waiting for them. You are to preach a God who is living and sovereign, so think like it. A natural opportunity might be a situation that lends itself to a discussion on religion or philosophy, or when a co-worker mentions religion outright, or at least some ethical or political controversy. When evangelism begins this way, the advantage is that the other person has somewhat committed himself to the discussion, and cannot easily withdraw once it makes a natural transition to religion and ultimate principles. Since these are people you will see again, there is no rush to complete the discussion in one session. This reduces the strain on the Christian, as well as the shock to the unbeliever, since the doctrines of the faith can then be gradually introduced and explained.

If you are really having problems, then focus the conversation on the non-Christian at the beginning. When he mentions something that could lead to a discussion on religion or ultimate principles, ask him to clarify his points and to explain his reasons for believing them. Then challenge him, as gently as you wish, with questions about the source, the validity, the relevance, and other aspects of his arguments. Ask, "How did you arrive at this conclusion?" "How do you know this is true?" or "But how does this prove your point?" and the like.

This is not an avoidance of your responsibility, but it is in fact an important part of it. You are only allocating it to the beginning instead of spreading it throughout the conversation. Non-Christians are confident in their beliefs and in their intelligence, and so they have already made up their minds that Christianity is wrong. Thus it is helpful to show that they are not as intelligent as they assume, and that their positions are not as carefully considered as they think. If you can shake their confidence, and even humiliate them a little, they may become willing to hear an alternate view.

You can spend several conversations talking about a non-Christian's beliefs without mentioning the Christian faith. When it comes to someone that you will regularly meet, you do not have to do everything in one day. This lessens the burden on you, since it focuses on the other person first, and as the discussion transpires, perhaps you will gain confidence to present your own view, the Christian faith. This approach enables even the most timid Christian to take a first step in preaching the gospel.

Recommended:
Teach the Nations
The Bible, the Preacher, and the Spirit
The Context of 1 Peter 3:15
Apologetics in Conversation

Apostasy. Whenever a scandal breaks out against a minister, a number of people become disillusioned and either slacken in their commitment to their religion, or abandon it altogether. Somehow the sin of a leader is taken as evidence that the Christian faith itself is false. These must be some of the stupidest people in the world. It is likely that their faith has never been associated with the proper object, Jesus Christ. Instead, they have put their hope on the leader, on the church, on other believers, or on the feeling of security and comfort that they derive from being a member of the community. We claim that our faith is in God and not men. Scandals test this profession to reveal the true nature and object of our worship.

Hypocrisy. It is said that Christians are hypocritical. A hypocrite is a person who claims to be someone that he is not, or who says he will do one thing but does something different. Even a murderous psychopath is not a hypocrite if he keeps slaughtering people. Hypocrisy is a specific charge, and does not apply to every person who does something wrong. It refers to an inconsistency between the claim and the truth. That said, Christians not only admit that they are imperfect, but they insist that they continue to sin, and sin often. They are not happy about this, and by the grace and power of God, they strive to put off the old man and put on the new man, to put on Jesus Christ. But the basis for this admission and this attitude is the very moral standard that Christians proclaim to the non-Christians. So where is the hypocrisy, if when Christians sin, they do exactly what they tell the world would happen?

Identity. One important point about church scandals is that many of the fallen leaders are in fact non-Christians. Anyone can say that he is a Christian, but does he fit the definition of a Christian? I can say that I am a Russian astronaut, but for that to be true I need to be Russian, and I need to be an astronaut. Otherwise, if I insult an American chef, one cannot then say that Russian astronauts hate American chefs. Yet this is often what happens in church scandals. We should first examine the doctrines. If a person denies what the Bible teaches about the nature of God, the creation of man and the world, the reality of sin, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the atonement, and justification by faith, then he is not a Christian. He does not fit the definition. I do not have to defend Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Scientists. And I do not have to answer for Catholic priests who molest hundreds of little boys. These people do not fit the definition of what it means to be Christians even in their doctrines – the most public and objective indications of their identity. I do not even have to check if they are people who profess the faith, who parrot the right doctrines, but who do not sincerely believe – they declare themselves to be non-Christians by the doctrines they publicly profess. They retain the name or label, but not the actual teachings of the religion. Thus these are non-Christians who commit these atrocities while pretending to the Christians. If they are hypocrites, these are non-Christian hypocrites, and demonstrate the hypocrisy of non-Christians.

Slander. Preachers are targets for false accusations. The Lord himself was attacked by false testimonies, and the apostles were regularly slandered. Of course, when it comes to church scandals, we assume that some accusations are true, and we would not grant those who have done wrong immunity from discipline or even prosecution. But it would not be right to believe an accusation just because it has been made. If we have no information about the truth of the matter, it is best to withhold judgment. Also, if there is a temptation to gloat or feel vindicated when a Christian of a different persuasion is brought low, resist this temptation. Do not rejoice in evil. However, if it has been shown that the accused is indeed guilty, then we may rejoice in the righteousness that has been done against him.

Sympathy. If the accusations are true, and there are true victims involved, we are to show them due sympathy and assistance, and to pray for them, so that they may receive the comfort that only comes from God. At the same time, we must not allow them to become bitter against the Lord, or to wallow in unbelief and self-pity. If needed, we are to rebuke them with all sternness and authority, and command them to repent of their wicked attitude, and to climb out of the pit of depression by the strength of the Lord.

Fear. Paul writes, "Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Corinthians 10:12, ESV). We should take warning, since indeed God intends them as warnings, when troubles fall upon others. Certainly, it reminds us to keep ourselves pure and upright, so that we provide no occasion for scandals. But we must also guard against false accusations, or even simple misunderstandings. There is no reason for a minister to lock himself into a room with a woman to "counsel" her. Have a witness present, and spend no time with her in private. Do not use compassion as an excuse. If she insists on private counsel, refer her to a woman, or just kick her out. And there is no reason to work with a child in private, or even a group of children. Insist that a parent of one of the children be present, or kick them all out. As for finances, it may be a good idea for the church members to select a competent individual, knowledgeable in accounting and filled with the Holy Spirit, to be the treasurer or to perform audits, so that the leadership does not consist in an entirely closed circle.

Faith. We must fear, because we see that in ourselves, we cannot live holy lives. We will fall short of God's righteous standard, and become vulnerable to criticisms and accusations. But we do not trust in ourselves to uphold our devotion and holiness. We have faith in God. We look to the throne of grace. He has called us to mature into the image of his Son, Jesus Christ. And Paul writes, "He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it" (1 Thessalonians 5:24, ESV).

Some of the publications from the online library are also available here as EPUB files. They are designed for and tested only in iBooks, to be used on devices such as the iPhone and iPad, but they should work on other devices that display EPUB files.

These files are not always updated to keep up with the official PDF files of the online library.

 
Systematic Theology
[ Download ]

Ultimate Questions
[ Download ]

Presuppositional Confrontations
[ Download ]

Apologetics in Conversation
[ Download ]

The Sermon on the Mount
[ Download ]

Prayer and Revelation
[ Download ]

The Ministry of the Word
[ Download ]

Commentary on Malachi
[ Download ]

Commentary on Galatians
[ Download ]

Commentary on Ephesians
[ Download ]

Commentary on Philippians
[ Download ]

Commentary on Colossians
[ Download ]

Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians
[ Download ]

Commentary on First Peter
[ Download ]

The Author of Sin
[ Download ]

Captive to Reason
[ Download ]

Invincible Faith
[ Download ]

Doctrine and Obedience
[ Download ]

Born Again
[ Download ]

Blasphemy and Mystery
[ Download ]

The View from Above
[ Download ]

Reflections on First Timothy
[ Download ]

Reflections on Second Timothy
[ Download ]

The Light of Our Minds
[ Download ]

On Good and Evil
[ Download ]

Pure Religion
[ Download ]

Godliness with Contentment
[ Download ]

Renewing the Mind
[ Download ]

Biblical Healing
[ Download ]

The Parables of Jesus
[ Download ]

Samson and His Faith
[ Download ]

Chosen in Christ
[ Download ]

The Problem of Evil
[ Download ]

Professional Morons
[ Download ]

God the Author
[ Download ]

Human Struggle and Divine Sovereignty
[ Download ]

Students in the Real World
[ Download ]

Sermonettes, Volume 1
[ Download ]

Sermonettes, Volume 2
[ Download ]

Sermonettes, Volume 3
[ Download ]

Sermonettes, Volume 4
[ Download ]

Sermonettes, Volume 5
[ Download ]

iBooks, iTunes, iPhone, and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

God created man in his own image. The most basic feature of this image of divinity is intelligence. By it man possesses an awareness of self. And through it man has the capabilities for thought and speech. The remarkable consequence is that man is able to think about himself and to talk to himself. He is not only capable of self-contemplation and self-examination, but also self-conference – he can consult with himself.

As with every other aspect of man, this reflection of divinity was corrupted when man transgressed the law of God and became enslaved to an evil nature. Now when a sinner talks to himself, he lies to himself. The Bible says that, although God has made his nature and his power evident to men, so that they know about him, in their wickedness they have suppressed this truth (Romans 1:18-20).

Some non-Christians find that they need to scream louder and louder to remain convinced, so that they even make a profession out of their unbelief. Perhaps the lies that they tell themselves might remain intact for a little longer if they can secure approval from other people, or if they can even baffle a few of those who affirm the reality of God, the very reality that threatens to erupt from their own minds and obliterate their sanity. The Bible says that they know about God's righteous standard and about the punishment ordained for offenders (Romans 1:32, 2:15), but because they are evil, and because they are feeble and dishonest in their intellects, they persist in their rebellion and wickedness (Romans 1:21-22).

Then, some unbelievers cannot even stand to lie to themselves about God, sin, and judgment. They prefer not to talk to themselves at all. So as much as possible, they spend their lives with other people, surrounded by noise and chatter. They could talk for hours about sports, music, politics, and sometimes even about religion, as long as it is to mock it, and as long as there is no personal application, or direct confrontation about their own spiritual state. It could be that they are extroverts, but some are so much so that the easier explanation is that they are terrified to face the truth about God. They loathe themselves, and they seek distraction from themselves. The alternative is suicide.

If they were to talk to themselves in honesty, there would be nothing good to say. The Bible says that non-Christians are without God and without hope in this world. They are pathetic and despicable now, and before them is only the guarantee of endless regret, pain, and hellfire. Their self-help manual suggests that they tell themselves, "Every day in every way, I am getting better and better." But if the self-talk of non-Christians has any chance to truly help, they ought to look into the mirror every morning and say, "Every day in every way, I am closer to hell, closer to endless pain, endless misery, endless fire that burns my soul and my body, never waning, never relenting. Every day in every way, I am closer to facing the God who will damn me without chance of pardon. I…I am afraid. I cannot help myself. I need someone to save me."

On the other hand, if we have faith in the Lord Jesus, it means that he has rescued us from this depressing condition. Now there is a basis for hope! Now truth empowers and rejuvenates! Now God is beautiful to us! We perceive many imperfections in us, but now we can face them. We do not fear that God will reject us for our wrongs, because our faith is a manifestation, an indication, of our unbreakable association with Christ, and God has already accepted him. Now in the secret chambers of our minds, we talk to ourselves about God, our sins, and the salvation that he has sent in Jesus Christ. And the more we speak to ourselves on the basis of this truth and this hope, the more we increase in knowledge, character, and strength. Neither are we afraid to face our remaining sins and call them what they are. We can be honest with ourselves and rebuke ourselves, and implore God to make us wiser, stronger, purer, by his Holy Spirit. In Christ, even when we scold ourselves, there can be an inner harmony. Our inner knowledge and inner conference agree.

In the Christian, intelligence has again become a blessing, and self-conference has again become profitable. If we have received training from the word of God, we often know what to say to another person in order to teach, remind, encourage, or rebuke him. Yet we sometimes do not take our own advice, because we do not give ourselves the same advice. Do not remain silent when it comes to your own affairs and your own spiritual condition. Preach to yourself. Encourage yourself. Rebuke yourself. Speak to yourself on the basis of the word of God, and stimulate yourself to greater heights in the faith of Jesus Christ.

There is a spiritual conflict that defines and pervades every area of human life. This conflict is between Christ and Satan, good and evil, truth and deception, and by extension from these, often between Christians and non-Christians. There is no choice and no neutral position in this conflict. Whether or not you like it, you are a part of it. There are only two sides to this conflict, and you either stand with one or the other. Your involvement in it is likely to be more evident if you are a minister of the gospel, so that your responsibility in connection to it might be greater, but no one is exempt from it.

You may say, "I do not want to be against anyone or anything. I stand for Christ and for the gospel." However, Christ is not nothing or an empty idea. He is a person, and he represents rationality and righteousness. A person can be hated and opposed, and therefore a person can have enemies. And rationality, truth, wisdom, and so on, are opposed to irrationality, deception, and foolishness. Righteousness is not the same as godlessness, but is opposed to it.

You may wish to insist that you are only for Christ, and that you are against no one and against nothing. But Christ himself is against all those who disagree with him, and all those who disbelieve in him and disobey him. And they are against him as well. Therefore, if you are for Christ, you are against the rest of the world, and the rest of the world is against you. Jesus told his disciples that the world would hate them because it hated him first. Non-Christians oppose him and hate him, and so they hate all those who follow him, who agree with him, believe in him, and preach about him. The world hates Christ, and if you are for Christ, then the world will hate you, and will fight against you. Instead of avoiding this conflict, God want us to fight everything that opposes his authority and his revelation.

This is a "good" fight. We stand on the side of God, of that which is holy, true, rational, and beautiful. The effort is worthwhile because, according to God's own standard, these things are worth fighting for. They should be defended and advanced on the earth. It is a legitimate use of spiritual force because God has commanded us to engage in battle as soldiers of Jesus Christ. It is a joyous fight because the rewards are great and ultimate victory is assured.

The fight is much more than a playground scuffle. Paul tells Timothy to "fight the good fight." The words used there could be translated "fight a good warfare" or "wage a good campaign." The apostle has in mind a prolonged conflict that requires strategy and stamina. Victory belongs to the wise and informed, to the prayerful and contemplative, to the courageous and sacrificial, and not to those who exhibit only brief outbursts of religious excitement.

There are two aspects to our fight. There is the fight to maintain and to advance a pure and full form of Christianity in the objective and public sense. It is a fight for "the faith" – that is, the Christian faith or the Christian religion. The emphasis falls on the doctrines that define our system of belief. If you lose doctrine, you lose the truth, and you lose your contact with God and with Christ. Thus if you lose doctrine, you lose everything. Then, there is the fight to persist and increase in our commitment to the Christian faith in the personal and individual sense. Each individual must perceive the objective truth of Christian doctrines, and then believe and follow these doctrines. Some have repressed the voice of conscience to renounce that which they recognize to be true, and thus shipwrecked the faith that they profess.

These two aspects of the fight are related. Objective doctrines can affect the subjective desires of an individual, and an individual's desires can determine whether he wishes to believe the right doctrines. Sound doctrines honor the wisdom, kindness, and majesty of God. They tend to be simple and direct, and they instruct men in truth and holiness. False doctrines, on the other hand, exalt man – they please his pride and approve his autonomy. They stimulate sin and speculation, and tends to turn religion into satisfaction without propitiation, and the amusement of the self rather than the worship of God. This is why Jesus said that if anyone chooses to perform God's will, he will perceive whether or not Christian doctrines came from God. Since one affects the other, which one comes first – the knowledge of the truth, or the commitment to the truth? It is God's action on the soul that comes first, and then both factors strengthen each other. May God work in our hearts by his Word and Spirit, so that we may want to do the truth, and know the truth to do!

Just about every biblical doctrine and practice is under attack today, and the enemies are often able to gain a foothold even in our churches because the ministers and members compromise with the world, and they sometimes even actively introduce errors into the congregations. This is no time to avoid conflict or to shun the inconvenience of personal involvement. Christ calls us to fight! If you have any sense of loyalty to the Lord, then you will fight, and you will win, if you will hold fast to sound doctrine and a clear conscience.

Statistics can be misleading – not the numbers as such, but the way they are gathered, presented, and interpreted. Even if the methods are honest and the numbers are accurate, there are some important questions that we must ask before accepting the interpretations offered about the statistics. When it comes to quantifying our obedience and effectiveness in evangelism, it is important to consider what we are counting. Many reports of evangelistic programs are characterized by ambiguity. The problem is most pronounced in ministries that spurn doctrinal precision but that at the same time practice mass evangelism. The relevance of doctrine to accuracy in reporting will become apparent in a moment. Of course, we are not against ministry statistics and mass evangelism themselves, but right now we have in mind a particular kind of ministry outreach and mentality.

What are we counting? Many ministries report the number of professions, that is, the number of people who say in one way or another that they have become Christians as a result of the evangelistic outreaches. The soteriology that is assumed by a ministry determines what counts as a credible profession of faith. In many cases, it is considered sufficient for a person to repeat a prayer in order for him to be pronounced a believer in Christ, after which all questions regarding the genuineness of his profession are discouraged. The prayer often lack any doctrinal substance or biblical basis, such as the common practice of asking Jesus to come into one's heart, whatever that means. The message that persuades the person to repeat such a prayer is often equally indefinite and non-biblical.

One female charismatic evangelist of international reputation, who ministers together with her husband, once addressed an audience that mostly consisted of professing believers. The gathering was for some sort of ministry training. Near the beginning of her presentation, she asked those in the audience to repeat a prayer, which turned out to be a prayer for salvation, asking Jesus to come into their hearts or something to that effect. Then, she said, "Notice that I did not ask them if they wanted to get saved. I just said, 'Repeat this prayer after me,' and they did it."

As expected, this couple claims large number of conversions as a result of their outreaches. But what are they counting? The numbers represent not people who have come to faith in Christ, but those who have been tricked into saying the words that she would tell them to repeat. Their statistics might accurately report the number of people that have been manipulated and added to their tally, but they are irrelevant as indicators of success in evangelism, since very little evangelism has been done. So the numbers discredit the ministry rather than endorse it.

To prevent invalid interpretations, statistics must be placed in their contexts. Counting converts is an acceptable practice that the first Christians also found useful, although unnecessary, since the numbers were not emphasized in every outreach. Perhaps numbers were not even gathered every time. Acts 2:41 reports that "about three thousand were added to their number that day." This figure is useful for measuring the impact of an outreach because it is placed in the context of a genuine presentation of the Christian faith.

The preceding passages describe the signs accompanying the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. When the people wonder at the sights and sounds, Peter stands up to preach. He confronts the Jews with the person and work of Jesus Christ, his miracles, his death, and his resurrection, reminding them that they were the ones who murdered him, their own Messiah. He tells them that the coming and the resurrection of Jesus occurred to fulfill prophecy, and that the outpouring of the Spirit that they presently witness is a fulfillment of Joel's prediction. Hearing this, the Jews are "cut to the heart" (Acts 2:37) and asked the apostles what they should do. They are told to repent and turn to Jesus Christ.

So the Jews are confronted with the truth, much of which the natural and sinful man would oppose (1 Corinthians 1:18). They are even told that they murdered Jesus, so that to affirm the gospel in this context would entail an admission that they committed this murder. Against this background, the report of three thousand converts is indeed meaningful and significant. In the face of challenge and offense to their sinful nature, they are able to undergo informed conversions to the Christian faith. There is no trickery, gimmick, or evangelistic sleight of hand.

Compare this to the numbers we would be presented by the evangelist couple mentioned earlier. Even if the numbers are accurate in the sense that they offer a true report of the number of people who repeated the words they were told to say, they carry no meaning and no significance where the impact of an outreach is concerned. At best the numbers indicate the number of people that they have tricked into saying words that they might not mean or even understand, and if the message and the prayer fail to convey the essential content of the gospel, then no known conversion is indicated by the numbers at all. Numbers, then, are useless unless we know the context. And if the context indicates that no true gospel ministry has been offered, then no matter how large the numbers, they cannot demonstrate that an outreach has achieved any measure of success.

In what we refer to as the Great Commission, Jesus instructs Christians to "make disciples…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). This is the biblical standard by which we should measure our obedience and effectiveness in our ministry outreaches. And this is what Paul sets out to do in his ministry by the power of God: "We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ" (Colossians 1:28). His method involves preaching, admonishing, and teaching. And he does these things so that "we may present everyone perfect in Christ," and not so that "we may trick everyone to make a profession of Christ."

A biblical ministry should have as its explicit purpose throughout its agendas and methods the perfection of those people it reaches and not mere profession. This is why a "hit and run" method of evangelism does not even begin to obey the Great Commission, especially when what we "hit" people with is not even the gospel. This approach does not even attempt to teach people "everything," or as Paul puts it elsewhere, "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27, ESV). And it does not aim to produce lifelong disciples that constantly strive for perfection in Christ. A true gospel outreach expounds and enforces the complete revelation of Jesus Christ – all the doctrines of the Christian faith – and thus propel those under its influence and authority toward perfection.

Therefore, to carry out the Great Commission requires ministers (or teams of ministers) who possess extensive, even a "complete," knowledge of the Christian faith as set forth in the Bible. Another way to describe this is that it requires competence in systematic theology, biblical exposition, and the ethical application that follows from these first two items. This disqualifies most of the evangelists in the field today. Those who boast that they care nothing for doctrine but that they only preach a simple gospel represent a departure from the Lord's command and the apostles' practice. The requirement to "teach everything" can often be satisfied, or partially satisfied, through the distribution of publications. We will mention this again later.

The comprehensive nature of the Great Commission in turn requires the minister of the gospel to devote a substantial amount of time to those who hear him. Take Paul as an example. Instead of preaching for only a few hours, he stayed in Corinth for more than a year and a half (Acts 18:11, 18). And instead of teaching for only several days or weeks, he held daily discussions in Ephesus for two years (Acts 19:10). He was unable to remain in Thessalonica for more than several weeks, because the Jews stirred up a violent mob and forced him to leave (Acts 17:2-10; 1 Thessalonians 2:15). Thus he considered his work there incomplete (1 Thessalonians 3:10), and became concerned about the spiritual welfare of the new converts (1 Thessalonians 3:5).

We may regard this as an issue of "follow-up." This stresses that evangelism should involve more than an initial contact with the target audience. However, it would be unbiblical and counterproductive to make an overly clean distinction between first contact and follow-up. Rather, throughout all stages of planning and execution, the evangelistic enterprise should be considered a long-term process. It is indeed possible to preach the gospel and make genuine converts even in an hour, and some people see "evangelism" from this perspective, and regard all subsequent contact with the audience as "follow-up." But as we have noted, this conception departs from the scriptural perspective because the Great Commission commands us to make disciples by teaching them everything about the Christian faith. Therefore, what is often considered follow-up should, in fact, be in the forefront of our thinking at the beginning of our evangelistic effort. It should not be relegated to an inferior, less intense, or even optional position in a gospel ministry.

The Great Commission commands Christians to teach "everything." Paul says to the elders of Ephesus, "I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you" (Acts 20:20). One pastor used this statement as an excuse to advocate and distribute homeopathic cures to his congregation, but the next verse narrows the context to Christian doctrines. The point is that Paul shares our understanding of the Great Commission, and attempts to fulfill it everywhere he goes. He continues in verses 26 and 27, "Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God" (Acts 20:26-27). His declaration of innocence is based on his comprehensive teaching ministry. This implies that a person who refrains from teaching everything about the Christian faith even when he has the opportunity shares the moral responsibility for the failures of those that he is supposed to instruct as disciples and bring to maturity.

Paul is anxious about the condition of his converts in Thessalonica. He was unable to communicate a full body of Christian knowledge to them before the Jews chased him out of the city through the aggressive use of slander and violence. However, he managed to emphasize an important point to them, namely, that they would be persecuted for their faith in Jesus Christ, that they should expect harsh treatment from some of the unbelievers. He writes, "In fact, when we were with you, we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out that way, as you well know" (1 Thessalonians 3:4). The apostle gave it more than an isolated and obscure mention. He stressed and repeated this to them during his time there.

Paul's message is not what we would call "seeker-friendly." Although he takes care to remove unnecessary offenses that might hinder people from considering the Christian faith, he makes no effort to make his message palatable to the sinful man. The sinful man is possessed by evil dispositions that render him naturally antagonistic to truth, repentance, and holiness. From this perspective, there is nothing that the preacher can do to make the Christian faith attractive or "friendly" to the sinner without compromising the truth about what this religion teaches and produces. Will the Christian obtain great wealth? Perhaps, but to be a Christian under certain circumstances might mean the loss of freedom and property (Hebrews 10:34). Will the Christian attain a better marriage? Perhaps, but a Christian who is married to an unbelieving spouse,  might become a victim of desertion (1 Corinthians 7:15). Will the Christian achieve harmony in his family? Perhaps, but a Christian who has unbelieving family members might be betrayed to his death (Matthew 10:21-22).

The gospel is "good news" in the sense that it proclaims God's gift in Jesus Christ, through whom forgiveness, restoration, eternal life and bliss, the knowledge of the true God, and many other blessings, are extended to the chosen ones. But these things are "good" only from the perspective of divine knowledge and righteousness, and not from the perspective of rebellious and disbelieving sinners. It is good from the perspective of truth and wisdom, but sinners are ignorant and foolish. For essential aspects of the gospel to become "friendly" to sinners, the preacher must either change the gospel so that it becomes as ignorant and foolish as the sinners, in which case the message has turned into a private philosophy and no longer a revealed message that God honors with his saving power, or, God must change the sinners so that they could perceive truth and wisdom, and thus find the things of God attractive.

In other words, some offenses are necessary and unavoidable. They occur not because of the personal offensive nature of the preacher, but because the truth of righteousness naturally and necessarily offends the sinful man whose heart has not been opened by God, so that his intellectual and ethical dispositions are always contrary to wisdom and holiness. A sound exposition of the Christian faith will include mention of certain aspects of confessing Jesus Christ that might be difficult to hear – so difficult, in fact, that they will tend to repulse unbelievers and pretenders.

Paul does not preach, "The Christian faith is all about fun. Our church has it all – good songs, comfortable seats, delicious snacks, and conversations without all the confrontations. Come one, come all!" Such a message would indeed be seeker-friendly, but it is powerless to save anyone, and it would attract the wrong people, namely, those who would continue to indulge in their unregenerate thoughts and practices, but who simply desire a change in environment. Instead, Paul declares, "What I say to you about Jesus Christ is the truth, and the only way to salvation, to eternal life, and to escape the wrath of God. However – and I will keep telling you this – if you believe in this gospel that I am preaching, if you become one of us, then you will be persecuted by those who remain in unbelief. They will make life difficult for you, make fun of you, lie about you, and even imprison or kill some of you."

The only sense in which the preaching of the gospel should be "seeker-friendly" is that it should welcome all kinds of people to repentance toward God and faith toward Christ. It does not turn away anyone based on their race, gender, and social or economic background. It does, however, condemn all those who remain unrepentant, unbelieving, and who are unwilling to renounce their non-Christian religions, philosophies, and lifestyles. This is not an attractive message to those whose heart has not been softened and enlightened by God. But to those whom God has chosen for salvation, it is irresistible, for they are the ones who hear the voice of the shepherd therein.

The preaching of the gospel, therefore, should stress truth and not comfort. If God does not perform the work of regeneration in the heart, a person would never believe the gospel in the first place – it is against his wicked and foolish nature. But when God regenerates and transforms a person's heart, his work is characterized by excellence and endurance. It cannot be destroyed by offense or suffering, still less by some minor discomfort, but it is rather refined by testing and strengthened by pressure. In fact, the work that God performs in the heart is so pure and robust that it becomes all the more accentuated when confronted by those Christian doctrines and demands that would offend the unregenerate and the pretenders.

When Jesus called Peter, Andrew, James, and John to become his disciples, he said to them, "Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." At this, they left their vocation, their lifestyle, their family, and what sense of psychological attachment and security associated with these, and followed Christ (Matthew 4:18-22). The demand was straightforward, and even severe by some standards, but they complied and their lives became entwined with their master's forever.

Later, Jesus said to a young man, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (Matthew 19:21). This dismayed him, and he went away. The young man was indeed a "seeker," and came to ask a question that appeared to demonstrate a willingness to follow Christ. The Lord's response was outright seeker-hostile. It was blunt and extreme, demanding total abandonment of the young man's previous lifestyle. It would have been more seeker-friendly to let him follow at his convenience, so that perhaps he might pick up some truths along the way. Instead, Christ said perhaps the most demanding and disheartening thing to this seemingly sincere seeker.  This is contrary to all the principles and methods of seeker-friendly evangelism.

We acknowledge that the young man possessed great riches, but it remains that Peter and the others left what they had, their income, routine, security, family, to follow Christ. The same passage confirms the significance of their action. When Peter mentioned that they had left everything to follow him, Jesus did not belittle this just because what they left behind, in terms of wealth, was less than what this young man possessed. Rather, he said, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first" (Matthew 19:28-30).

In other words, the disciples provide a meaningful contrast to the young man – the difference in wealth does not void the comparison. In principle, the same seeker-hostile demand was placed on both – in fact, the young man appeared more eager than the disciples, and initiated contact with Jesus – but the disciples complied and the young man refused. A seeker-hostile approach cuts through mere appearance to test the heart. If God is at work to convert the person, a harsh (but righteous) demand or offensive (but true) comment will not repulse him, but if God is not at work to convert, then it will bypass the mask of the eager seeker and expose the true condition of his heart.

Another example of Jesus' seeker-hostile method is taken from the case of the Gentile woman who comes to request healing for her daughter:

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (Matthew 15:21-28)

The woman is in great need, and she comes crying out to Jesus in eagerness and reverence. Contrary to a common misrepresentation of Jesus and of the Christian faith, Jesus repeatedly responds in a seeker-hostile manner. Although the woman calls him Lord, recognizes him as the Son of David, cries out for mercy, and requests help for her daughter who is "suffering terribly," Jesus ignores her. He does not speak to encourage her. He does not reach out to comfort her. Whereas the seeker-friendly approach aims to entice seekers, this woman needs no gimmick to attract her. She comes willingly, actively, eagerly, and it seems she could hardly be any more open to Jesus' message and ministry, but he pays her no attention.

Then, when the woman continues her cries, and it appears that Jesus is not going to help her, the disciples persuade Jesus to send her way. And it seems that he proceeds to do this, for he says, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." In effect, he tells her, "I am sent to minister to some other group of people. I am not sent to help you." This is his response to the woman's cries, and there is nothing in his statement that would encourage her to pursue the issue further. The statement itself leaves very few options for the woman. He even gives the reason for his apparent rejection of the her request, and the reason is such that there is nothing she can do to alter it.

She persists: "Lord, help me!" By this time, many people would expect Jesus to break down and weep, and rush right to her daughter to cure her. Instead, he suggests that it is "not right" to help her, and even insults her by calling her a dog. If not for the fact that it is Jesus doing this and that this is recorded in Scripture, many Christians would call such behavior cruel and heartless. Perhaps they would even say regarding this kind of treatment, "It is not Christ-like"! This reaction arises because they have a false conception of what Jesus is like and how Christian ministry should operate. At this point it seems that the only way for Jesus to be even less seeker-friendly is to punch her in the stomach and kick her down a hill so that he could be rid of her.

Sometimes it is noted that the Jews are accustomed to referring to Gentiles as dogs, as if this makes Jesus' use of the term less offensive. But does this make it better or worse? What if I were to select one of the culturally popular racial slurs to address someone in church? Some Christians would prefer that I commit blasphemy or adultery than to make a statement that would sound racist or sexist. Even Christians are prone to identify with their race, gender, or nationality more than their identity as believers. What a disgrace. So this so-called explanation does not reduce the offensiveness of Jesus' use of the term, but rather highlights and accentuates it.

The way that Jesus deals with this woman is not even slightly encouraging, and not remotely close to what we would call seeker-friendly. And those who would claim that Jesus is an exception are hypocrites. To them, Jesus is a model to follow on those things that they approve, and an exception to admire (or simply puzzle over) but not to imitate on those things that they disapprove or wish to forbid in others.

The woman remains undeterred, and answers, "But even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." This could be taken as an admission that Gentiles are but dogs, although not necessarily so, but it is not a denial. At least for the sake of argument, but perhaps also in reality, she accepts the derogatory designation and employs it to reissue her request. The way that she manipulates the image of children at the table is significant, since it expresses a high level of faith. She implies that God is her master, and that even the "crumbs" of Jesus' power would be sufficient to cure her daughter. She believes so much in his authority that she thinks performing a miracle for her daughter would not at all take away from Jesus' mission or the share of God's blessings that he is sent to provide for Israel. In terms of the analogy, she believes that even an unconscious and accidental release of Jesus' power would satisfy her urgent need.

As it turns out, Jesus' harsh and offensive approach to the woman compels her faith and resolve to surface. The work of God in the woman is robust, and thrives under testing and pressure. It is possible that Jesus intends to induce this effect in the woman, but this does not change the fact that he indeed uses a seeker-hostile approach, so that to be unfriendly in this sense cannot be wrong in principle. And recall that the same seeker-hostile approach did not draw out faith from the rich young man, but turned him away. Thus even if Jesus intends to draw out faith in some people by a tougher approach toward them, this does not mean that he would necessarily use a softer approach when dealing with someone who could not endure this kind of treatment. The seeker-hostile method stimulates the faith of the elect, and exposes the pretense of the non-elect. Although Jesus does not always treat people this way, the examples that we have refute those who insist on a seeker-friendly or a gentle and welcoming approach as a matter of principle.

Our final example from the ministry of Jesus is taken from the Gospel of John, where the Lord declares that it is necessary for a person to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) (John 6:53-71)

The teaching is bizarre and repulsive to those present. Of course Jesus knows this, but he gives the teaching anyway, and it is as if he chooses to state it in a way that maximizes its offensive effect. When some in the audience become alarmed at what he says, he presses on and offends them even more. He realizes that some of those who have been following him do not really believe. He tells them this directly, and without any effort to remain subtle or polite, or to provide any hope for improvement or any incentive to remain loyal to him.

Then, when some of them turn away and no longer follow him, he does not chase after them to explain himself or to somehow attract their attention again. Instead, he turns to the Twelve and asks if they would like to leave also. There is no trace of desperation in him. He feels no pressure to attract and retain a crowd. He believes his own statement, "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." If the Father does not cause a person to believe, then there is no use in trying to attract him with seeker-friendly gimmicks. But if the Father does cause a person to believe, then all gimmicks are unnecessary – the person will come, believe, and remain. No demanding doctrine can drive him away, even if it sounds unusual and extreme to unspiritual ears. This person recognizes and follows the voice of the shepherd (John 10:25-30).

We again discern a contrast between the elect and the non-elect from the disciples' response. Both groups hear the same teaching. The sinners who have not been changed by God become offended and abandons the Lord. As John writes, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us" (1 John 2:19). But when he asks if the Twelve would also like to leave, Peter answers, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." Jesus' seeker-hostile approach drives away false disciples, cleansing the community of his followers.

At the same time, the proper reasons for following him come into sharp focus in his true disciples, and they are compelled to article these reasons, that Jesus has the words of life, and he is the Holy One of God. Peter's rhetorical question, "Lord, to whom shall we go?" signals his awareness that there is no alternative, that Jesus is the only one with the words of life and that he is the only "Holy One of God." Therefore, Jesus' seeker-hostile approach is both efficient and effective in forcing both the elect and the non-elect to clarify and articulate their motives, reasons, and options. In contrast, the seeker-friendly approach dulls spiritual awareness and enables spiritual motives and reasons to remain hidden. The crowd might look bigger, but the ministry is far less faithful and effective in pursuing the mandate of evangelism and discipleship.

Seeker-friendly ministry is unbiblical, because the Bible teaches an almost opposite approach. It is unfaithful, because it fails to preach the true gospel. It is unbelieving, because it does not depend on the Spirit of God to draw and to convert sinners. It is unproductive, because it does not produce genuine and lasting faith in the people it reaches. And it is unnecessary, because the gospel will compel the elect to come to Christ in repentance and faith even if we say and do things that would offend the sinful dispositions of the unregenerate.

On the other hand, a biblical, elect-friendly, and seeker-hostile approach that declares the Christian faith in a straightforward manner will keep away those who would otherwise enter the church, not as believers but as pretenders, and it will repel those spiritual imposters – intellectual and ethical garbage – that have already infiltrated our community. If this offends you, is it because I am out of line, or is it because I might be talking about you – perhaps you are this spiritual garbage? If this offends you, it is an indication that there is something wrong with you. Examine yourself, and see if you are in the faith.

The biblical method of evangelism and discipleship is seeker-hostile. This term is selected to provide a contrast against the seeker-friendly approach, but it is accurate if understood correctly, and we have already defined it earlier. That is, relative to what is usually meant by a "seeker-friendly" approach, the biblical way to ministry is outright seeker-hostile. It is not that the biblical approach is to be obnoxious, although Christ himself was considered irksome and offensive by the reprobates. So you should not try to be obnoxious in order to be biblical, but if you try to be biblical, reprobates will find you most obnoxious. If you set out to preach the gospel without attempting to please the sinful dispositions and demands of the unregenerate, even though some of them present themselves as interested "seekers" that desire to investigate the Christian faith, then you will appear obnoxious and hostile to the reprobates. If the content and manner of your presentation attract and retain a substantial number of reprobates, including those who pretend but do not in fact believe, then it can only mean that there is no truth and power in your message.

1 THESSALONIANS 1:5c-10
You know how we lived among you for your sake. You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. The Lord's message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia – your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead – Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

Paul is confident that his hearers have been chosen for salvation because he was conscious of God's power when he preached to them, and it produced deep conviction in the Thessalonians, that is, an assurance and persuasion that the gospel was true. However, anybody can pretend to agree with the gospel, but only genuine believers will exhibit consistent indications of faith and regeneration. As Jesus says, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:18-20; see also v. 21-27).

Regeneration is a radical reconstruction of the intellect and personality of the individual, and therefore the true convert would exhibit in his outward speech and conduct the changes that correspond to such a drastic inward transformation. From the transformation that has taken place in the Thessalonians, Paul infers that they are truly born again, and that their faith in Christ is real.

For example, Paul says, "In spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit." Now, Jesus explains in the parable of the sower that not everyone who appears to receive the word of God with joy is truly saved: "The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away" (Matthew 13:20-21). But the joy of the Thessalonians was "given by the Holy Spirit."

The Spirit regenerates only the chosen ones. Jesus says, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit" (John 3:8). The doctrine of free will cannot make sense of this verse, but the biblical doctrine of salvation affirms that, as "the wind blows wherever it pleases," so the Spirit of God regenerates only those who have been selected for salvation by God. Scripture says, "All who were appointed for eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). A person believes in Christ because he has been chosen. God did not choose us because he had foreseen our faith, but we have faith because God has chosen us without regard to any condition that would be found in us. Since it was the Holy Spirit who gave Paul's converts such joy in receiving the gospel, it means that God has performed a work in their minds because of his own sovereign decision, and since God does not in this manner change the heart of those whom he has not chosen, Paul infers that the Thessalonians are among the elect.

Jesus says that a false convert falls away "when trouble or persecution comes because of the word." In contrast, the Thessalonians had joy from the Holy Spirit "in spite of severe suffering," thus showing the genuineness of their conversion. Many professing Christians live in countries where persecution is relatively light, even though believers indeed often receive unjust treatment. Under this relatively comfortable atmosphere, false converts that have been gathered by unbiblical preaching are not sifted out of the church. Contributing nothing but costing much, they continue to be a vexing but often unacknowledged problem in the church. Nevertheless, the solution is not to hope for severe persecution, but a return to preaching the biblical gospel and enforcing church discipline, such as reprimand and excommunication.

Some writers are alarmed at the rate at which professing Christians are converting to other religions – Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Catholicism, and other non-Christian groups and cults. But the unceasing influx of false converts is even more disturbing. By God's providence, non-Christian religions and philosophies in fact serve to remove some of the false converts from the church, lest we become overwhelmed by them. Many reprobates, destined for destruction, join themselves to Christian churches because they have heard and affirmed a false gospel, and non-Christian religions and philosophies sometimes attract these reprobates away from the church.

On the other hand, true Christians belong to Christ forever, so that "no one can snatch them out of [his] hand" (John 10:28). It is better for a kingdom to have many easily marked enemies than to have many foreign spies within its own domain, wrecking havoc, causing dissension and confusion, and draining its resources from within. Add to this the fact that many false converts have even become ministers, wielding authority over the doctrines, agendas, and finances, clearly it is better for them to leave the church than to remain in it.

Since there are many false converts in our churches, there is a great need to evangelize our own congregations – let the gospel either convert them or drive them away. In John 6, Jesus gives his followers a "hard teaching" (John 6:60) after which "many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him" (v. 66). But even this did not remove Judas, who being "doomed to destruction," was not lost until later, "so that Scripture would be fulfilled" (John 17:12). He betrayed Christ as predicted (v. 70-71), and afterward committed suicide. On the other hand, Peter denied Christ three times, but recovered to become a great apostle. What was the difference? Jesus had prayed for Peter so that his "faith may not fail" (Luke 22:32). He also prayed for the rest of his elect, but not for the reprobates: "I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours" (John 17:9; also Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25). The truth is that "no one can come to [Christ] unless the Father has enabled him" (John 6:65). Peter was enabled; Judas was not.

Faith embraces the gospel in spite of the dangers and consequences. The Thessalonians demonstrated the genuineness of their conversion by their joy in the face of severe suffering. Paul would certainly denounce those who compromise the faith that they claim to affirm because of financial losses, political threats, or pressures from relatives and friends. On the other hand, "No one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life" (Luke 18:29-30).

Perseverance in suffering and persecution is one indication of genuine faith, the presence of which implies that God has chosen the person for salvation, and sovereignly changed his heart. God does not preserve us as a reaction to our enduring faith; rather, our faith endures because God preserves it and causes it to endure. Hebrews 12:2 calls Jesus both "the author and perfecter of our faith." Faith does not come from our own wills, but it is a gift from God. And faith does not endure by our own power, but "he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus" (Philippians 1:6). Salvation depends on God's sovereign will and mercy from the beginning to the end. Therefore, it is by his immutable decree in election and not by human free will (which we do not really have) that all "those he justified, he also glorified" (Romans 8:30). Those who fail to persevere until their glorification, have never received justification.

Genuine faith does not only endure, but it is active and growing (v. 7-9). Peter writes, "Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation" (1 Peter 2:2). A person who shows no interest in studying theology is perhaps temporarily ill in spirit, but a persistent indifference indicates that he has never received faith and life from God. By feeding on spiritual milk, the believer grows up in his faith, although one who "lives on milk" is still a spiritual infant, and "is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness" (Hebrews 5:13). There is much to learn, and much room to grow through learning. Anti-intellectualism, which disparages even spiritual milk, has prevented generations of Christians from growing up in the faith.

Spiritual growth has to do with an intellectual understanding of God's word and not mystical experiences. And spiritual maturity has to do with how one speaks and reasons: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me" (1 Corinthians 13:11). The writer of Hebrews reprimands his readers, saying, "In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!" (Hebrews 5:12). But how many Christians understand the letter to the Hebrews itself? Many consider its material rather advanced, but the letter was directed to those who were "slow to learn" (v. 11), and those who still "need milk, not solid food" (v. 12). Anti-intellectuals reject the biblical standard of measuring spiritual growth and maturity, and instead make the Christian faith a matter of feeling and experience. But Scripture's teaching is that Christians are to increase in knowledge and character, through an intellectual understanding of the things of God, so that they can think and speak as spiritual adults.

Bearing fruit is another metaphorical way of indicating spiritual life and growth. Jesus teaches, "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). The Bible contradicts the notion that the mere profession of faith guarantees salvation.  A person who makes a profession of faith but fails to bear fruit afterward has no warrant for claiming that he has ever been a believer. Verse 8 says that one shows that he is a true disciple by producing spiritual fruit: "This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples."

The Thessalonians have passed this test. Their faith have been enduring and increasing such that they have become models for other believers to emulate. As Paul instructs Timothy, "Set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity" (1 Timothy 4:12). Other Christians readily recognize the powerful effect the Holy Spirit produced in the Thessalonian converts, so that wherever Paul travels, he has no need to tell others about them. Believers everywhere already know how the Thessalonians have "turned to God from idols" (1 Thessalonians 1:9).

True conversion results from a drastic and permanent transformation at the deepest level of one's intellect and personality. God changes the individual's most basic commitments, so that he denounces the abominable objects he once served, and turns to offer true worship to God. This change in a person's first principle of thought and conduct generates a rippling effect that transforms the entire spectrum of his worldview and lifestyle. Thus conversion produces not only a negative change, in which one turns from idols, but Paul states that they have also turned "to serve the living and true God" (v. 9). Moreover, a biblical system of thought replaces the former unbiblical philosophy. This new worldview is one in which we "wait for [God's] Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead – Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath" (v. 10).

Salvation does not come by turning to a generic "God," as if there is such a thing, but a true convert explicitly affirms the biblical system of thought. Verse 10 is of course not exhaustive, but at least it includes the resurrection and return of Jesus Christ, the coming wrath of God against the unsaved, and it carries a partial reference to the Trinity, since Paul distinguishes between the Father and the Son. The Christian worldview offers a teleology that ties together the whole of human history. Turning from idols to serve the true and living God, the believer now looks forward to the culmination of the ages in the return of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, our biblical passage assumes the apostle's soteriology from election to glorification. God has chosen those who would be saved through Christ by an immutable decree in eternity. In due time, he regenerates them and produces faith in their minds by means of preaching. Genuine faith then perseveres and grows into maturity. This enlightenment of the mind and transformation of the personality result in a glorious hope, through which the believer yearns for and expects the return of Jesus Christ and the consummation of his salvation.

All publicly available writings are offered below as PDF files. Please always download directly from this site to obtain the official and current editions.

Some of these publications are also available as EPUB files for use on devices such as the iPhone and iPad. Please download them from the iBooks Collection.

 
FOUNDATIONAL
theology, philosophy, apologetics, ethics, spirituality, and ministry

Systematic Theology
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
An introduction to Christian theology as a coherent system of beliefs founded on the sovereignty of God and the infallibility of Scripture. Contents: 1. Theology, 2. Scripture, 3. God, 4. Man, 5. Christ, and 6. Salvation.

Ultimate Questions
Last modified: 02-08-2010
[ Download ]
An introduction to the basic principles of a Christian worldview. Contents: 1. Christian Philosophy, 2. Christian Soteriology, and 3. Christian Apologetics.

Presuppositional Confrontations
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
The heart of this book is an exposition of Paul's encounter with the Athenians in Acts 17. It shows how the apostle confronted non-Christian religions and philosophies, and how we may mirror his approach today. Contents: 1. Challenge, 2. Confrontation, and 3. Conquest.

Apologetics in Conversation
Last modified: 09-14-2011
[ Download ]
This short guide introduces principles that enhance a Christian's performance and effectiveness in informal debates. Although they are easy to understand and implement, they are invincible weapons that ensure victory in our intellectual confrontations with the non-Christians.

The Sermon on the Mount
Last modified: 12-24-2009
[ Download ]
The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) contains some of the most frequently quoted — but just as frequently misused — verses in the Bible. This book provides a basic but careful exposition on the Sermon. In the process, it introduces the Bible's teaching on the kingdom of God, the Christian counter-culture, the place and relevance of God's law, the biblical commandments regarding murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation, love, as well as Jesus' teaching on biblical inerrancy, hypocritical piety, hypocritical judgment, legalism, materialism, exclusivism, antinomianism, and other topics. In addition, the book includes a number of insights that are useful for apologetics.

Prayer and Revelation
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
Rather than focusing on the technique of prayer, this book discusses prayer from a broader perspective by engaging its relationship with other theological topics. In addition, it urges the reader to dethrone experience and enthrone revelation as the foundation on which to construct our spiritual life in general, and our prayer life in particular.

The Ministry of the Word
Last modified: 12-14-2011
[ Download ]
This volume combines three previously published works into a general introduction on the ministry of the word. Contents: 1. Sufficient and Profitable, 2. Preach the Word, and 3. Teach the Nations.

EXPOSITIONAL
commentaries on biblical books

Commentary on Malachi
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
Besides providing a basic exegesis of Malachi, this book applies the Old Testament text to Christian life and thought. In the process, it addresses topics such as election, history, marriage, tithing, ministry, reverence, and judgment.

Commentary on Galatians
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
Paul writes to a church that has been infiltrated by false teachers, providing a corrective concerning how a person is justified before God. Besides the fact that it is divine revelation, the enduring relevance of this letter is ensured because it is a statement of the core of the gospel, it defines for us the place of this teaching in relation to other biblical doctrines, and models for us the manner in which we are to defend it against objections and distortions.

Commentary on Ephesians
Last modified: 07-24-2008
[ Download ]
Paul's Letter to the Ephesians amounts to a short course in theology. Because of its majestic and exalted content, it has been hailed as "The Queen of the Epistles." Although it does not cover every theological topic, several central truths that are not explicitly stated are nevertheless assumed or implied. A firm theological foundation leads to spiritual stability, so that God's people will not be tossed here and there by every wind of doctrine. In a day when even professing Christians tolerate just about every "ism" there is, it is all the more important for us to insist on the biblical gospel, that it is God alone who, through Christ alone, sovereignly predestinates, regenerates, reconciles, sanctifies, and establishes his people. This commentary aims to help beginning readers grasp the main theological themes in Paul's letter in a logical and coherent fashion, although the more advanced readers will probably find some useful insights and apt statements as well.

Commentary on Philippians
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
Much of what is called "Christian" teaching today emphasizes the way to emotional peace and physical comfort. In contrast, Paul commends the Philippians for being partners in the faith with him, and encourages them to remain united by the faith, so that they may live for the faith. Paul teaches his readers to seek first the kingdom of God, even if it leads to great suffering and hardship. He says that he can be content under all circumstances by the strength that Christ gives. Instead of using the Christian life as an excuse or a platform to pursue our own interests, this letter from Paul teaches a Christianity that promotes and pursues Christ's interests.

Commentary on Colossians
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
Paul's letter to the Colossians weaves together high theology with holy living, and exhortations with warnings. Its main theme is the fullness of Christ, and the fullness that Christians have in him. Christ's person and work are complete, and Christians have benefited from this completeness. Any attempt to supplement or replace the person and work of Christ therefore undermines and devalues him, and compromises the Christian faith. This commentary confronts several controversial doctrines, including the incomprehensibility of God and the origin of sin and evil. Other features include a summary of systematic theology from the perspective of christology, discussions on true versus false philosophy, true versus false spirituality, what it means to see the Father by "looking at" Jesus, the priorities of Paul in life and prayer, and the true nature of the Great Commission.

Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
The two Pauline letters provide opportunities to cover a wide range of topics. They include the following: the doctrine of Scripture, the doctrine of election, the doctrine of the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the "catching up" of believers, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple, and the slaughter and dispersion of the Jews in AD 70, persecution and providence, the Great Commission, "seeker-hostile" ministry, the relation of metaphysics and ethics in apologetics, justice, revenge, and atonement, the sin of slander, the minister's right to financial support, the sin of idleness, and the correct policy toward idlers, cessationism and prophecy, and some observations on hermeneutics. In addition, an outstanding feature of this book is an extended exposition and argument on the matter of whether the Jews murdered Jesus.

Commentary on First Peter
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
This commentary offers a basic but thorough exposition on the text of First Peter. In the process, it touches on topics such as the doctrine of election, the meaning of divine foreknowledge, issues with Bible translations, the right perspective toward suffering and persecution, the gospel in the Old Testament, the atoning work of Christ, supralapsarianism vs. infralapsarianism, the priesthood of all believers, the intellectual and moral depravity of unbelievers, submission to authority (citizens to officials, slaves to masters, wives to husbands), divine command ethics, bearing witness to Christ by our words and deeds, love and humility within the church community, spiritual gifts, labor and racial issues, the authority and compensation of church elders, and resisting our enemy, the devil.

SUPPLEMENTAL
theology, apologetics, expositions, spirituality, and ministry

The Author of Sin
Last modified: 12-27-2011
[ Download ]
This is a collection of short articles on divine sovereignty, human freedom, and the doctrines of grace. It provides a corrective for inconsistent Calvinism.

Captive to Reason
Last modified: 12-19-2011
[ Download ]
This is a collection of short articles on Christian philosophy and apologetics. It includes answers to the objections raised by some professing Christians against biblical metaphysics, epistemology, and apologetics. It is a corrective to both evidentialism and pseudo-presuppositionalism.

Invincible Faith
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
This collection brings together some items of major importance. They include articles related to theology, apologetics, ministry, as well as several biblical expositions and correspondences.

Doctrine and Obedience
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
This is a collection of short articles on various aspects of Christian doctrine and practice.

Born Again
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
This is an exposition of John 3:1-21, on the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus.

Blasphemy and Mystery
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
Most of the articles in this collection are written in response to objections raised against various aspects of Christianity. Although some of these objections come from unbelievers, several are from professing Christians who have been critical of the consistently God-centered system of theology, philosophy, and apologetics in Scripture. The objections from professing believers against the Christian faith exhibit patterns of reasoning that are remarkably similar to those found in unbelievers, including some of the intellectual habits and assumptions that underlie atheism. In connection with this, several of the articles examine some of the most treasured and ingrained doctrines that professing believers have invented in order to subvert the teachings of Scripture. They show that these traditional doctrines are not only unbiblical, but often even blasphemous.

The View from Above
Last modified: 06-08-2009
[ Download ]
By presenting select episodes and discourses from the life of Christ, the Gospel of John offers a heavenly philosophy that is superior to any earthly philosophy. This book is a collection of articles on the first four chapters of the Gospel. Drawing attention to the foundational principles of this heavenly philosophy, it enables readers to appreciate the wisdom and power that the Lord Jesus has brought to us "from above," so that we may no longer think and live as people "from below." Rather, because we have been born "from above" through Jesus Christ, although we remain in this world, we are no longer of the world. As Christians, we think, speak, and function on a higher plane, an altogether superior level of competence and intelligence.

Reflections on First Timothy
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
A series of reflections on Paul's first letter to Timothy. Chapters include: "The Christian's Self-Definition," "The Non-Christian's True Nature," "Male Leadership in the Church," "Strange Uses of Scripture," "The Doctrines of Demons," and "The Secret of Contentment."

Reflections on Second Timothy
Last modified: 02-08-2010
[ Download ]
A series of reflections on Paul's second letter to Timothy. Chapters include: "God the Author," "A Spirit of Power," "A Public Intellectual System," "Teaching the Devil's Captives," "Theocentrism vs. Anthropocentrism," and "Alone, But Never Alone."

The Light of Our Minds
Last modified: 12-27-2011
[ Download ]
The essays in this book share at least two common themes — namely, the biblical emphasis on the mind and the monopoly of the Christian worldview over the intellectual realm. Christianity preserves rationality, and provides the precondition of intelligibility. Together, these chapters serve as a reminder for the Christian to love God with all his mind (Matthew 22:37), and at the same time illustrate an effective strategy for Christian apologetics. Some readers will be especially interested in the chapter on "the problem of evil" — an issue unbelievers often bring up as an objection against Christianity.

On Good and Evil
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
God wants us to recognize good as good, evil as evil, and never confuse the two. As Christians, we must learn to discern and uphold God's standards regarding good and evil. The purpose of this book is to assist the reader in gaining the ability to discern good and evil, and in addition to this, to unashamedly love good and hate evil, as the Scripture commands us to do.

Pure Religion
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
This volume combines six previously published items. Contents: 1. God is not Mocked, 2. Pure Religion, 3. Policy on Charity, 4. The Noble Bereans, 5. The One Thing Needed, and 6. As a Man Thinks.

Godliness with Contentment
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
This book is a collection of four articles on topics related to Christian living, such as discipleship, contentment, guidance, and death. Although they address several different subjects, all of them emphasize the necessity of studying and obeying the divine precepts of God; that is, to conform one's thinking and behavior to the words of Scripture.

Renewing the Mind
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
There are five short essays in this collection. Arguing that intellectual neutrality does not exist, the first chapter uses Psalm 1 as its foundation to illustrate that all ideas are either Christian or non-Christian. The second chapter shows that a program of Christian development must first target the mind. The rest of the book provides several examples of the above as the implications of biblical teachings are worked out in areas such as sin, the deity of Christ, the choice of a spouse, war, and capital punishment.

Biblical Healing
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
This is a concise introduction to biblical healing. It covers topics such as healing in the atonement, divine authority, methods of healing, ministry protocols, authority structure in the healing ministry, and the biblical view of medicine.

The Parables of Jesus
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
This book contains informal expositions on several biblical parables to derive from them some principles for Christian living. The first chapter focuses on several relevant preliminary issues, such as the nature, purpose, and interpretation of parables. It then discuss the parables themselves in the subsequent chapters.

Samson and His Faith
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
In many people's thinking, Samson is inseparably connected to Delilah, and they seem to think that the entirety of his life as recorded in Scripture has to do with his moral weaknesses and sexual lusts. Thus they say that he is the classic case of one who has "charisma without character." However, that is an incomplete and inaccurate portrayal of his life. The Scripture's own commentary on Samson is that he was a man of faith, one of whom "the world was not worthy" (Hebrews 11:38).

SERMONETTES
short sermons, devotionals, and miscellaneous writings

Sermonettes, Volume 1
Last modified: 10-08-2011
[ Download ]
Chapters include: "A Greater Threat than Moses," "The Prosperity of the Wicked," "Christ and Self-Conference," "A Gang of Pandas," "Homosexuality and the Wrath of God," and "Cessationism and Speaking in Tongues."

Sermonettes, Volume 2
Last modified: 12-09-2011
[ Download ]
Chapters include: "The Axiom of Gabriel," "The Anointed One," "The Elephant in the Room," "Cast Your Lot with Christ," "Why You are Not a Christian," "Evangelism at the Workplace," "The Legalist's Worst Nightmare," and "Is the Death Penalty Hypocritical?"

Sermonettes, Volume 3
Last modified: 03-06-2011
[ Download ]
Chapters include: "The Stronger Man," "Jesus Christ, or Nothing At All," "Jesus, Remember Me," "The Mind of Christ," "Logic and Resurrection," "Triumphalism and Defeatism," "Touch No Unclean Thing," and "The Most Heartwarming Doctrine."

Sermonettes, Volume 4
Last modified: 07-09-2011
[ Download ]
Chapters include: "The Lord of Temptations," "Wisdom from Heaven," "The Prayer of Faith," "The Power of Elijah," "Many Antichrists Have Come," "God is Love," "Tongues and Human Languages," "Not Forsaking Context," and "Head Covering and Hermeneutics."

Sermonettes, Volume 5
Last modified: 11-17-2011
[ Download ]
Chapters include: "The Power of Salvation," "The Wrath of God Revealed," "In the Footsteps of Faith," "The Law of the Spirit," "The Witness of the Spirit," "All Things for Our Good," "Submission to Government," and "Homosexuality and the Mystery of Christ."

EXCERPTS
The previous section represents the complete library. The following items have been extracted from the publications listed above. They are offered separately because of their independent value.

Chosen in Christ
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
An exposition of Ephesians 1:3-14. Contents: Election, Reprobation, Redemption, Illumination, Revelation, Reconciliation, Certification, Conclusion.
(Part of Commentary on Ephesians)

The Preservation of the Saints
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
This article discusses and explains the expressions, confessions, and biblical passages related to the doctrine of the perseverance or preservation of the saints.
(Part of The Author of Sin)

The Incomprehensibility of God
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
The traditional doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God is unbiblical and blasphemous. Taken from a section of Commentary on Colossians, this article clarifies the biblical teaching on the topic and proposes ways to reformulate the doctrine.
(Part of Commentary on Colossians)

The Problem of Evil
Last modified: 12-27-2011
[ Download ]
A biblical refutation to one of the most stupid and overrated arguments against the Christian faith.
(Part of The Author of Sin and The Light of Our Minds)

Professional Morons
Last modified: 12-19-2011
[ Download ]
According to the Bible, all non-Christians are morons — they are extremely stupid people. This article illustrates the fact with examples on how even their best professional philosophers are no better than the most incompetent non-Christians in the substance of their arguments.
(Part of Captive to Reason)

Sufficient and Profitable
Last modified: 12-12-2011
[ Download ]
This is an exposition of 2 Timothy 3:14-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21, subtitled "The Authority, Sufficiency, and Utility of Scripture."
(Part of The Ministry of the Word)

Teach the Nations
Last modified: 12-14-2011
[ Download ]
Subtitled "Lectures on the Great Commission," this is an exposition of Matthew 28:18-20. The three parts in this series are: 1. The Great Commission, 2. The Christian Message, and 3. The Abiding Presence.
(Part of The Ministry of the Word)

Preach the Word
Last modified: 11-07-2011
[ Download ]
Structured around 2 Timothy 4:1-3, this article discusses Christian preaching and education. In the process, it criticizes non-Christians theories on learning methods, and calls for a comprehensive teaching and writing ministry from preachers of the gospel.
(Part of The Ministry of the Word)

The Bible, the Preacher, and the Spirit
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
God has given the Bible a supreme role in the history of mankind and the history of redemption. Its message is usually delivered to men by men, but it is rendered effective in the hearts of men only by the will and power of the Holy Spirit. This article briefly discusses these ideas and suggests several applications.
(Part of Invincible Faith)

The Invincible Church
Last modified: 05-15-2008
[ Download ]
An exposition of Matthew 16:13-18, with emphasis on the promise and prediction of Jesus that the church will endure through time, that it will be indestructible in the face of opposition, and that it will fulfill its mission.
(Part of Invincible Faith)

God the Author
Last modified: 12-31-2009
[ Download ]
A consideration of God's sovereignty over all things in the context of his role as the author of the "drama" of redemption.
(Part of Reflections on Second Timothy)

The Blasphemy of Dualism
Last modified: 01-10-2010
[ Download ]
A consideration of the blasphemous implication of denying the total, direct, and causative sovereignty of God over all of creation.
(Part of Reflections on Second Timothy)

Divine Sovereignty and Self-Compatibility
Last modified: 02-06-2010
[ Download ]
The sovereignty of God and the freedom of man are mutually exclusive. To affirm one is to deny the other. If God is absolutely sovereign, then he also decides and causes human choice and desire. And if God is the one who decides and causes human choice and desire, then to say that divine sovereignty and human choice are compatible is only to say that God is compatible with himself. But we already know that, and man is still not free.
(Part of Ultimate Questions)

More than a Potter
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
This is a response to the objection, "If God determines all that we do so that we are not free from him in any sense, then we are nothing more than robots and puppets." It also answers a related attack against Romans 9:21.
(Part of The Author of Sin)

Freewill Offerings and Human Freedom
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
This is a response to the argument that Scripture teaches that man has "free will" because the term appears in a number of biblical verses.
(Part of The Author of Sin)

Matthew 23:37
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
Proponents of Arminianism frequently cite Matthew 23:37 (or Luke 13:34) to support their theology. And popular or inconsistent Calvinism sometimes uses it to maintain a tension (self-contradiction) within their system. This article explains why the verse does not support either position.
(Part of Invincible Faith)

Jeremiah 32:35
Last modified: 02-05-2009
[ Download ]
A response to the claim that Jeremiah 32:35 refutes the doctrine that God causes all things, including evil.
(Part of The Author of Sin)

Human Struggle and Divine Sovereignty
Last modified: 12-28-2008
[ Download ]
A response to someone who struggles with how God uses his sovereignty over all things. The three major sections deal with the relation between God's sovereignty and human infirmity, human depravity, and human spirituality.
(Part of Invincible Faith)

Supralapsarianism
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
An exposition of the order of the eternal decrees in favor of supralapsarianism as opposed to infralapsarianism.
(Part of Systematic Theology)

Arguing by Intuition
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
Many non-Christians and Arminians base the premises of their arguments on intuition, and even many Calvinists needlessly do the same. This article explains why this is fallacious, and urges Christians to cling to revelation alone in presenting and defending the Biblical/Reformed faith.
(Part of The Author of Sin)

Students in the Real World
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
This booklet is intended for Christians in high school and university. It offers relevant reminders and suggestions for students, with an emphasis on apologetics. Because of its contribution to apologetics, non-students will also find it a valuable resource.
(Part of Invincible Faith)

Power Apologetics
Last modified: 02-09-2009
[ Download ]
A series of short articles on the aggressive vindication of the faith. "Man's arrogance is revealed in his modest theology. The arrogant man's confidence in his faith is in direct proportion to his confidence in himself, in his own estimation regarding his own intelligence and competence. Since this self-confidence, even if unrealistically large, is not absolute and infinite, then his 'faith' must also be accordingly limited. His plea for humility is in fact a plea for removing God's infallible revelation as the basis for faith, and to replace it with man's arrogance as the only foundation for confidence in his religion. The basis for his apologetics is self-worship."
(Part of Captive to Reason)

The Fatal Maneuver
Last modified: 09-14-2008
[ Download ]
A fatal critique against the most popular school of presuppositional apologetics in favor of one that is biblical and rational.
(Part of Captive to Reason)

The Preacher Speaks Philosophy
Last modified: 01-04-2009
[ Download ]
The Preacher speaks to evidentialists and presuppositionalists.
(Part of Captive to Reason)

A Moron By Any Other Name
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
This article responds to a question on the use of invectives when speaking to unbelievers.
(Part of Captive to Reason)

The Da Vinci Code
Last modified: 09-17-2008
[ Download ]
This article does not directly engage the content of the novel, The Da Vinci Code, but considers the proper attitude toward this and similar works of falsehood and blasphemy.
(Part of Invincible Faith)

Symptoms of Retardation
Last modified: 12-28-2008
[ Download ]
A lack of intelligence and competence characterizes the arguments of the critics. This short article discusses the symptoms of mental disability and a prescription for their recovery.
(Part of Invincible Faith)

The Story of a System
Last modified: 09-17-2008
[ Download ]
This article discusses the popular idea that the Bible is "story," and how this relates to systematic theology and biblical theology.
(Part of Invincible Faith)

Faith to Move Mountains
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
This is an exposition of Mark 11:12-25, with emphasis on the controversial verse, Mark 11:23.
(Part of Invincible Faith)

The Passover Blood
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
The blood of the Passover Lamb delivers God's people from divine wrath. This article discusses the active and intense nature of this wrath, and the corresponding saving power of the blood of Jesus Christ.
(Part of Invincible Faith)

The God of Disasters
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
"Where is God when disasters strike?" Based on a passage from Micah 2, this article answers the question of God's relation to and uses of both natural and "man-made" disasters.
(Part of Invincible Faith)

Recall, Repent, Return
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
This is a message based on Revelation 2:4-5: "Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
(Part of Invincible Faith)

Kingdom First
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
Jesus says in Matthew 6:33, "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." This article is an exposition on the meaning and application of this verse.
(Part of Doctrine and Obedience)

God is not Mocked
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
This is a revised transcript of a two-part series on Galatians 6:7-9 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
(Part of Pure Religion)

Pure Religion
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
This is a revised transcript of a two-part series on James 1:22-27.
(Part of Pure Religion)

Policy on Charity
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
This is a revised transcript of a four-part series on 1 Timothy 5:3-16, with the main focus on verses 3-8.
(Part of Pure Religion)

As a Man Thinks
Last modified: 07-12-2011
[ Download ]
An exposition of Proverbs 22:29-23:8, including the statement, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he."
(Part of Pure Religion)

The Noble Bereans
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
An exposition of Acts 17:11.
(Part of Pure Religion)

The One Thing Needed
Last modified: 04-04-2008
[ Download ]
An exposition of Luke 10:38-42.
(Part of Pure Religion)

Crucify Him!
Last modified: 12-28-2008
[ Download ]
The New Testament insists that the Jews murdered Jesus. It states this explicitly and repeatedly, in different settings, and in various ways. This testimony so pervades Scripture that it is impervious to the efforts of those who would revise or obscure history. In fact, the biblical passages stating that the Jews murdered Jesus are so numerous that a full exposition of them could make up a whole book. This article cites some of these passages with brief comments, and in the process refutes some common attempts at neutralizing this scriptural record.
(Part of Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians)

Cessationism and Rebellion
Last modified: 03-22-2009
[ Download ]
This is a simple argument showing that cessationism is a false doctrine that preaches rebellion against the Lord.
(Part of Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians)

Cessationism and Speaking in Tongues
Last modified: 03-28-2009
[ Download ]
The argument in "Cessationism and Rebellion" is here restated and applied to speaking in tongues. The article then discusses the nature of tongues and counterfeit tongues. It concludes with a call to abandon dishonesty and prejudice in our theology, and to lay hold of the genuine spiritual power that is the inheritance of every Christian.
(Part of Sermonettes, Volume 1)

Some Questions for Empiricists
Last modified: 01-10-2010
[ Download ]
Here are some questions posed to an atheist several years ago in the course of a written exchange. These questions and others like them are unanswerable by any belief system that places any dependence on the reliability of sensations. The questions do not apply only to non-Christian systems, but almost all of them also apply to any system of so-called Christian theology, philosophy, or apologetics that affirms the reliability of sensations, induction, or science.
(Part of Sermonettes, Volume 1)

Faithful in Famine
Last modified: 04-24-2009
[ Download ]
A call to faithfulness at a time of financial crisis and hardship.
(Part of Sermonettes, Volume 1)

A Gang of Pandas
Last modified: 10-08-2011
[ Download ]
Science is essentially, pervasively, undeniably, incurably, and often arrogantly, irrational. To believe that it can discover truth is nothing other than superstition.
(Part of Sermonettes, Volume 1)

Sarcasm and Sovereignty
Last modified: 01-26-2010
[ Download ]
"If God is sovereign over all things, and everything including the Fall came about by his will, then why should I care about anything?"
(Part of Sermonettes, Volume 1)

Civil Marriage
Last modified: 05-11-2010
[ Download ]
The Christian perspective on civil marriage.
(Part of Sermonettes, Volume 1)

The Lord's Supper: Mysticized & Miniaturized
Last modified: 05-13-2010
[ Download ]
The Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper is without doubt superior to the abomination of Catholicism. That said, it has its own problems. Although less severe, these problems continue to maintain human tradition and superstition above the plain teaching of Scripture.
(Part of Sermonettes, Volume 1)

The Context of 1 Peter 3:15
Last modified: 05-13-2010
[ Download ]
It is ironic that those who teach apologetics insist on the grammatical-historical method of interpretation when they answer non-Christian misrepresentations of biblical passages, but they ignore the method when they appeal to 1 Peter 3:15 as a basis for the practice of apologetics. The result is that they are requiring Christians to answer their opponents in a manner that is in fact different from the one taught in the Bible, and legitimate rhetorical options are taken away.
(Part of Sermonettes, Volume 1)

Marriage and Divorce
Last modified: 01-01-2011
[ Download ]
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:32)
(Part of The Sermon on the Mount)

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

This opening passage foreshadows the personal and doctrinal issues that Paul will address in the body of his letter.

We do not know the exact words the Judaizers used to undermine Paul's ministry, but we can infer from his response some of the things that they might have said. He asserts that he is an apostle "sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father." It is likely that at the very beginning of his letter, he wishes to counter one of the accusations against him, that he is in fact not an apostle, or that he derives his authority and message not from Christ, but from mere men. So he begins by taking a firm stand regarding his ministry.

As one of the apostles, he has direct authorization from Christ to make definitive doctrinal pronouncements and the power to exercise church discipline. The Galatians did not hear the gospel from an inferior, unreliable, or even a secondhand source, but from an authoritative messenger sent directly by Jesus Christ and God the Father. At this point, the emphasis is on the authenticity and authority of the messenger and not the message. The latter will come up soon enough, and since Paul will say more about this, we will reserve additional comments for later.

He is an apostle sent neither "from men nor by man" – that is, he derives his authority neither from a group of men nor from an individual man. It is true that men have placed their hands upon him and sent him off to preach the gospel (Acts 13:3), but it was the Holy Spirit who called him out. It is on the basis of this divine commission and not any human recognition that Paul asserts the validity of his ministry. Indeed, as far as human recognition is concerned, his ministry is not universally accepted. This is one of the challenges that he would face time after time in his ministry, for example, not only here in Galatians, but also in his letters to the Corinthians.

There is a lesson here for how Christians should regard their ministers and how ministers should regard themselves. Although denominational ordinations, seminary degrees, and apprenticeships under prominent leaders often have something to do with the spiritual equipping of a minister and could add to a person's credibility in the eyes of men, credentials from human institutions or individuals can never impart the authority and power that come from a divine call.

If a minister thinks that he is authorized to preach because he has received credentials from his denomination, then what happens when he has to face a congregation that belongs to another denomination, and especially one that rejects the authority of his own? It is not the denominational credentials that undermine his ministry, but it is his conscious reliance on them that is self-defeating.

Then, most of us know what happens with seminary degrees. When a person claims expertise because of his seminary degree, the matter does not end there, but we are also interested in the institution that he attended. And if it is a seminary that is known for doctrines and practices that we find objectionable, it becomes easy to dismiss the person before we find out anything more about him. So a minister who thinks that he speaks with authority because he has a seminary degree faces a similar problem as one who depends on his denominational credentials. He appeals to things that have no spiritual authority in themselves, and he allows people to sweep him into narrow cliques so that those on the outside find no reason to pay him any attention.

Church credentials, seminary degrees, human endorsements, letters of recommendations, and so on, all have their roles. Some may even regard ordination as a means of grace. However, one can exercise the full power and liberty that come from the divine call only if he ministers on the basis of that divine call. This does not mean that people will always recognize the calling and authority given to a person, as in the case of Paul. But if he relies on human credentials, then even in principle his authority is reduced to that level and narrowed to that range. On the other hand, a divine mandate authorizes a person to function in any type of situation to which God sends him.

It misses the point to think that the above makes it impossible to select, promote, or examine a person for the ministry – we have been talking about a different question. When it comes to this other issue, the New Testament includes several passages listing the public qualifications for the ministry (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:1-7), which we will not discuss at this time. In short, they pertain to a person's lifestyle, character, doctrine, and competence.

Turning from the personal to the doctrinal aspect of the passage, the controversy concerns how a person becomes righteous and acceptable before God. Must he follow the law of Moses, Jewish traditions, or submit to circumcision? The immediate issue is not even whether it is good to become circumcised, to follow the law of Moses, or to obey any law of God, but whether this is the way to become righteous in God's sight. This distinction is important in order to maintain the gospel of grace and at the same time exclude antinomianism. For if as a matter of principle it is against grace to keep God's law or to obey God's command, then grace would indeed lead to sin. But this is not the gospel that Paul preaches.

Again, the question is how a person becomes righteous, justified, and acceptable before God. The topic will receive ample attention in the body of the letter, so we need not spend time on it here. What we have in this opening passage is a positive statement of the apostle's doctrine, doubtless given in anticipation of what follows, but that is also informative in itself.

Paul writes that Christ "gave himself for our sins." How is this relevant? Here is an example of how a positive statement about the gospel counteracts a false gospel, or how sound doctrine excludes its distortion. We are "rescued" because Christ "gave himself," and not because of our works or merits. To merely draw attention to this, that this is the gospel, should settle the issue. This is because, as Paul will soon point out, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing" (Galatians 2:21). That is, the idea that "righteousness could be gained through the law" is antithetical to the sacrifice of Christ, so that they exclude each other. However, to be a Christian is to affirm that Christ "gave himself for our sins," and therefore, that "righteousness could be gained through the law" cannot be part of the Christian gospel, nor is anyone a Christian who affirms that righteousness is obtained this way.

This simple principle also speaks to today's controversies surrounding the doctrine of justification. In fact, the statement that Christ "gave himself for our sins to rescue us" should settle most questions and refute most heresies related to this doctrine. That is, any teaching that denies the necessity or the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, even if by implication, cannot be the Christian gospel. And as Paul declares in the next passage, no one who teaches or affirms such a teaching can be a Christian. A person cannot be a Christian and at the same time affirm or practice something that renders Christ's sacrifice unnecessary or insufficient.

Thus in this introductory passage, Paul encapsulates his answer to both the personal and the doctrinal aspects of the controversy. The rest of the letter contains specific arguments and explanations.

It is sometimes said that Paul is not a systematic thinker. It depends on what a person means by this as to whether or not we should accept the statement. If it means that his writings are occasional, so that he does not leave us with a body of doctrine presented as a system, then this is true in a sense, although we cannot accept even this without qualification. However, if it suggests that Paul is a purely pragmatic thinker, coming up with solutions as problems arise without an existing, extensive, organized, and self-consistent understanding of God's mind, or if it suggests that any part of Paul's writings contradicts or even appears to contradict another part, then the statement is false.

Although we may agree that Paul has written no systematic theology as such, and certainly not a textbook on the subject, in his mind he indeed affirms a system of theology that stands behind all of his sermons and letters. In fact, my exposition on Acts 17 points out that his speech on Mars Hill follows an outline that is almost identical to the arrangement of our typical systematic theology,² touching on the doctrines of revelation, theology proper, creation, providence, anthropology, ethics, christology, soteriology, and eschatology. This is not a coincidence, but it is because the topics logically and naturally lend themselves to such an arrangement in thinking and presentation.³ In philosophical terms, the same outline would address the topics of epistemology, metaphysics, religion, biology, history, and ethics. Moreover, that speech exhibits a logical order in which one point follows from the previous one, and each one is related to all the others.

The necessary conclusion is that Paul is a systematic theologian, although this fact is obscured by the occasional nature of his letters. Or to put this in a much more accurate way, those who wish to find an excuse to assert their own theories and agendas exploit the occasional nature of these letters in order to deny the systematic structure and content of the apostle's thinking.

For a discourse to be occasional means that there is a context, and when a person addresses an audience who shares a common context, it is natural and often more efficient to assume the context and address only the problems and disagreements, rather than to begin "from scratch." Just because most of Paul's writings are occasional does not mean that he is primarily a pragmatic thinker or that he invents doctrines to match the solutions as the need arises. Instead, he explains and develops the relevant aspects of his system of theology, and then he applies them to the current situation. Not only does his occasional letters contain extensive doctrinal expositions, but behind everything that he writes is a complete theological system. There are strong indications of this in our passage, even though it is only an introduction to a letter.

Several times Paul acknowledges God and his divine fatherhood. Then, he puts God the Father and Jesus Christ on the same level, and at the same time distinguishes the two. Although he does not mention the Holy Spirit, he acknowledges the Trinity elsewhere in his writings, and he is consistent with the doctrine here. He says that he is sent "not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father," implying that Christ is more than a mere man, but on the level with God the Father, who has the right and power to send him forth as an apostle.

Redemption was accomplished "according to the will of our God," signifying that salvation is effected by the gracious purpose and providence of a sovereign God. By his will, Christ "gave himself for our sins." Here we find the ideas of sin, of punishment, and of vicarious sacrifice, or the doctrine of the atonement. Both the justice and mercy of God are embedded in the above. After Christ sacrificed himself, God "raised him from the dead," so that the resurrection is included here as well.

The work of Christ has "rescued us from the present evil age." The language refers not to a removal from something, but a deliverance from its power. Although Christians remain in this world after their conversion, they have been delivered from slavery to the power of sin. Here Paul makes ethical applications out of eschatological categories. He acknowledges a "two age" division between the present and the future, but the coming of Christ has ushered in the kingdom of God, so that the very powers of heaven reside in believers even now. An entire book could be devoted to this point alone. We may also see a contrast between the "present evil age" and the "for ever and ever" of God's glory and power.

Thus most of the loci of a complete systematic theology is either mentioned or assumed in these first five verses of the letter. It is true that one must bring with him some of the details from other parts of Scripture to fully perceive and appreciate these doctrinal assumptions. But the fact that the assumptions are here means that these doctrines are ingrained in the apostle's thinking, and that he stands on this foundation as he writes to the Galatians.

Like his other writings, the letter to the Galatians is an expression and application of this system of theology, so that it is adapted to the need at hand. However, when the common context is taken away, and when he has to present the Christian faith "from scratch," as in his speech on Mars Hill, then we see that Paul is indeed a systematic theologian, a systematic thinker. Again, there in Acts 17, where his audience is unfamiliar with the biblical doctrines and thought categories, he follows an arrangement that resembles our typical systematic theology outline.

Those scholars who regard Paul as merely a pragmatic thinker and not a systematic one err in examining the question from the wrong end. Whereas Paul in fact possesses an extensive and coherent system in his mind, and his letters contain his expression and application of this, these scholars examine his writings without considering the kind of mind that produced them. Just because a piece of writing is not a systematic theology does not mean that its author is not a systematic theologian or that he has no system of belief in his mind.

For example, although I have written a systematic theology and consider the subject the most important course of learning for a believer, I often write sermons, commentaries, position papers, and responses to questions and objections about the Christian faith, and almost none of them will read like a systematic theology, since they are occasional. But a system of theology is so ingrained in my mind that, whether consciously or unconsciously, everything that I speak or write is in fact an expression and application of this system.⁴ And insofar as I am a consistent thinker, all of my writings should conform to this system. This is a key to interpreting a writer's materials. If you grasp a person's system of thought, you are more likely to correctly understand what he means when he applies it. In fact, in many cases, you should be able to predict what he will say on a subject.

The ideal is that every detail of a person's system conforms to that system of thought that is in Scripture. The honest and competent theologian will, of course, seek to resolve any anomaly in favor of what Scripture actually teaches, even if he must discard his previous beliefs to do this. To the extent that the system of theology in his mind is derived from and corresponds to that which is taught in Scripture, this person's thinking is synchronized with the mind of Christ, and he is qualified to address the issues and questions that he faces as a believer and as a minister.

Paul leaves us an example to follow if we were to become mature thinkers. That is, we must obtain a comprehensive and coherent understanding of the system of thought that is revealed in Scripture, and formulate the various doctrines in our minds in a way that exhibits perfect harmony, excluding all traces of contradictions and paradoxes. Then, we must learn to fluidly apply this system in our daily conversations, as we preach the gospel, as we debate unbelievers and answer heretics, counsel fellow Christians, resolve ethical questions, and so on.

Like Paul, when we are applying this system of thought, there is no need to always refer to it in a prescribed arrangement, but what we speak or write should demonstrate a logical interplay of the biblical doctrines, deftly blending them together to produce an answer as if it comes straight from the mind of Christ to address the situation at hand. Then, of course, if the situation demands that we summarize the entire Christian faith in a logical order and without being confined to a narrow context, we should be able to do that as well.

NOTES

² See Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations.

³ See Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology.

⁴ See Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology, Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, Apologetics in Conversation, The Author of Sin, and Captive to Reason.

But before we proceed to that, we must complete our discussion on apologetics by addressing one of the most common errors promoted by Christian leaders. This is the teaching that a believer's holy life is a necessary part of his apologetic, and that it is even the most prominent and effective aspect of defending the faith. Thus in materials on written on the subject, we frequently find statements like, "Love is the most powerful apologetic," and "The greatest argument for the gospel is a holy life." These are often asserted under the broad principle that "actions speak louder than words."

However, love or holiness is not a more powerful apologetic than rational discourse. In fact, since an apologetic is by definition a verbal rational discourse to advance one's cause or to answer opposition, strictly speaking, love and holiness are not any part of an apologetic at all. They do, as we will point out, provide materials for an apologetic. As for actions, not only do they not speak louder than words, but they do not speak at all. Actions require words to speak for them, explaining their origins and implications, or else they remain silent.

Paul said to the elders at Ephesus:

"You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus….

"Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" (Acts 20:18-21, 32-35)

If love or holiness is the most powerful apologetic, then why did Paul need to describe his attitude and behavior in such a coherent manner in order to make his point? His love or holiness should have already made the point for him. And if actions speak louder than words, then why did Paul need to say anything about them? Why did he use a weaker means to draw attention to his actions? He himself reminded the elders that they already knew about his actions.

Likewise, when Jesus said, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" (John 8:46), it would have been an unnecessary and even inferior means of drawing attention to his own holiness and integrity if his actions were indeed louder than his words. But it was the other way around – he needed words to draw attention to his actions, which remained totally silent by themselves.

An apologetic is an argument or explanation that you verbally advance. It should not require unbelievers to infer your defense for you from your actions! Indeed, you may appeal to your actions in your verbal discourse to show that your lifestyle is consistent with your message, but it is not an apologetic to close your mouth and expect the unbelievers to convince themselves that the gospel is true because of your love and holy lifestyle.

And without establishing a proper moral standard by verbal argument, why would they infer what you want from your actions? You can exhibit compassion, and they will infer nosiness. You can demonstrate humility, and they will infer weakness. You can value truth, and they will infer bigotry. The problem with non-Christians is not only that they lack compassion, humility, truth, and so on, but that they do not even know how to think about these things. Their minds are so thoroughly corrupt and feeble that if there is any significance in your holy actions, you must explain it to them. Therefore, although our actions can be related to our apologetic, in themselves they do not constitute any part of an apologetic.

The above carries two implications for evangelism and apologetics.

First, there is no such thing as evangelism or apologetics without a verbal rational discourse, or without the use of language. There are Christians who say, "I do not preach or argue – I bear witness about Christ by my life." Those who say this often do not have very impressive lives in the first place, but more relevant is the fact that such an approach cannot bear witness about Christ at all.

Even if unbelievers notice them, perhaps they will think that these people were born this way, predisposed to pure and holy living, and thus their lives produce nothing but praise for themselves. Maybe some unbelievers will think that these Christians are in fact Buddhists or adherents of some other system of thought, and so their holy actions will end up inciting others to seek out some religion or philosophy that might or might not have anything to do with Christianity.

Second, the above implies that non-Christians are not excused from believing the gospel just because there are many professing believers who turn out to be hypocrites, or who behave in ways that are inconsistent with biblical teachings. The truth is in the message and not in the lifestyle. Although the imperfection and the hypocrisy of Christians indeed cause many to stumble, those who stumble are not excused, since there is no direct rational relationship between whether the gospel of Christ is true and whether believers behave consistently with it.

In fact, whether we are talking about believers or unbelievers, those who stumble over other people's moral failures must be incredibly stupid people. Why is the gospel discredited when a believer steals from his employer? And when a pastor commits adultery, what does it have anything to do with the truth concerning Jesus Christ? The gospel never claims to produce perfect people in this life, and these individuals might or might not be genuine believers in the first place. Then, so what if Catholics priests sexually molest hundreds of children? What does that have to do with us? We do not even acknowledge that Catholicism is Christianity, or that Catholics are Christians, and so this is what we expect of them. We would be surprised if they do not molest the children.

So what is the problem? The only explanation is that those who stumble like this are stupid. We might say that it is a moral issue, that they are trying to find any reason to escape from the claims of the gospel. But still, the fact that they think they can get away with such a poor excuse must mean that these people are astonishingly stupid.

They are not only stupid, but spineless as well. A renowned Christian leader falls into sin, and they stop going to their own churches, when their pastors have done nothing wrong. A church scandal breaks out in another part of the world far away, and these people stop giving to their own churches, when these churches have nothing to do with the scandal. Rather than clinging close to the Lord, and resolve by the grace and power of God to do better than those who have fallen, and even to help restore them, they will use anything as an excuse to stop serving God and doing what he requires of them.

Preachers often say, "If you do not practice what you preach, then no one would believe you when you talk about the gospel." But statements like this amount to an attack against the inherent intellectual perfection of the gospel as well as the work of the Holy Spirit. The truth is that if you never practice anything that you preach, or if you always do the opposite, as long as the content of your preaching is biblical, everyone should still believe you, and many will. You are not excused from your sins, but God's truth and power, and his entire plan of redemption, do not hinge on your holiness.

Hypocrisy among Christians must be harshly condemned, but it provides no excuse for others to fall from their profession of faith or to remain in unbelief. If no one believes the gospel, you believe the gospel! If no one practices holiness, you practice holiness! What feeble intellect and character a person must have, to turn from Christ just because someone else does! Rather than laboring to counteract the problem, with his eyes wide opened he becomes a part of the problem. One is almost tempted to have more sympathy with the one who causes the stumbling than the one who stumbles.

In summary, it is wrong to say that actions speak louder than words, or that love or holiness is the most powerful apologetic, for the reason that actions do not speak, and love or holiness is not an apologetic. The hypocrisy and moral failure of some Christians are irrelevant to God's claim upon every person, and therefore provide no excuse for unbelievers and professing believers to stumble, to reject the faith, or to turn away from it. We emphasize this in order to neutralize some of the problems caused by the false view, which gives our performance before the world a place that it should not possess, and that only God's word possesses.

That said, there are reasons to insist that love, holiness, virtue, good works, and performing actions consistent with our profession are of the utmost importance. First, although in themselves they are excluded from apologetics, they provide materials for some of what we might say when defending the faith. Second, although they excuse no one, it is true that our moral failure, hypocrisy, and inconsistency often become stumbling blocks to others. Instead of providing occasions for them to stumble, we must do all that we can by the grace of God to contribute to their conversion and progress. Third, the most important reason, we practice love and holiness because this is God's command, and this is our true nature as regenerated people. We live our lives before God's presence, and therefore holiness is essential even if our failures would never lead anyone to stumble, or even when no one would know about them.

Our Collected Works set is now available in five volumes, and in both hardcovers and paperbacks. For a complete listing of our books, please CLICK HERE. Individual volumes of the Collected Works set are displayed at the bottom of the page. As we continue to produce new materials, there will be many more volumes added. So this set is marked the "March 2006" edition to distinguish it from future editions.

To purchase all of our books separately would cost you $163.14 (not counting shipping), but the paperback set would cost you only $86.37. This is a substantial saving, and one of the main reasons why we decided to release our materials as a set. If you want something more attractive and durable, you can purchase the hardcover set for $133.77. This still costs less than if you were to purchase the books separately. The hardcover books from this printer are excellent. The paper, binding, and glossy hardcovers are better than many of the those released by commercial publishers.

As always, we forgo all royalties for our books to minimize the costs to our readers. And remember that all of our written materials are always free for download at www.rmiweb.org.

Under our copyright policy, you are permitted to print, copy, and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for any ministry purpose, such as for your church, study group, or personal outreach.

The following lists the contents of each volume:

Volume One
– 713 pages –
1. Systematic Theology
2. Ultimate Questions
3. Presuppositional Confrontations
4. Apologetics in Conversation
Hardcover = $28.30 / Paperback = $18.82

Volume Two
– 726 pages –
1. The Sermon on the Mount
2. Commentary on Ephesians
3. Commentary on Philippians
4. Commentary on Malachi
Hardcover = $28.56 / Paperback = $19.08

Volume Three
– 651 pages –
1. The Author of Sin
2. Captive to Reason
3. The Ministry of the Word
4. Prayer and Revelation
Hardcover = $27.05 / Paperback = $17.57

Volume Four
– 707 pages –
1. Born Again
2. Doctrine and Obedience
3. Pure Religion
4. The Light of Our Minds
5. Godliness with Contentment
6. Renewing the Mind
Hardcover = $28.18 / Paperback = $18.70

Volume Five
– 383 pages –
1. On Good and Evil
2. Biblical Healing
3. The Parables of Jesus
4. Samson and His Faith
Hardcover = $21.68 / Paperback = $12.20

Please note that we are excluded from every step of the order process — your information and money never cross our hands. So if you have a problem with your order, you must contact the company directly (more info). If you are unsure, you can always order one volume first, and then the rest later. In addition, these are print-on-demand books, so it takes a few days for paperback books to be printed and shipped, and hardcover orders might take several days longer (more info).