All right, guys, I don't see anybody else coming in, so we'll go ahead and pray in. Holy Father, thank you for this opportunity you've given us to come together and grow together as men in the church, Lord. We pray for this evening, this opportunity that you may grow us. We pray that you and your spirit will speak to us and that we don't use our own philosophies and our own human ideals, but that we look into your word and expound upon it, Lord. Holy God, we pray for those who couldn't make it this evening. We pray for Pastor Brian as he is on his road trip. We pray for Julie Kenia as she is recovering and healing from her eye surgery and lead to be a a loving husband to her. Lord we thank you for a baby Atlas for the health of that child and the Benjamin family that they are healthy and we thank you for Gabe's faithfulness for being here this evening or we pray for the health of all the newborn children at Grace Church and we look forward to the the growth not just physically in this church Lord but spiritually as we Grow from our justification in this sanctified life. We thank you for opportunities to come together and have Bible studies such as this So we praise you we worship you and we thank you in Jesus Christ's name. Amen Alright guys, so we dive in into acts 17 which is chapter 4 what I've chose done to do is since this is a pretty bulky text rather than trying to memorize a portion I figure we can just go ahead and refresh ourselves over the chapter. We see through chapter 13 of Paul and Barnabas being called by the Holy Spirit to be his witnesses to the Gentile nation starting in the church of Antioch And then coming back to Antioch, you know, this chapter 16, where we see Paul and Barnabas split because of their disagreement on John Mark. And now we see Paul traveling through Athens, preaching the word in an apologetic manner. So I figured it would, might be a little encouraging, if not also refreshing to, hear a Bible reading app and how it can maybe be helpful in our day-to-day if we're such busy in life. But I figured just for this chapter, we can just go ahead and listen to that. So I'll go ahead and play that now. When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica. Apologies, I got a little glitch going on with this thing. Couldn't be because you got so many halves. Couldn't be. It's the first time I've seen this thing do this, which is unfortunate. at a time such as this. Play a different one. Nope. How many of you guys are familiar with the dwell app and or use it? Anybody? This is how it normally looks. When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphibolus and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days, he reasoned with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah, he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-hearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women. But other Jews were jealous. So they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob, and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason's house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd. But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting, these men have caused trouble all over the world and have now come here. And Jason has welcomed them into his house. They're all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus. When they heard this, and the city officials were thrown into turmoil. Then, they put Jason and the others on bail and let them go. As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now, the Berean Jews were a more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. As a result, Many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. But when the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, some of them went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up. The believers immediately sent Paul to the coast, but Silas and Timothy stayed at Berea. Those who escorted Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible. While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, what is this babbler trying to say? Others remarked, oh, he seems to be advocating father of God. because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, may we know what this new teaching is that you're presenting? You're bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean. All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the lay Then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said, people of Athens, I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription, to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship. And this is what I'm going to proclaim to you, the god who made the world and everything in it, is the Lord of heaven and earth, and has not lived in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man, he made all the nations that they should inhabit the whole earth, and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being. As some of your own poets have said, we are his offspring. Therefore, since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people. All right, so That was the whole chapter obviously, but we're going to key in on 17 Chapter 17, verses 16 through 31, that's setting in Athens. So we'll go ahead and dive right into the book. Chapter four, Presuppositionalism. And now everybody does have a book, right? Pretty sure you guys have one. All right. So I'll go ahead and kick it off after our first text. The Apostle Paul's address to the Areopagus Council on Morris Hill occurred in Athens during his second missionary journey. While traveling through Macedonia, Paul and his co-laborers were forced to flee Thessalonica because of Jewish opposition. The hostile opposition relentlessly followed them to Berea. It was at Berea that the brethren sent Paul away to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy behind. Upon arrival, Paul sends the brethren back to Berea with the request for Silas and Timothy to join him in Athens as soon as possible. So we're setting a stage here of what's going on. Now, to dive into Athens itself. Paul waits for them in Athens. We see in verse 16 through 19, Athens was the philosophical center of the world. A city famous for its intellectual tradition. As Paul walked around Athens, he became greatly distressed at the rampant idolatry he observed in the city. we are told that he saw the city full of idols. The Greek verb for saw, it denotes to view attentively or to carefully observe. This is reiterated when Paul addresses the Areopagus in verse 23. For as I passed by and beheld your devotions, objects of worship, here the verb beheld is an intensified verb indicating that he seriously contemplated the gross idolatry of the city. The city was wholly given to idolatry. Athens was so full of idols, it was said that there was more idols than people. That's sad, that's really sad. Paul's spirit was stirred, verse 16. And the Greek stirred is a very strong verb, giving a sense of being infuriated. Think about that for a second. When we think as Christians, when we're in the field witnessing and using apologetics, we think being infuriated is a bad thing, right? Being upset or rebuking is anti-Christian, right? But we see the complete opposite for the example Paul has left us in Acts 17. Continuing on, Paul was infuriated at the multitude of temples and idols he saw. Wherever he gazed, he saw the manifestations of polytheism. Polytheism, nature defied, humanity depicted as superhuman, and human virtues and vices exalted into divinities. The imperfect tense of the verb stirred indicates that Paul was continually disturbed. Athens was steeped into idolatry and he was terribly provoked. Although Paul's visit to Athens was supposed to be a time of rest as he waited for Silas and Timothy, he could not remain idle, being greatly disturbed by the gross idolatry of the city. Paul spent his time disputing the gospel in the Jewish synagogue and in the agora, the marketplace. In verse 17, the Greek verb translated as disputed conveys the idea of discourse, discussion, and debate. The use of the imperfect, wait, before we move on, that's another thing that we continually do in today's culture in America is we're so centered and focused around our comfort and our content lifestyle that we choose to have this belief or idea that what I believe is what I am set and grounded in, and whatever you believe, if it's different than mine, so be it. I'm not going to spend or waste my time debating you, because it takes so much energy. That's not the mindset of Paul here. Paul's taking his life and laying it down for the gospel. While we have, I guess, you know, neighborhood luncheons and choose not to talk about heavy subjects because they're too difficult because Right Yeah. Anthony is saying that we live in a culture that it's impolite to talk about politics and religion. The problem with the culture has insinuated that idea. I would say, and I think you guys would probably agree, that that's half true. Nobody is dying out there for politics. Nobody has given up their life for politics. we see in the scriptures and we see today that people are laying down their lives for their religion, specifically for Christ. And that's what we're keynoting here. So, half right in the sense that it is probably impolite to talk about politics, unless of course that political understanding falls into a religious point of view, such as abortion, right? So, Yeah. Yeah. It's hijacked. If you can believe in the concept of objective truth, then you can actually reason from there. I think I've heard you say it before in some of the previous lessons. You always have to be ready to defend the faith, but there's also points where you're like, all right, this person is just not interested at this point in their life, so I'll plant the seed. I'll do what I can and move on and hopefully someone can get them a couple months from now. Right, it's the initiating portion. Apologetics is the responsive, right? So we are to initiate. And to Gabe's point, we're going back to absolute truth. There's no point in having conversation, debate, dialogue, or any reasonable discussion whatsoever, whether it be with ourselves or anyone else, if we can't admit that there's no absolute truth. If there's no absolute truth, then we can't trust or believe anything that is said to us or we say ourselves, right? And the one reason why we're able to have absolute truth is because of an absolute truth giver, the one who created all things. So yeah, these are great points, guys. Let's continue on. Verse 17, the Greek verb translated as disputed, conveys the ideas of discourse, discussion, debate. The use of the imperfect verb tense again denotes continual action. So this isn't just a one time back and forth dialogue. This is an ongoing dialogue. It refers to both his discourse in the synagogue and the marketplace. Once a week on the Sabbath, Paul would discourse with the Jews in synagogues, with the Jews and Greek proselytites in the synagogue here. We would expect Paul to engage the Jews as his custom was. Hear that again, as his custom was. So now we're going to reread Acts 17, 1 through 3, the very beginning of this chapter. Now, when they had passed through Amphibolus, In Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them and three Sabbath days reasoned with them. Reasoned them how? Out of the scriptures. Thank you. Opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead and that this Jesus whom I preach unto you is Christ. Obviously, Paul Nelson, the author of this book, is using the old English King James Version. So I just want to read it out of my ESV study Bible. Now, when they had passed through in Phibolus and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in as was his custom. And on three Sabbath days, he reasoned with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer. and to rise from the dead and saying, this Jesus whom I proclaim to you is the Christ. So we all know here that Christ isn't Jesus' last name. It is a title. The Christ is the Greek word for the Hebrew word, which is? Messiah. verse four, and some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas as did a many great of the devout. All right, so I want to pause right here and delve a little bit into the first portion of this group of intellectuals that Paul is encountering. Okay, we've already seen and read the word polytheism. So question one on your handout, Athens is a city wholly given to idolatry, religion known as polytheism. Define polytheism. So we see Greek, poly means much, polos, many, theos, God, right? So the simple version would be many gods. I want to take a break here and look at, there's a really great website. It's called presuppositions.org. This is what it would look like when you first go to the website and you can scroll down about halfway and you see examples on the offense. So you got deductive argument that atheism is false and then right underneath that deductive argument that polytheism is false. Let's click on that and take a look at this. So they define polytheism here as any philosophy which claims that there are multiple supreme creators of the universe. I think this definition is more important than just simply many gods, right? Polytheism more accurately is stating that there are multiple supreme creators of the entire universe, okay? A question two on your sheet, there's a purpose behind this so I can kind of get you guys to have a framework an understanding of how we can really easily break this down. What are some example gods of polytheism in Greek mythology? Who here has heard of the false Greek god Gaia? Anybody know what that god is? Earth. Gaia is the earth god. There's another one called, if I pronounce this correctly, Ouranos, that's O-U-R-A-N-O-S. Ouranos, and that's the sky god, right? So I'm building this framework now for you on question two. Gaia the earth god, Ouranos the sky god. Anybody heard of Pontus? What's that god? Pontus is the sea god, the sea god. Not the letter of the body of water. And then I'm sure a lot of you guys probably heard of this one, Helios, the sun god, right? You guys seeing this little bit of familiarity here, Genesis 1? Gaia the Earth God, Uranus the Sky God, Pontus the Sea God, and Helios the Sun God. Now, let's look at question three. What logical contradiction is there with polytheism? Now, we're going to use this website again, presuppositions.org. We're going to scroll down, and we're going to look at our proof, premises, and conclusions. Can everybody see this? Proof, humans assume that all contradictions are false. Obviously. Any worldview that does not allow for this assumption to be rationally justified is deductively false. Okay. Can somebody read premise one, please? If anyone is not the author of every aspect of creation, then his authority is insufficient to rationally guarantee the behavior of creation. Thank you. Can somebody read premise two, please? Under polytheism, No one is the author of every aspect of creation. Okay, with those two premises, the conclusion is, therefore, under polytheism, no one has the authority to rationally guarantee the behavior of creation. If you've got an Earth God, a Sky God, a Sea God, a Sun God, which one of those has the authority to rationally guarantee the behavior of creation? Are they all equally working together? Makes no sense, right? So there you pretty much have the answer right there for your question three on your handout. What logical contradiction is there within polyism? No one is the author of every aspect of creation. Therefore, every God's authority is insufficient to rationally guarantee the behavior of creation. They did all the time, yeah. Here's one that really makes them go haywire, because I've met people that believe in this philosophical religion. What created that God? Where did it come from? Right? Because we see a lot of these gods were created from other gods. What created them? Right? And if they always existed, were they always the sun god? Because the sun had a beginning. So, you know, they try to bob and weave around that. But there you go. So polytheism is a philosophy that claims that there are multiple creators of the earth or the universe. I'm sorry. And then the logical contradiction is no one is the author or no God is the author of every aspect of creation. Therefore, every God's authority is insufficient to rationally guarantee the behavior of creation. Every God's authority is insufficient to rationally guarantee the behavior of creation. You see it again here on your conclusion. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. What's what can we learn from our past sessions to even go beyond that without even having to use the logical contradiction argument when talking to these type of people in the field? You're hinting on it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Now, we're going to get in this in the next chapter. So it's probably going to be three weeks from now. I mean, four weeks from now, since we do it every other. So we're going to break this chapter in half and do the latter part of Chapter four next men's meeting. So then we'll dive in. But we've hinted on this a lot. It's pretty much the the kind of central core of going out into the field and using precepts in practice. We know everybody we encounter knows of the general revelation of God. Every one of them, right? And it's a general revelation. Now we're going to go into further next chapter in the difference between general revelation and special revelation. But everybody knows the general revelation. Now, what I'm getting at is the general revelation doesn't give them the idea that there is at least a deity. We're going to see this later on in our handout. But it's not just simply a deity or some sort of supernatural deities. No, a general revelation of the one true God. They may not know him personally, right? Not everybody in this room knows each other personally on a personal level. But you guys know each other in a general understance, right? Nobody, none of us in this room are thinking to ourselves that one of us is a woman. Nobody's thinking that one of us is two people, right? We have a general understanding that we are all one dude in this room, right? We have that general revelation. It's the special revelation where we go in and dive in personally and get to know each other personally, right? So that's what we're getting at. When we're practicing that in the field, that I come upon this person who believes in polytheism, no, you don't believe that, right? They've suppressed and tried to articulate this falsehood in their own brain. And it's all a lie, and they know it's a lie, right? We don't need to try to convince them. And we can have that as our foreground, if you will, our foundation. We know in our being, in our minds, that this person knows eternal vision of the true God. And then we can further go in and point out the logical contradictions within their false religion, if you will. All right, moving on. We've already read it again in question four in your handout. What was the Apostle Paul's customary manner of discourse debate? Reasoning from the scriptures. Reasoning from the scriptures and got you didn't I? It's reasoning from the scriptures and Guess what, guys? What has not become scripture yet? The gospel. The gospel had not yet become written scripture yet. So it's raising from the scriptures and telling of the gospel. And what is the gospel? It's actual historical accounts. It's not a religious myth. It's an actual historical account. that Christ came, dwelled in the flesh, lived a life perfectly on our behalf, died our punishment, took that sin that we deserved to drink the God's wrath, and he drank that cup of wrath. And then because his sacrifice was sufficient from his holy, being perfect and holy in all, he was resurrected three days later and then ascended into heaven. So these are actual historical accounts, guys. So that's what Paul is doing. Now, just a little break right there to think about that. Paul's customary manner of discourse debate, discourse debate is what? Not even that. Just basic discord and debate in Christian religion is apologetics. OK. Now the answer to this question it's reasoning from scriptures and telling of the gospel which is the actual historical events. Is that evidential? Say it louder. Now Gabe, I think you shared a video of James White where he declared that presuppositional standing your ground, having a foundation of scripture, of God's word, of the gospel, which now is God's word. But that doesn't mean you can't use evidence, right? It's having the mindset that evidence only works in the framework of God's creation. If you know that God created all things when we use it out in the field for our gospel creation exhibit we're using precept. We're going look guys today's modern day science has shown that dinosaurs are not billions or millions of years old that the earth and the fossil record and the rock layers are not evidence for millions or billions of years as the evident evolutionary education system is trying to force down our children's throats. The science that we have today is actually more in line with the biblical creation account. Now this only makes sense in the framework of God's word, but outside of God's word, it makes no sense. They've got no ground to stand on. So it's a presuppositional manner. Okay. Well, that's the purpose of missions, right? It's to go out and, you know, Romans 10, 17, so faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. That's the purpose of preaching, that's the purpose of missionaries, that's the purpose of evangelism, right? It's to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. The problem in lies is with the other party who's suppressing. OK, so we're going to dive deeper into that now. Back into the book, I want us to skip on over to. For those who have the red book, we're going to be right here where it says asserting. Now, the brown book is the same, but the red book, we're going to be on page 27. Asserting the point of contact, verse 22, I'm gonna read the paragraph right above that. Being brought before the Areopagus Council, Paul begins his defense of the faith. In verse 22, we see Paul taking his stand as an orator in the midst of the council and skillfully addressing them. Ye men of Athens, this was familiar Greek rhetoric. The same formula used by the famous orator Demosthenes, Demosthenes, thank you, sir. What followed was nothing less than a masterpiece of apologetics. It is the prototype for all Christian apologetics. The following is an outline of Paul's apologetic method at Athens. Now here we have the answer, the following answer for your question five on your handout. Verse 22, we have asserting the point of contact. Verse 23a, We have critique of the unbeliever's worldview. Verse 23b, we have asserting ultimate authority. In verse 24 through 26, we have pushing the antithesis of different worldviews. Now, furthering on in your handout, that's where you're gonna see where we're gonna stop today is that pushing the antithesis of a different worldviews. Next men's study, we're gonna go on to verse 27, starting, which is revealing spiritual blindness and the noetic effects of sin. Verse 28 is illustrating the point of contact. Verse 29 is applying the point of contact. And verses 30 through 31 is culpable ignorance. Now, as you guys are writing this down exhaustively, I just want to state that the reason why it seems so exhaustive of writing this out is because I want us all to have an understanding of this outline of Paul's apologetic. How is he going about doing this? Because Paul Nelson, as he clearly stated, this is the prototype for all Christian apologetics. It is nothing less than a masterpiece of apologetics, Paul Nelson states. Right. So if this is the case, if this is true, we probably want to know how we can outline how we can mimic Paul's apologetic here in Athens. OK, so on the back of your sheet, we're going to go into question six. But we will be going into question six. after we read this first portion. So if I can get a volunteer, please, to read Asserting the Point of Contact. Let's have you stop after the quotes he gives for Romans and Ephesians, please. Asserting the Point of Contact, Acts 17, 22, 23. Tenfold stood in the midst of the Moorish hills and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive of supernatural spirits. The presence of a multitude of idols, temples, and altars Paul really draws on an obvious point of contact, the image of God in man and his innate sense of deity. Sensus divinet. Divinitatis. Yes. Man inherently and inalienably. I can't say it. Inalienably. Yeah, inalienably. Every man possesses an inescapable sense of deity inscribed upon his heart by virtue of being created in the image of God. This is the critical point of contact for the Christian apologist. Man was created and will always be. Say that last sentence again, please. That's a good stopping point, yeah. So we just, we just said it guys. Man was created a religious being. It is part of his natural constitution. No one can escape knowing, knowing what? That there are divinities? That there are possibly multiple gods? No one can escape knowing God. All men have a general knowledge of gods and divinities. Oh, that's not what that says. All men have a general knowledge of God. Singular. Now, question six on your handout. What is the census divinitatis, and is this census within all mankind? Yep. So the first part of your answer is, it is the innate sense of the divine, of a deity. an eighth sense of the divine, of the deity. The second part of that question is, is this census within all mankind? Yes. Because all of mankind is created in the image of God. You guys see that? In this sense, in this sense that because all mankind is created in the image of God, mankind is aware of the spiritual, the supernatural, and the divinity. It's kind of like the artist's signature of the work of man, I guess, right? Exactly. God created this amazing work of art called Mankind, and in his image, he signed it as God as the author of that creation. And we all have that imprinted on our hearts, basically. Absolutely. Absolutely, we have it imprinted on our hearts. A spiritual signature. All right. Now, question seven. On your handout, I believe you're going to basically see an elongated answer already written down for you. But I left some space there for you to give a short term of that answer. Question seven, through the census divinitatis, use a two-step method explaining why the Athenians were wrong in their pursuit of the divine. Answer one, they suppressed God by exchanging the true God with false gods. We see that in Romans 1, 18 to 25. What's a short-term way of saying that? They denied the judge, capital J. They denied the judge. Answer two, they suppress their culpable sin guilt with false divinities to appease their senses divinitatis, in which their sin would supposedly no longer hold them accountable. What's a short-term way of saying that? They deny their judgment. So they're not just suppressing God, they're suppressing their sin guilt. So they deny the judge and they deny their judgment. All right. Say again. Common to today. Common to today, absolutely. All right, let me get a volunteer to read the outline for verse 23, Critique of the Unbeliever's Worldview. Picking up at Critique of the Unbeliever's Worldview. Therefore, he ignorantly worships. around between neutral and neutral. We went over this and we kind of almost go over this every session. But specifically to the text, Paul did not capitulate to some neutral ground between natural theology and Greek philosophy. There is no neutral ground. Neutrality is a myth. Now, to the question I kind of hinted at in our text thread, Are we seeing here an evidential type apologetic from Paul? Because what do we see from evidential type apologetics? We see the apologist, the Christian apologist, lowering himself, removing God as the judge and placing the unbeliever as the judge. and trying to come at him on common ground, on neutral understanding, and say, now, let me take what you have and let me add some evidence to it and have you lift up to my level of Christianity, right? Are we seeing Paul do that here? No. No, he flat out said, you ignorantly worship. He's not coming at it from any neutral point of view. He's not coming at it from any neutral ground whatsoever. So Paul here is not using evidential method of apologetics. He's doing presuppositional apologetics. Now, an evidentialist might say, well, what about in this text we see in verse 27, 28, where we go that they should seek God and perhaps feel their way towards and find him, yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for in him we live and move and have our being. Then Paul says, as even some of your own poets have said, right? Paul's saying now he's going in at a neutral point of view here, right? What does Paul say? Your poets have said what? For we are indeed his offspring. Where does that come from? The scriptures. The scriptures. This is not an evidential method. This is a pre-suppositional method. Paul's planting his feet, digging his legs deep in the ground, and not wavering one bit, right? This is not evidential method of apologetics. This is pre-supp all day long. That same line. Let's see. I'm assuming it's probably just like mixing of cultures. So I'm going to drag this out of the Reformation Study Bible in the footnotes. It says, for some of your own poets, knowing that the Athenians did not know or respect the Old Testament, Paul quotes from three of their own poets. Although their words originally referred to Zeus, the head of the Greek pantheon, whom Stoics reinterpreted as a personification of reason, Paul applies the quotations to the true and living God of heaven. The poets are, I can't say this name, Epimenides, 600 BC, Cleanthes, which is 331 to 233 BC, and Aratus, which is 315 to 240 BC. So there's the poets, right? Exactly, Paul's drawing the census of Natatus out of even the past poets, but then he's even coming in, like you share with James White, he's bringing in a piece of evidence, but showing this doesn't work in an atheistic, polytheistic, or pantheistic worldview. It only works in the one true religion worldview, which is now Christianity, right? Judeo-Christianity. Exactly. Exactly. That's great. Yeah. And as we as we looked last session, you know, in our weapons of warfare. Right. What a great thing to add on there, Brad. Thank you for that. Not only knowing our one sole weapon is scripture, but then your place of offense is on the high ground. You've got the upper hand all the way around. Right. So question eight on our handout, we're looking at critique of the unbeliever's worldview. Even though they knew God through natural revelation or general revelation, how did the Athenians admit to their ignorance, even though they understood a God neglecting a worship would cause offense and incur wrath? How do they admit to their own ignorance? having, they made an altar inscribed to an unknown God, exactly. They made an altar inscribed, hey, hey, hello, I'm ignorant. How foolish. Here's something I don't know about. Man. They know they're wrong. They know that their current state of worship to the Pantheon is insufficient, there has to be one thing missing, that there's worship that's lacking, which they're right to say that there's worship that's lacking, but they're just attributing it to, okay, let's add on an additional God, instead of saying, okay, our worship is lacking because we're not holistically worshiping the one true God, we're piecemeal worshiping Exactly. Now, if you go back to the answer on your question seven on your handout, which of those two do you think that hand of suppression is starting to release for them to go in and make an alternate God? Think of I want you guys to kind of think of suppression. I love the way James White beautifully did it. When you're suppressing, kind of imagine when you were a kid and playing in a swim pool, and you used to have that big, huge, rainbow beach ball, and you would try to hold it underwater, how difficult that was, right? You got one in each hand now. You got one that is denying the judge and one that is denying your judgment. Which one are they starting to have difficulty with? Do they then go, uh, to an unknown God? Right, because I'm afraid that this unknown God It's going to incur His wrath on me, right? They're starting to release that hand of that suppression of their sin guilt, right? That's starting to get heavy on them, right? And that's something that you can really gut punch any unbeliever or any other non-Christian religion is, what do you do with your guilt? Because we all know it. I mean, I talked to a gentleman in our creation exhibit this past Saturday who claimed agnosticism, and God bless him, I pray for him, because he was honest and willing to listen and engage in conversation and dialogue, and he was not combative or anything. He was a worthy opponent, like we went through last session. And I asked him, I says, what do you do with your sin guilt? He said, that's a really good point. It's a really good point. So you're getting them to think, right? Because before I ask them that, I says, you know, there's a God. He's like, yeah, you're right. Right. You've already you don't even need to establish that. It's already established within all of us. Right. Now, what do you do with your sin guilt? Right. Mm hmm. That hurt. Right. All right. So now Paul's now critique the unbelievers worldview. Now, Paul is going to assert ultimate authority. Can I get a volunteer for that, please? And you could probably stop until the last paragraph, right before the last paragraph. All right. In the synagogue, Paul used scripture as the ultimate authority. With the philosophers, he asserted his authority as one having received the revelation from God. Paul, in essence, says, I have knowledge of the true God, and I will declare him unto you. It is important to understand that Paul does not equate the unknown God with the true God. He refers to what they worship, not whom they worship. The relative pronoun translated whom in the King James Version is neuter in gender and is a general reference to deity. It is better translated what. At any rate, Paul has created an opportunity from their ignorance of God to introduce the true God as creator and judge of the universe. Only Christianity possesses the true knowledge of God. Paul's purpose is to declare that God, the God who created heaven and earth, is indeed knowable. Paul speaks with divine authority as one who knows the true God. When he says him, the true God, I declare unto you, he uses the emphatic pronoun I to assert his divine authority. Paul is an apostle commissioned and sent by God to authoritatively proclaim the truth of God. He is God's messenger. He speaks with such authority that if they rejected his message, they rejected God himself. Paul asserts him, the true God, I declare unto you. The verb declare denotes declaring with authority. The philosophers claim there is an unknown God. The seed picker announced he had knowledge of the true God and declared that knowledge to them. All right. So we heard Brad read what Nelson wrote, that Paul's purpose is to declare that God, the God who created heaven and earth, is indeed knowable. Only Christianity possesses the true knowledge of God. Is this denoting a general revelation or a special revelation? That would be a special revelation, right? Because he's saying, true knowledge, right? Possesses true knowledge of God, not general knowledge. So if you were to say that you truly know your wife, you don't have just a general revelation of your spouse. You have a true special understanding of your wife, of your spouse, right? I'm not saying I understand a wife. I understand my wife. Exactly. Exactly, right? Now, careful. She might watch the live stream. All right, now question nine on your handout. Now, I'm dragging this answer out of you guys. It seems like almost every session, but I'm asking it in all kinds of different ways. Paul, an apostle, firstly a Christian, makes an opportunity of assertion based on what authority? Christ and his word. How many times do you guys think you've written that down as an answer? Christ and his word. Here's another different way of asking the question to get the same answer. What is the foundation of presuppositional apologetics? Christ and his word. Here we go. All right. So it says here that with the Jews, he leaned more as an apostle of Christ. So from our perspective, Yeah, thank you for dragging that out, Gabe. Basically, what Gabe is saying is that the difference between Paul and us, or all the apostles and us, is that the apostles themselves were the authority because Christ gave it to them. We ourselves don't have the authority. This is our authority, right? It's a really good Reformation Catholic Church discussion territory, I guess. I'm an apostolic secessionist. Man, yeah. When it comes to other denominations outside of Christianity, such as Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, all that kind of good stuff, a good question to ask is not only what is your authority and where does it come from, But is your authority misleading or deceiving? And can it be misleading or deceiving? Well, we won't rabbit trail here, guys, but we can obviously point out very easily of the Roman Catholicism history misleading and deception, right? You can do the same thing with Mormonism, just using the New World Translation itself. You can do the same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses, right? But can they say, if they were to even admit that, that it's possible, You would then say, can the Bible ever be misleading or deceiving? No. This is our sole authority, right? OK, moving on. We're going to move a little bit faster because I don't want to take up too much of your guys' time. I don't mind being here until midnight, but I'm sure you guys and your wives do. We're going to now move on to pushing the antithesis of different worldviews. So we got the text here. Now having critiqued the Athenians' ignorance in worshiping God, Paul now declares in verses 24 through 26 the true and living God. In doing so, he pushes the antithesis between two different worldviews. It is a clash between two different systems of thought, a collision between two different sets of presuppositions. The two are irreconcilable. There is no neutrality between the two belief systems. The Athenians had their religious presuppositions and they were antithetical to Paul's. The unbeliever suppression of the truth and exalts his reasoning against the knowledge of God. He is an enemy of God and his mind and his system of thought is according to the tradition of the world, right? Just like Anthony said earlier, it's what we see today is what we see back then, And what was current for Paul is what was going on back then. See what I'm saying? Now, your question on your handout, a phrase that kind of odd, but kind of bear with me. Pushing the antithesis of a different worldview, right? So we're looking at a religion of polytheism, many gods, right? So typologically to the first man, the only man in existence, his being is his name, man, which in the Hebrew is what? Adam. Adam's name means man. So since there is only one deity in existence, his being logically is also his name. In this context, what is the name of this deity? Come on, guys. The first man's name was Adam, and it was man. There's only one God. His name is God, right? So we're out there in the field going, do you believe in God? It's not a we're not trying to combat if they were to say, well, what do you mean by God? Which God? I don't need to answer that. There's only one. He is God. His name is God. He's got multiple different names, Jehovah, Yahweh. We can go on down the list, but his name is God. When we pray, we go, Father God, right? Holy God. We can use other names as well, but God, right? You guys follow me here, right? Yeah, except the lowercase g's don't exist at all. So yeah, they're not even a point in conversation or dialogue. I just wanted you guys to kind of see that like, like, we're out there and we're witnessing and even when we see it here with Paul, He's talking to them in a language where he's just saying God, right? And then he'll come in with Jesus for the gospel, right? He's not saying Yahweh, he's not saying, well, he's speaking to them in Greek, so he probably is saying Jehovah, right? It's a general understanding of the word God, right? So that's what we're getting at here. Now, I want us to look real quick at your chart, question 11. This one's pretty easy and it's pretty fun. So you got your differences. You got Christianity and you got polytheism. So Christianity. Number of deity. One. And polytheism. Numerous and unknown. That's the problem with somebody, and I kind of wanted to be specific there with your answer to the person who's steeped in polytheism. If you were to ask him that question, they would probably give you, try to give you a legitimate answer. They might not even know that there are so many unknowns that they don't even know about. So it's kind of strange to even be in that type of religion if you don't even know who your gods are. So numerous and unknown. Name of, or names of deity, Christianity. God, thank you, thank you. And polytheism. Numerous and unknown. You're gonna see a pattern here. Numerous and unknown. Deity's creation. Everything. Everything for Christianity. In polytheism, guess what? It's certain things. It's only certain things versus everything. What are the makings of this deity? What made God? Nothing. Nothing. Why? Because I want to get at the answer for polytheism. What are the makings of this deity? Nope. Well, it starts there, but materials, natural elements, stone, wood. That's the best form of their gods they can ever get. And what materials are they using? Materials that God created. All right. Now, what is the character of Deity for Christianity? I've got saved some room on your sheet. I've got three answers here. Three words. Personal, holy and eternal. That's God's character, personal, holy, and eternal. When you look at them in the polytheistic box, you'll see how quite opposite it is, because their gods in polytheism, they are impersonal, flawed, and finite. They are impersonal, flawed, and finite. See how many holes polytheism has? I guess it's one biggest hole is it just doesn't exist. Presence of deity. Omnipresent. Everywhere. In polytheism, it's confined. Helios is confined to just the sun. Gaia is confined to just the earth. It's confined to whatever it is, right? They're confined. Now, probably our favorite one in the Reformed Church, governance of deity. Sovereign. Sovereign. And for those who are like me, they don't know how to spell, that's S-O-V-E-R-E-I-G-N. You're welcome. Now, two-word answer for polytheism's governance of deity. It's inferior and insufficient. Inferior and insufficient. Inferior and insufficient. Now, I have these to kind of help you guys if you guys actually someday encounter somebody who's in this religious philosophy. And I just want to asterisk that. Atheist? No such thing. We all know that. Going back to Romans 1, right? Now, These next three questions, pretty simple, all fall under the category of pushing the antithesis of different worldviews. So despite differing in language, culture, nation, or status, there is a created unity of the human race. Is this true or false? True. Despite differing in language, culture, nation, or status, there is a created unity of the human race. Notice the last two words there. How many races are there? One. It's a biblical thing. That's what that is. Now, stemming off of that, question 13, how can there be unity within all of humanity? I think you just have a one and two on your sheet. Is that correct? You guys are going to like this. It's going to be a little bit long, so hold on. One. So how can there be unity within all humanity? All mankind is stemmed from the blood of one man, which is who? Adam. All mankind is stemmed from the blood of one man. Adam. The second part of that unity, all mankind is offered salvation from the blood of one man, which is who? Jesus. Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, the Holy One. All mankind is offered salvation from sin and punishment from the blood of one man, Jesus. Now in the light of this question's answer, if all mankind is stemmed from the blood of one man, which is Adam, and all mankind is offered salvation from the blood of one man, Jesus, how can we better understand the doctrine of limited atonement? If question 13's answer is true, and we all agree and believe that, how can we better understand the doctrine of limited atonement? So I have it pretty much spelt out for you. I'm just missing a word in both sentences. Christ atoning blood is blank for all and Christ atoning blood is only blank for God's chosen elected few. Sufficient and then efficient. Christ atoning blood is sufficient for all. However, Christ's atoning blood is only efficient for God's chosen elected few. You guys see that? That's usually the one doctrine of the five points that people usually stream away from. Like they'll even go so far as to say, I'm a four pointer or I'm a three pointer. Usually the first one they throw out is limited atonement. Well, we all recognize in the reform camp that it's like a chain. You throw one chain out, you throw the whole baby out with the bathwater. They all link together. Right, because who's who's responsible for repenting and having faith? Us. But then going back to total depravity, can we? No, but we're still responsible. So it's sufficient for all mankind, but it's only effective to the elect that God has chosen to gift repentance and faith. Right? You guys have any questions, comments, queries, quotes, woes, heartaches? It's going back to that general revelation. Yep. Oh, we got to go back to what that word theology means, right? Theology being study of God, the knowledge of God. So you get that natural theology. Because we have that Greek word that would get thrown out. The census divinitatis. We all have that census divinitatis. Now, going back to this, just real quick, if it'll even pull up. That presuppositions.org. That's why. So you would think that this is pretty basic and simple, but your proof. Humans assume that all contradictions are false. Has anybody witnessed somebody who refuses to admit this? Has anybody encountered somebody who refuses to admit this? that contradictions are false. Any worldview that does not allow for this assumption to be rationally justified is deductively false. So saying humans as a general whole assume that all contradictions are false. We all understand this, right? Two is not one, five is not three, right? Green is not white, black is not yellow, okay? It's either it is or it isn't. See what I'm saying? Have anybody encountered somebody who refuses to admit that contradictions are false? We're seeing it a lot in today's day and age, especially with the whole gender neutrality, gender fluidity, right? I encountered somebody at the at the festival. Is there such a thing as absolute true? Yes. So there's no such thing as relative truth. No, there is. You do understand that the two contradict each other, right? Sure, they sure they can. I tried for a few more minutes until I realized I'm wasting my time here. I'm casting my pearls before swine. This is an unworthy opponent that You know, to be honest with you, a couple minutes later, I actually prayed that the Lord would instill some calamity upon her to hopefully wake her up, right? Because we see that with Paul too, right? if it's absolutely true. If it's absolutely true, then it's an absolute truth, which means it's a self-evident sentence. I made that statement, and she said, sure. And then she continued. Yeah. I've had the comment where they said, we all have our own absolute truth. Oh, that's a good one. So you mean relative truth? Yeah, relative meaning we all have. It was a relative one, now that I think about it. These conversations sound fun here together amongst us that all agree with that, but when you're in the middle of that conversation with that person, it can feel very frustrating. You guys have to realize, don't cast your pearls before swine. If this individual is stealing your joy, it's because you've allowed it. That's not the way we handle and use presubstantial apologetics. Get in, get out, right? The goal is to initiate the gospel. And if you've recognized that this person is a scoffer, mocker, or fool, you take your gospel elsewhere. You wipe the dust from your feet behind you, right? So any more questions, comments? Good lesson today, guys. It was fun. Appreciate you guys being here. All right, we'll go ahead and pray out and look forward to that second half of that ribeye next men's study. All right. Holy Father, thank you for this opportunity you've given us, for having your Holy Spirit speak to us through your word, through the person of your son, Jesus Christ. Help us, Lord, grow us in being witnesses that are firm and founded in the truth of your word, of your scriptures. Help us, Lord, to not waver throughout the exhausting days, throughout our encounters, that we may be wholly steadfast in your truth, but only by the work of your Holy Spirit and not by our own ability. Help us to rely and lean into you and to you alone, Lord, for it's only by your grace and mercy that we are sitting here this evening, regenerate, sanctified, in the eternal sense, glorified. We thank you for this evening, Lord, and we pray for those who are not here who are suffering right now, Lord, we lift up our sister, Sharon, as she suffers with the loss of her husband, Ken. We pray for Mark and Pam as they are in the midst of this of this grief, that they may be shoulders to lean and cry upon, that they may be firm in the joy of your salvation, that even in the midst of grief and suffering that there is still joy, that the joy is there in heaven in eternity. So help them to look forward to that day and rest in you and keep their eyes focused on you Lord. We pray the same thing for the Myers family father. We pray that your Holy Spirit be upon them to give them peace and comfort during this trial that you help them to look forward to the next day as they are a young family with beautiful children that are lively and and growing in your graces. We thank you for that, Lord. And Holy Father, we pray for this coming Lord's Day that you may grow us, prepare us, that the night before on Saturday evening, Father, that you may instill in us a desire to be still, to prepare, for worshiping you collectively with the saints. We pray that Pastor Jeff and all the elders and deacons may rest in you and speak through them to herald your word and your gospel with truth, with clarity, that we may not represent ourselves in our own philosophical mindsets, but that we may speak your truth of your gospel, of your word. So prepare Jeff and help him and prepare the singing and the lifting up of our voices that we may cry out to you in one voice. We give it all to you, Lord, and we pray this evening that we may be sent off to our families back home in safety And we look forward to the next day, if it be your will, to give us breath and life in the morning. In Jesus' name.