All right, good morning, and we're going to continue on with our discussion on apologetics. And as I dig deeper and deeper into apologetics, the study of it, and the world we live in today, you know, today's title is Christianity and Our Culture. And because I think that there are many things we need to understand about our culture and the world that we live in, to make us into effective apologists and evangelists. So today we're going to spend a little bit more time on where we are in our culture. And then just to do a quick review of where we were from last time. And again, our key verse for our apologetics is 1 Peter 3.15. And so that states, yet with gentleness and reverence. And also Jude 3 is another one of our key verses and I'll just read that real quick as well to keep us focused on why we're doing what we're doing. And so Jude 3 is Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. So we are commanded in scripture to be ready to give a defense for our position as Christians and also to as it says in Jude, to contend earnestly. So that is our commandment from scripture. So last time we laid our foundation for apologetics and being a defense of the faith. It's a systematic, argumentative discourse. That doesn't mean we argue with people, but we present a strong argument, much like an attorney would do in terms of defending a plaintiff. And so we are to make it an argumentative discourse in defense of the faith. And I think that we need to keep in mind what we're supposed to do this like, and we're supposed to have unity of mind. So as we defend our faith, we are to be unified in our thought patterns. We're to do it with sympathy. And because who should we be more sympathetic to than those who are lost? And so we need to be sympathetic in our approach. We're to do with brotherly love and with a tender heart and a humble mind. I think, you know, sometimes as we think about that humble mind, Some of us aren't real humble sometimes, are we, when we deal with our faith? I can't think of anybody here that is this way, but sometimes we can get a little air of superiority that we're better than everybody else, but we're supposed to approach it, again, with a tender heart and a humble mind. And as I said before, we approach our apologetics from a defensive position, not an offensive one. And so we are, what, to defend our faith, aren't we? And so as we defend it, and we made the differentiation last time, I'm probably getting ahead of myself, but apologetics is not the same as evangelism. They're two different ways of presenting the scripture. Evangelism is more of an offense. I don't want to say offensive because that always makes me think of saying things the wrong way, but we take an offensive position. We're promoted. Apologetics, on the other hand, is a defensive position. We're defending our faith. So Colossians 4, 5, and 6, be wise in the way you act toward outsiders, all right? Make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always, what, full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. So again, as we look back on what we covered in our first session, you know, we have to be able to do what? present an answer, present a defense of our faith and the reasons. So last time we spent most of our time on what is a worldview and a review of some different worldviews. So just to kind of continue that same thought going forward, many worldviews that we have today are what? They're in conflict with what we believe, aren't they? They're in conflict with Christianity. And I think one of the greatest, Greatest is not the right word, but one of the most I guess strongest things that I've seen lately that is offensive to us and our Christian faith that comes about as a result of the worldview was the opening of the Olympics this year. I mean, totally disgusting, irreverent. I watched a bit of it this morning on YouTube and it was like, that's just wrong, but What are we dealing with? We're dealing with the world, what? It has a different worldview than we have. We're dealing with a world that is becoming more and more acceptant of deviant behavior. And so that's why I think it's important that we understand where we are in culture and so that we can counter that culture with our faith. So it's been stated that whatever worldview or worldviews we hold shape what we notice or ignore, depending on how you see things. There used to be a TV show that had showed a certain incident that happened and then they would interview people. What did you see? And they'd interview half a dozen different people, and while we watched it, we would see different things. And people see things differently, don't they? And so again, depending on how we view things and the scope of our view, we are going to notice things or we're going to ignore certain things. And the worldview that we hold, has a tendency to shape what we see and what we ignore, how we interpret what we see and experience, and how we process that information, and ultimately what decisions we make. So our worldview is extremely important and I think that as we have moved on in our culture, I don't want to say progressed because that would imply that we're getting better, but I guess as we digress in our culture, we're finding what? More and more decisions that people are making and how they act are not based on how we believe in the Christian faith. So some of the world views that we explored last time were humanism, existentialism, positivism, hedonism, pluralism, relativism, pragmatism, etc. We talked about a lot of different ones. But the one that I think we need to keep in mind more than anything else is that secularism is the overarching system that basically covers all the other isms. And what is secularism? it's something that's contrary to scripture and it's secular. So in that, if we look at all these, you know, humanism, existentialism, none of those are based on scripture. So we need to be sure that our worldview is one of a Christian worldview. And so for further study, you know, make sure that the worldview that we hold and that we teach our children and that we live our lives in has a Christian perspective on it. So as we see things, how we interpret it is all based on a scriptural position rather than being influenced by the world around us. My title today was Christianity and Culture, and a lot of people say, and I firmly believe this, that we live in what is a post-Christian world. And when I say post-Christian, 200 years ago, 100 years ago, maybe even I don't want to say 50 years ago because things started really going to heck in about the 60s. But 100 years ago, what? Most of our thought patterns, most of what we experience in this country, I didn't experience it, but maybe Paul did, but it was based on more of a Christian worldview, wasn't it? And our government was more, I don't necessarily want to say Christian, but certainly less antagonistic towards Christians than it is today. So that's why I say we live in a post-Christian world. And again, it's heavily influenced by post-modernism. And so what I wanted to do is talk a little bit about post-modernism today. What is it? And what does it mean? So obviously if something is post-modern, there had to be something that was modern to start with, to be post. So modernism was the precursor to post-modernism and the base tenet of modernism is based on faith in ourselves to solve the world's problems. Note there, who is the faith in? Ourselves. Not in God, not in the Word, but in ourselves. So everybody looked to man to solve the world's problems, and that all came out of what? The Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was a period of time in what there were great world philosophers that shared their philosophy that basically man is the center of the universe and that man can make all the decisions for himself and doesn't have to have any influence from scripture or God. So basically postmodernism then is the belief that man is sincere. What does that go in direct conflict with? The Word of God, right? And good. What's the Westminster starts out with? The chief, not chief end of man, but all men are basically evil, inherently evil. That's stated. I don't think it's the first tenant of the Westminster, but it's in there. That basically what? Man is evil. And when we look at the world today, what's the world telling us? Man is good, right? Man is all about good, the things we can do for everybody, things like that. Definitely not based on scripture because the Bible tells us that man is inherently evil and that we use our gifts appropriately so that we all come to the same conclusions. What does that mean? That basically we can all come to a conclusion coming from all kinds of different perspectives and viewpoints, and we're all going to reach the same conclusion that, hey, we can solve the world's problems through our own efforts. So this all followed, like I said, the Enlightenment, which again, minimized the church. The people of the Enlightenment were primarily coming out of a strong Roman Catholic type of environment, but they were anti-scriptural, they were anti-God, and so they focused everything and focused their thought on man. So, the end of the age of modernism came about with World War I when it said, faith in mankind to do the right thing was destroyed. Because what happened to World War I, the focus prior to that was man could solve all the problems, then all of a sudden what? We get World War I. man did not solve very many problems when they went to World War I. And so, in fact, I think it probably emphasized the fact that man cannot solve any of the world's problems by themselves. And so that was kind of the end of what was called the modern period. So in modernism, so now we entered into postmodernism. So afterwards, so basically pre-modernism, which I stole this from somebody, I don't know who right now, but pre-modernism was up to about 1650. And here we had God in the supernatural realm furnishes the basis for morality, human dignity, truth, and reason. So that is pre-modernism. That was before the age of modernism. And what we see there is what? We had a reliance on what? God and the supernatural as the basis for our morality and our human thoughts, truth, and reason. And the end of that came about in, you know, up to 1650, but the French Revolution was a strong I guess, historical point that basically set a period at the end of the sentence of modernism. And so then we entered into modernism, which ran for almost 300 years and until the mid-1900s. And here we got morality, human dignity, truth and reason, rest on foundations, what? other than God. So we have reason, science, race, all those things are now influencing our society. And when we think about the influence that science has on our lives today, that's a modernism, a function that has come out of the modernism thought pattern and you know science is what? Everything isn't it? But what I find interesting though in culture today is that science all of a sudden doesn't have a lot of relevance either because they forgot biology. And, you know, biology is kind of a forgotten science and, you know, male, female, God created them and, you know, pretty hard to deny the science of biology but they're doing a pretty good job of it. Anyway, so then we had, you know, the fall of the Berlin Wall was another historical event that took place that basically, again, kind of put another period on the end of the sentence. So then we entered into postmodernism, which is 1960s to the present, and all metanarratives. And a metanarrative is basically just an overarching big narrative, the overstory. So it says here, systems are grand stories. are suspect. So all metanarratives are suspect. And so whether it's religion or not, there is no universal foundation for truth, morality, and human dignity. So no truth exists. And I was talking to somebody the other day, and I said, I just wish we could have a basis for truth. I mean, we do have a basis for truth, scripture. But, you know, when you look at things just as simple as, I use the concept of roundup spray, I mean that's part of my world, and what's the truth about roundup? Some people are like, well it causes huge incidents of cancer, you know, Hodgkinson's disease, all these things, you know, the huge lawsuit that was filed against Monsanto, you know, billions of dollars in damages paid. And then you have, you know, another side of the story that says you can practically drink this stuff and it won't cause you any harm. So somewhere in there, you know, where's the truth? But there is no, in the world of postmodernism, there is no basis or foundation for truth, morality, or human dignity. So that's the world we live in today, isn't it? There is no truth. And I'm not speaking from our perspective as believers, but the world in general, so as we go back, you know, our Christianity and culture today, this is what we're fighting with, and this is what we're dealing with, is no concept of truth or morality. And a good example is, you know, obviously it's just fine to lie, because what do we deal with? We deal with politicians that, what, lie every day, and Some of them are better at it than others. But again, there's just no foundation for truth. So that's a real concern. I think it's one that we have to learn how to deal with, is that people don't have a foundation of morality. They have not been taught through either by parents or by even the church. You know, when I say the church, I'm talking about the the meta-narrative of the church and it no longer teaches the truth. We're going to get into that in a minute. So the emergence of postmodernism came after this time in history and society came to the conclusion that there is no right thing. So postmodernism advances the thought that we may all come to different but equal conclusions. So what's good for me You know, I can't share that with you because it may not be good for you. So we have different but equal conclusions. It's all good. And so it doesn't matter, you know, what it is or what it's based on. You know, your opinion is just as valid as my opinion and it'll come up with an equal conclusion. No one is wrong because there is no truth. All outlooks are considered valid. So this is something that, again, we deal with at a cultural level. And that's one thing I appreciate about Our fellowship here is what? Our truth is based on what? Scripture and God's truth. And we know that there is truth and the truth exists in scripture. But most of the world today believes that there is no truth. And so everybody's viewpoint is equally valid. And I remember one time I went to a county commissioner's meeting and the the open with prayer okay I'm using air quotes around the word prayer because the particular commissioner that led the prayer that day was praying to some Indian god or something I don't know where it was coming from, but it was certainly not. But again, that just brought an emphasis to me that, you know, her truth was not based on scripture. And so, but you know, you can't say anything because what? in the world today, her outlook, her viewpoint is equally valid to ours who's based on scripture. So it's what we're dealing with. And truth is relative. What's true for you may not be true for me. And no one is right or wrong. So it's really scary to stop and think about it, isn't it? That there is no truth, that there is no right or wrong. And, you know, certainly it's contrary to the way we think and the way that we should think. And so that's basically, you know, the world that we live in today is the fact that when we go and we try and evangelize or be apologists, we're dealing with what? A world that is based on, well, that may be true for you. Has anybody ever heard that? that, you know, that's true for you, but, you know, I have my own truth, and I have my own basis for what I believe, and, you know, That may be right for you, but it's not right for me. So we have a real mindset that we have to overcome and understand where these people are coming from before we can really even start working on them. That may not be the right terminology. How about presenting the gospel to them? We have to understand where they're coming from. They don't have a foundation for morality or truth. So the characteristics of postmodernism then are it's anti-dualistic. And what does that really mean? And so our proponents of postmodernism assert that Western philosophy, which is basically what I would consider to be the quote-unquote Christian world, is Western civilization, created dualisms. Dualism is right versus wrong, true or false, that exclude any other perspectives from any consideration. So we have these dualisms. Right and wrong, true and false, but that excludes what? Everything else from any part of the conversation. And that's what postmodernism is saying, that they are anti-dualistic. They do not want to have right and wrong defined, true and false defined. It questions text and one thing I was doing a lot of reading as I was preparing this and I wish I could put down everything I possibly read but I'm trying to summarize it and you know into a 35 to 40 minute presentation but words don't mean anything anymore. When we think about the fact that they question texts, they maintain that texts have no inherent authority or objectivity and reflect the writer's bias. So that pretty much is going to tell us what? Whatever is written in the Word of God has no inherent authority or objectivity, and does what? Reflects the writer's bias. So we're seeing, they're going to argue to us that we believe this is scripture, it's the word of God. And they're going to say, well, that was written with the writer's bias. And we know the author of scripture is God. and working through man, but they are going to say that no, you know, Paul was working with a bias and he wanted it be said a certain way so there's no truth in it. And so they assert it's impossible to tell the truth about the past or to use history to produce knowledge in any objective sense. So when we think about that, We look at what? History that's being taught in schools today. What do they say? The victor writes the history, so we're seeing history only through the winner's perspective. And even though you may have some historians that are extremely valid, what? They throw those people out, don't they? Because that's written from their perspective only. So we have what's known as revisionist history being taught in schools today. And, you know, that ignores a lot of truth. And so, but they are saying that it's impossible to tell the truth about history. And postmodernism argues that language shapes our thinking and there can be no thought without language, i.e. language literally creates truth. And so it's the language that is establishing the truth. And there is a limitless instability of words words have no point of reference so words no longer mean what they used to mean and so definitions change you know and you stop and think about if you look at a dictionary from what maybe two hundred years ago or maybe even a hundred years ago the definition of some of the words is different than what it is today and so a lot of their basis is this limitless instability of words and that there is no point of reference in words and then you know truth is a matter of perspective or context so again Your truth is not the same as my truth, and it's all a matter of perspective or context rather than being something universal. I've said this a couple times, but basically what they're coming back at us with is truth is relative. And there is no objective truth that can be known. So what's true for you is not true for me. It's all relative. And as we talked about a minute ago, it's all based on what? Our perspectives. So I may see truth different than what Branch sees as truth. And that's the postmodern way of thinking. So again, this is what we're dealing with. As we go out and we try and reach people with the gospel, we're trying to reach a people that is based on their philosophy of life, their worldview is based on the fact that there is no truth. And so, you know, we really have to be able to counter that and be able to I guess, first off, understand where people are coming from today. This is all kind of leading into my whole thing about apologetics, but if we don't understand culture today, how are we going to be able to be able to reach them. And I think of Paul, when he went to talk to the Greeks, what, he spoke to them as they would understand. And we have to understand where these people's viewpoint is coming, not adopt their philosophy, not do it the way they want it done, but based on objective truth. And so we've got to be able to reach them in their way of thinking. So this led into my thinking about, where's the church today? And the church today, and when I say the church, I'm talking basically the universal church. And most of the emergent church movement is based on postmodern philosophy, which focuses on what? Feelings rather than fact. I didn't get anything from church today. God didn't speak to me. I didn't feel good about coming out of my worship service. It's not about feelings. It's about fact. And are we supposed to feel good when we come out of church? I kind of have the feeling that sometimes we should not feel good because we should be convicted of our sin and turn away from it, repent. And so it's not all about feelings. Christian music today, I'm probably treading on some thin ice here, but Christian music today is what? It's man-centered, isn't it? It's not God-centered. It's not the old hymns as we sing the Psalms and things here in a worship service. That's based on what? Scripture. But Christian music today is basically, you know, all about feel good. You know, what did God do for me today? And so, you know, this is my opinion. It's not the opinion of Antioch Reformed Baptist Church or anything else. But my opinion is that Christian radio has done a disservice to Christian churches because they play a lot of Namby Pamby music. I can't think of another word for it, but you know it's not all good solid foundational truth music. So anyway, so our emergent church movement is based a lot on postmodern thinking and so I was going to have a couple people in here, but I thought, no, I don't even want to give credit to them because they are definitely not of the same theological position that we are, and they're part of that emerging church movement, so I didn't want to give them any credit. But humanism has done what? It's infiltrated our thinking. and thinking that we have the power within ourselves to have control, and I think American society, even more so than other societies, is all based on independence and control of ourselves, the self-movement, and so it's infiltrated our thinking. We need to reject both modernism and postmodernism, but know that most people today have been brought up and educated by a system that promotes postmodern thought. And when you think about the public school system, it's all about postmodernism. You can't, you know, tell them there's right and wrong. You can't tell them that there's a truth. And when I was serving on the school board here in Lapeer, you know, I brought up a point one time during a school board meeting that, you know, that's not right. and the individuals on the opposing viewpoint was said, told me that you can't tell me that's not right because there is no right or wrong. What's right for you, again, quoted as postmodernism and they were an administrator within the school system And you can't tell us that there's right and wrong. So I said, OK. So I break in your house. I steal your goods. Well, that's wrong. That's not according to you. Because what's right for you is not right for me. And if I think it's right for me to come in and steal all your goods out of your house, that's my thought of what's right and wrong. you know, right away they were very defensive on their position. Well, that's just not right. So I said, then what you're telling me is that there is right and wrong. Well, yeah. And so, I mean, their whole way of thinking is flawed. And so we need to reject it. But again, knowing that most people today have been brought up in a system So then we have the deconstructionist movement. And this is a movement within the modern church. And it's really hard to precisely define. But basically, it's a critical dismantling of tradition and traditional modes of thought. So deconstruction is, again, a critical dismantling of a person's understanding of what it means to be an evangelical Christian. And so the whole dismantlement movement very strong in most of the emergent churches, and they're throwing away what? understanding what it means to be an evangelical Christian, but tradition and traditional modes of thought is also being thrown out with this whole movement of the deconstructionists. So Dr. William Edgar, who is a professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary, had this quote, and it's, to believe in Christ is also to abandon modernism. So as believers, we're what? Reject this thought of modernism. Modernism's absolute faith in human reason is no friendlier to the gospel than a postmodern's rejection of reason. Divine revelation is not a cruel and and cold metanarrative, but a warm and sufficient truth. So our divine revelation, it's not cruel and cold, but it's a warm and sufficient truth, a truth we can live by, a truth we can trust, and it's a transforming truth. If we look at, just write that one down, we won't read it, but 2 Peter 1, 2 through 4. So again, we're dealing with a church today that is based on a lot of postmodern thought. So we're finally going to get around to a little bit of apologetics before we wrap up this morning. But there are four positions in apologetics. There is classical apologetics, evidentialism, This is a hard one for me to say. Presuppositionalism or reformed epistemology. And so the two main schools of thought that people are familiar with today are evidential apologetics and presuppositional apologetics. And so I've got a sheet here that if anybody wants a copy of it, I can make it. But it basically summarizes all of the four positions. And we're not going to dig into it real deep today, given the time frame we've got. But I just wanted to give you a brief overview of what each of them are. Classical apologetics, the main emphasis in classical apologetics is that sound reason will lead to the truth. So that's your classical apologist. It's going to be based on sound reason. Then we get into evidentialism, which is kind of basically what it says, based on evidence. So the main emphasis here is that sound investigation will lead to the truth. So the evidence is there that will lead you to the truth. Presuppositionalism is acceptance of the authority of scripture will lead to the truth. So presuppositionalism has a basis in scripture. And then reformed epistemology is a proper function In other words, one sense of God will lead to the truth. So again, our two main schools today are evidential apologetics and presuppositional. When you read books on apologetics, it's going to probably come from one of those two schools of thought. And again, evidential apologetics assumes that the presentation of evidences can convince people to open their minds to the work of the Holy Spirit in the conversion process. So in other words, that's kind of based on the thought that you look around you, obviously, God created this world, we have the evidence of God in this world as a creator. And so that evidence should lead someone to a belief in God. But if you refute that with where we are from a postmodernist way of thinking, what? They don't have the proof or the evidence based on their thought pattern and what they've been taught that God could possibly create this. They've been brought up in an evolutionary that this all happened, big bang, something like that. So evidential apologetics is facing some uphill battles and trying to go against things like evolutionary thought. The other one that we're going to talk about here to wrap things up, presuppositional apologetics operates under the assumption that Christianity makes sense only after the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So once you presuppose that Christianity is true, everything else falls in line and makes sense. But until you do, the evidence doesn't convince a Christian, make no sense to an unbeliever. So one of the leading presuppositional apologists today that does a lot of writing is Cornelius Van Til. And having read some of Van Til's work, I've always come to the conclusion this is kind of like circular logic. And it was interesting that I read on here that presuppositionalism tends to deny the value of arguments and is founded on circular reasoning. So it's like, ah, you know, there's some basis for my thinking as I've read Van Til. It's like, it keeps going around and around in circles. And so circular reasoning. So basically, that's where we're at today. We're going to dig into a little bit more the next time on some of these thoughts and schools of apologetics and what they mean, how we can reach people in our culture today. So again, I thought we really need to understand where we are culture today to be able to effectively argue and defend our faith because we're dealing with what a world that doesn't want anything to do with scripture with truth and so fortunately what God's in control We just have to recognize that He will save whom He will save and have faith in that. But again, it's our job to go out and, as we've been commanded, to defend the faith. And so, with that, we'll pray and close out for the day.