The Gospel in a Postmodern Age

We live in a culture that is humanistic, naturalistic, and increasingly post-modern.  By humanistic, I mean that it is man-centered (man is viewed as the autonomous measure of all things; and interpreter of all things).   

By naturalistic, I mean that reality is viewed as the random interaction of matter (as if human life is nothing more than low-level voltage passing through neurons).  (According to philosophic naturalism, he material world is all there is.) 

And by post-modern, I mean that our culture is increasingly pessimistic about the future and pessimistic about the existence of absolute truth.

Each of these three philosophies has a great deal in common with the other two. These philosophies have foundational assumptions that shape the way western culture views life and reality.  (EX. When Madonna sang “Material Girl,” she was not simply talking about buying everything at the mall; she was putting her world view into song.  If the material world is all there is, then there are no morals – and the absence of a divine universal moral code becomes the definition of ‘freedom.’)

A universe based upon chance and chaos cannot have binding universal truth. According to Romans 1, denial of an all-wise Creator is the first step toward opening the floodgates of immorality (Rom 1:18-23).

Unsaved man has an axe to grind – he has accepted the devil’s definition of freedom (2 Pet 2:18, 19).  In order to sustain his immoral liberation from God, he must maintain a world view based upon futile reasoning (that is he imagines that his powers of reason operate efficiently apart from God’s revelation).

In order to crawl out from under the claims of God upon him, man theorizes or postulates that the human race is a cosmic accident. (In that view, whatever god may exist is inconsequential.)

One evolutionary scientist who believes we arose from chemical soup describes it in this way.  Statistically the odds are totally against even the remotest possibility that life arose by chance.  But wonder of wonders, our number came up in the casino – and that number was the spontaneous generation of life – here we are.

If man is merely a wonderfully complex accident of chemical chaos, then life has no real meaning, no purpose, no destiny, no value.  No one can live that worldview – that man is but a complex chemical machine.

Scripture indicates in Romans 1 that men would rather live without meaning than put away their sins.  They would rather be adrift upon a sea of epistemological despair (no certainty about anything) than own the fact that a holy God made them, has an absolute claim upon their lives, rules over them, and has a plan.

Naturalism has become so widely accepted, that one could accurately say that it serves as a state religion.  National parks feature interpretive centers that assume the truth of evolution.  Disney world uses evolution in its educational centers to explain the origin and diversity of life (did you know that Mickey the Sorcerer was an evolutionist?) 

It is the characteristic of sinners that they trust their own minds above the Word of God.  They view their own thinking processes and opinions as authoritative and ultimate – as a legitimate starting point for determining all truth, possibility, and reality. 

Like Eve in her self-deception, prompted by the satanic lie, the unbelieving propose to determine for themselves what is true, false, real, unreal, right and wrong.  This is total rebellion against the Word of God.

 (EX. The natural, or unbelieving man, is so quick to be fooled by a lie when he has rejected the truth of the Bible.  Carl Sagan, former self-appointed TV spokesman for the evolution of the cosmos, rejects God’s self-revelation and interpretation of the universe.  Yet, Sagan wants millions of dollars pumped into SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence).  When asked what he would do if contacted.  Sagan said he would finally be able to have his question answered, “Who are we humans?” Do you understand the tragic humor in this?  Sagan will not place his mind under the mind of God, but he would accept the testimony of an E.T. as authoritative.  Certainly Romans one is bulls eye truth; when man rejects God’s revelation; he is left with nothing but prideful, foolish speculation.

Our Creator has told us what is right and wrong.  He has authoritatively proclaimed to us the purpose of life, the reason there is death and suffering, and the reality of heaven and hell.

When a person repents of sin and unbelief, he repents of intellectual rebellion. He places his mind under the Holy Scriptures in an act of ongoing submission and trust.

We live in a world of blinded sinners who imagine to their own eternal ruin that they have the power to interpret all things by autonomous reason. 

They worship their own minds.  The prevailing philosophy of the day says that absolute truth is unknowable.  The unbeliever’s assumption of a chance universe prevents him from understanding that God’s truth is true for all people in all places at once.

Behind today’s philosophy of pluralism and positive tolerance is the pagan assumption of philosophic naturalism (evolution).  (In naturalism, the material world is all there is, all there ever was, and all there will ever be.  If there is a god, he is part of this vast cosmos – and he, or it, has never done anything of any eternal consequence.)

Having rejected the infallible Word of the living God, unbelievers make sweeping statements about origin, purpose, and destiny that are nothing more than futility and vanity (Rom 1:22).

Pluralism is the notion that all beliefs are equivalent.  Therefore, according to the pluralistic mindset, because no one has a corner on truth, all beliefs and lifestyles are worthy of praise and respect – none are superior to any other.

Since absolute truth cannot be known (they say), anyone who says that he is right implies that everyone else is wrong.  (EX. Our foreign student from Japan who was living with us was counseled by her parents to steer clear of Christians for the very reason that they think they have the answers!)

In other words, in our pluralistic culture, anyone who says he has absolute, universal truth is a bigot, intolerant, arrogant, and dangerous.

To say your truth applies to everyone is viewed as discriminatory and intolerant of the beliefs of others.

(EX. To live devoted to absolute truth that applies universally to all is viewed as a form of religious fundamentalism.  Did you ever think the day would come when conservative Christians would be compared to those who flew planes into the World Trade Towers?)

Into this wasteland of Godless philosophy comes the Gospel.  People have increased their own blindness by assuming that out of chaos and chance came the blue planet with human stewardship over a nearly endless menagerie of life.

What falsely parades itself as knowledge is nothing more than a satanic fortress that closes out the believability of the Gospel. 

God has appointed you to take the words of life in Christ to our culture.  You possess the good news, the message of God’s grace, the words of life and reconciliation in Christ. 

There is value in knowing something of how our culture thinks.  For then we can anticipate their objections to the Gospel.  Many dismiss the Gospel before you have a chance to explain it, simply because they have bought into a naturalistic world view that has no place for the supernatural. 

(EX. So persuasive are these purveyors of error that it is now estimated that 50% of evangelical freshmen entering secular college will abandon their Christian faith by the time of graduation.  It’s shocking not only that the materialistic world view is beaten into the minds of college kids, but also that so many are unprepared for the assault.)

We must keep in mind that although unbelievers dismiss the Gospel intellectually, they cannot escape the witness of conscience and the Holy Spirit.  No matter how vocal their protest, Scripture says that they know they are suppressing the truth of God (Rom 1:18-20).  Romans 2 states that the very moral law of God is written on the conscience of every person.

So let us take heart; their mouths may deny what their hearts cannot escape.  Our preaching of the Gospel is a joyful task.  By God’s grace, some will believe unto eternal salvation.

According to pluralism, the Gospel is merely one religious philosophy among many.  Unbelievers express their rebellion against God by their apathy about His truth.  They might reply, “I am glad it works for you.  Happy to hear that it enriches your life and helps you cope.” 

The source of their apathy and complacency is unbelief; it is commonly unbelief that has ingested the vain philosophy of evolutionary naturalism.  You see if truth is gone or unknowable, then pragmatism is all that remains as the test for any lifestyle or world view.  (Since the absolute truth of God’s infallible Word is not the test anymore; the one ‘litmus test,’ remaining is, does it work for you?)

Into this darkness of satanically induced sleep comes the Gospel like a 9.0 earthquake!  Christianity is not a way to live, it is a Person; the Lord Jesus Christ.  A Christian is not a person who does great things for God.  A Christian is one for whom God has done great things through His Only Begotten Son.

The Gospel is a comprehensive world view.  It is, according to Jesus, an incredibly demanding world view.  It’s an all-encompassing outline of reality.  It answers every ultimate question with absolute certainty. 

God in Christ has authoritatively answered every ultimate question.  Where did we come from? Why are we here? Why is there evil, death, and suffering? Where did it come from? What is man’s purpose?  Is there an existence after death?  What is man’s destiny? Who is God and what is He like?  What is wrong with the world?  Has God told us what the solution is?

God’s authoritative “mouthpiece” is the Lord Jesus Christ.  Apart from His work as revealer of God the Father, man is left to drift upon a shore-less sea of relativity and uncertainty. 

            But the good news of the Gospel is that man may have certainty about forgiveness of personal sin; and man may have eternal life through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and man may know his Creator.  In knowing God as Savior in Christ, the believing sinner is put in touch with absolute reality – for it is God alone who tells us with absolute certainty what is true and what is real.

The Myth of Neutrality

I. Unbelievers place pressure upon believers to be “neutral” in their approach to Christian apologetics. A. Christian scholarship is frequently pressured to put aside commitments that are distinctly Christian. B. The pressure comes in the form of an appeal to be non-committal on the truth of Scripture. (The Christian apologist is pressured to search for truth under the guidance of acclaimed secular thinkers.) C. Those who exert the pressure often affirm that the only way to be open minded is to be non-committal. (Christians are urged to retreat from their dogmatism and assume with the unbeliever an attitude of “nobody knows yet.”) [i][1] D. Christians are pressured to leave the Bible out of the discussion to avoid being accused of having preconceived ideas. (When the unbeliever insists that Christianity must “pass the test of science,” he is appealing to a truth criterion built upon human autonomy.)[ii][2] II. The nature of reason makes neutrality impossible. A. Facts are inseparable from their interpretation. They cannot stand alone. When men reason about facts, they always understand them in terms of a broad, unified whole or system. The question is, “which system gives meaning to the facts of the universe?”[iii][3] B. Without a unified system or whole, facts are meaningless. Man cannot reason, live, nor deal with truth apart from presuppositions. Without presuppositions, attempts to reason would take place “in a vacuum.” (All thinking begins somewhere – at a primitive starting point or presupposition. Faith in presuppositions enters at the very beginning of the process of selecting and organizing facts. By the nature of the case, presuppositions are held to be self-evidencing and self-authenticating. The question is, “which system of thought provides an adequate foundation for reality?” “What is the basis for an orderly universe?” “Why is our state of affairs conducive to rational thought?” All men have presuppositions, none are neutral.)[iv][4] C. Neutrality is impossible because facts and evidences are interpreted by means of one’s world view. Debate a non-Christian long enough, and it will become evident that the disagreement is not over truth claims, but over one’s method of knowing. Disagreement over what one claims to know is in reality due to a conflict in world views. (Believers and unbelievers are both analyzing reality from within their world views. Thus, there is no neutral ground because they are always true to their frameworks. Unbelievers hate God. They choose a philosophy that doesn’t leave room for the God of the Bible. The unbeliever has chosen a world view that lets man be the determiner of reality.)[v][5] D. In terms of epistemology, the believer has nothing in common with an unbeliever. (Epistemology deals with how we think about reality and how we account for it. Epistemology asks, “how do we justify our claims to know?”) 1. The believer and the unbeliever have opposing philosophies of fact and opposing philosophies of law. Believers and unbelievers are in total disagreement about the structure of reality. When viewing reality, there are only two possible reference points: either the sovereign Creator is ultimate or chance is ultimate.)[vi][6] 2. In the temptation of our first parents in Eden, Satan cast doubt upon the reliability of God’s revelation. In essence, Satan told man to rely on his own reason; to exalt himself above God and His Word. The temptation was a solicitation for man to become his own god by becoming his own origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning and beauty. Satan did not mock or contradict man’s reason. He did not suggest that he should distrust it. Satan offered a temptation which would enthrone man’s reason above God and His Word; above all that is holy.[vii][7] E. Reason is not an abstract neutral faculty. It is a capacity planted in us by God that enables us to receive divine revelation, and as a result, think truthfully. 1. The unbeliever sees his own mind as ultimate. Therefore he denies the Scriptural assertion that a man can know nothing apart from God’s revelation. Man’s intellect and powers of reason are not ethically neutral. Man’s intellectual sin reveals itself in the field of knowledge. Christ died to subdue us to Himself holistically – it is a subduing that begins with the intellect – Matt 18:3, 4).[viii][8] 2. When men insist that reason is a neutral faculty instead of a tool of divine revelation, it reveals a particular bias -- namely that they regard the intellect to be an autonomous judge. Every unbeliever is committed to apostate presuppositions which are lived out unrighteously. Thus, reason cannot be relegated to some neutral category or authority.[ix][9] III. The nature of the sinner makes neutrality impossible. A. When men take a neutral approach to knowledge, it is characterized by a vain, darkened mind (Eph 4:17, 18). A neutral approach in philosophy is condemned by Scripture because it does not begin with the truth of God. “Neutrality” takes its direction from the accepted principles of the world’s intellectuals (Col 2:8). “Vain” thinking is thinking that is not in accord with the Word of God. It is philosophy which operates against the truth of Christ (Rom 1:21). All thinking that begins with the presupposition of autonomous reason is vain and condemned by God (Eph 5:6). When the non-Christian insists upon neutrality in the world of thought, he is operating upon principles of unbelief.[x][10] B. Human rationality is blinded by sin to the truth of God (2 Cor 4:3, 4; Eph 2:1-3; 1 Jn 5:19). Spiritual blindness eliminates the possibility of common ground in respect to the truth of God. The unbeliever’s spiritual blindness means that he has no common cognitive commitments or understandings with a believer. To allow the unbeliever to set debate ground rules of neutrality only delays the exposure of his sin. God’s grace must first confront the sinner in his unbelief so as to convict his heart of the infallible truth of Christianity.[xi][11] C. The sinner uses reason to “insulate” himself from the claims of God. The unbeliever’s preference for a chance universe is not the result of scientific research, nor is it simply an error in judgment. He has intentionally chosen a world view that enables him to deny (suppress the truth of) his creaturehood, God’s claims, and God’s moral authority. The unbeliever has an axe to grind; he wants to hold fast to and justify his independence from God. The claims of God necessarily destroy the notion of neutrality. God’s claims do not leave human autonomy in tact. Jesus said, “He who is not with Me is against Me” (Luke 11:23).[xii][12] D. The unbeliever’s world view is hostile at every point to the Christian philosophy of life. 1. The natural man’s working epistemology (method of knowing) is totally informed by his ethical hostility toward God. His heart disposition of enmity involves a satanic principle that is opposed to God (Col 1:21). 2. The natural man is not fully conscious of his own position toward God and His truth. Outwardly, he assumes the posture of an objective truth seeker. In reality, he is an enemy of God with a conflict within him. On the one hand, he has an inescapable sense of deity by virtue of the fact that he is made in the image of God. On the other hand, he suppresses the truth of God because of the false principle of human autonomy. Granting a position of neutrality only serves to conceal the autonomy lie.[xiii][13] IV. The nature of God’s revelation makes neutrality impossible. A. When a man sets up his own authority for what is true and what is not, he becomes the epistemological authority and not the Bible. Neutrality turns authority over to the unbeliever. It puts God on trial. By contrast, Scripture never submits to another standard of truth other than itself. If Scripture submitted to another standard of truth, then the authority of Scripture would rise no higher than the extra-biblical standard. B. It is inconsistent for a Christian to claim that the Bible is the ultimate source of authority, and then for the sake of debate, be neutral toward it. All facts are God’s facts. They must be interpreted by the Word of God. Only the Holy Scriptures are the ultimate intellectual standard. [xiv][14] C. Opposition to Christianity is not merely confined to doctrinal points contained in Scripture, nor is it merely the natural sciences opposing supernaturalism. Those who oppose Christianity war against the whole biblical manner of conceiving of the world and man’s place in it. The Bible presents the Christian world view as comprehensive. The Scripture authoritatively interprets the cosmos and all things natural and moral. The Word of God encompasses the entire universe and our part in. Neutrality ignores God’s truth regarding the whole and instead diverts the argument to particulars.[xv][15] D. The Word of God infallibly answers every ultimate question. Granting neutrality constitutes an unnecessary surrender of absolute truth. The believer has submitted to Christ’s epistemic authority. It is disloyal to Christ to set aside His authoritative answers to ultimate questions for the sake of debate. Christ is the believer’s philosophy for every ultimate question. The Christian apologist should not relinquish his devotion to Christ’s epistemic authority for the sake of argument. V. The nature of the debate makes neutrality impossible. A. When the unbeliever is allowed to set the terms of the debate, the Christian loses the authority to challenge the unbeliever’s autonomy. To set aside distinctly Christian commitments in the interest of neutrality is immoral. It constitutes a form of thinking of which the world approves (James 4:4). To acquiesce to neutrality as a ground rule of the debate is to miss the biblical point of contact with the unbeliever. It is to assume that all the sinner needs is religious information, rather than antithesis. (The biblical point of contact centers upon God’s claims upon the sinner. Divine claims are addressed to the unbeliever’s intellect, will and conscience.)[xvi][16] B. Christians have a world in common with unbelievers but not a world view in common with unbelievers. The true point of contact with the unbeliever is his sense of deity which he is unable to fully suppress. The world we have in common with the unbeliever is controlled by God and is constantly revealing God. The commonality Christians share with unbelievers is that both are made in the image of God and are surrounded by God’s creation. It is all common ground, but none of it is neutral ground. Denial of neutrality secures commonality rather than destroys commonality.[xvii][17] C. When a man assumes the position of ultimate reference point, he puts himself in a position to not understand God’s truth. Conceding neutrality only deepens the unbeliever’s spiritual dilemma of darkness and vain thinking. By contrast, a presuppositional approach in apologetics is consistent with the point of contact enjoined by Scripture. The Christian apologist will not grant the legitimacy of the unbeliever’s starting point. Instead he will drive home the antithesis by uncovering the unbeliever’s rebellion against God.[xviii][18] D. The Christian apologist cannot leave the unbeliever’s controlling presupposition of autonomy unchallenged. Neutrality denies the antithesis that exists between sources of authority. Either God or the sinner is the ultimate reference point. When in the interest of dignity, the Christian apologist concedes to the pressure to assume neutrality, he erases theantithesis between the believer and the unbeliever. The Scriptures constantly emphasize the antithesis between the believer and the unbeliever. The world’s antipathy toward the Christian is because the believer is of the truth – John 17:14-17. Neutrality is an egregious compromise of the antithesis as defined by Scripture.[xix][19] E. Neutrality implies that we live in an open universe. It implies that a comprehensive divine system does not control the universe. 1. In an open universe, facts issue forth from the womb of possibility. They are new for both God and man. God too must “wait and see.” He cannot interpret reality for man because He has not interpreted for Himself. As a consequence of the supposition of an open universe, man must be neutral and God must be within the universe. 2. Christian theism holds that for God all the facts are in. God knows the end from the beginning. There are no new facts to God. History is but the expression of the purpose of God. In order for man’s interpretation to be correct, it must correspond to the interpretation of God. Man’s synthesis and analysis rest upon God’s analysis. Man the truthful interpreter is constructively receptive, he thinks God’s thoughts after Him. 3. Neutrality makes God a correlative of man. Neutrality depicts God and man as having the same order of thinking with the same categories of thought. Endnotes [i][1]Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready (Atlanta: American Vision, 1996), 3, 4. [ii][2] Michael Kruger, “The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics” The Master’s Seminary Journal, 12:1 (Spring 2001): 72. [iii][3] Greg Bahnsen, Always Ready, 7. [iv][4] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Let God Be True: A Brief Defense of the Christian Faith, 57, 58. [v][5] Michael Kruger, The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics, 76. [vi][6] Scott Allen Will, Absolutely No Common Ground?, 67. [vii][7] Robert A. Morey, “Is ‘Natural Theology’ a Form of Deism?” Journal of Biblical Apologetics,1:1 (Fall 2000): 26, 27. [viii][8] Greg L. Bahnsen, A Critique of the Evidentialist Apologetical Method of John Warwick Montgomery, 3. [ix][9] Greg L. Bahnsen, VanTil’s Apologetic, Readings & Analysis (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1998), 156, 157. [x][10] Bahnsen, Always Ready, 8-12, 17. [xi][11] Scott Allen Will, Absolutely No Common Ground?, 63. [xii][12] James F. Stitzinger, “Apologetics and Evangelism TH 701” (The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, CA, 1999), 84-88. [xiii][13] Scott Allen Will, p. 74 [xiv][14] Michael Kruger, pp. 79-81. [xv][15] Jerry Solomon and Rick Wade, “World Views, Parts I & II” (Richardson, Texas: Probe Ministries International, 2000), 1:3, 2:2. [xvi][16] Kruger, p. 75. [xvii][17] Scott Allen Will, pp. 69-73. [xviii][18] James F. Stitzinger, pp. 22, 24, 84. [xix][19] Greg L. Bahnsen, pp. 7, 8.