Which Side Can Survive Critique? – Ep.384 – Covenantal Apologetics – Set Christ Apart As Lord – Part 2

0:00Music Hello everyone, welcome to Kiv the Cross of Polyjects, I'm Patrick. You're an Antony. And we're in the middle of chapter 2 of our book, Coven Until Apologetics by K. Scott Alffent. And here he's encouraging us to set Christ apart as Lord not to have this generic view of a God in which to argue for and from, but to have certain aspects of who God is in the forefront of our mind because, frankly, that's our position. That's the purpose of why we do Apologetics. We are not a people who are counting the strands on a Natswing in order just to have that number. We're doing it for a purpose. And so why do it any other way other than to posit the Christian God?

1:06And here he started out in us in chapter 2 by encouraging us to kind of know certain aspects of who Christ is. He ventured us through the I.M. statements of the name of God, the name that Yahweh that he's identified in a very special way that Christ also takes on that mantle as well. In both the Old Testament, Christ is found, and also the New Testament more fully and more completely. And so we get that from telling us who the God is that we're kind of arguing for. And then he critiqued a consposition where it gives us kind of these areas to have certain points of knowledge. But he doesn't seem to argue for knowledge in the Christian God or the soul or beans in themselves because he seems to have a different viewpoint of who God is. It's a God who doesn't reveal himself and is also a God who doesn't kind of send to us and the nature of the sun in Jesus Christ seems to be devoid from his discussion, which seems to be something that's intentional for Kant.

2:18But doesn't quite seem to fit with what he knew about Christianity or anything like that. And so he posits all those things to then come to two examples in which he'll kind of utilize this knowledge. And he talks about that the application of what we've laid out to this point might look like. The remainder of this chapter that we're going to be talking about. We're going to give kind of two examples of how covenant apologetic might relate to those who oppose the Christian God to a very prominent ones. One, probably a household name and someone who's arguing against the position of who he claims that God is. So the first one, we will illustrate in one way the refusal to acknowledge Christ as Lord will end in the self destruct of the views that are held. So again, putting forth its own foundation and then seeing if it can hold up under itself. And that way we can see how a rejection of the Christian God is self defeating. In the second, we'll notice what happens when a supposed critique of the Christian God winds up being nothing of the sort.

3:20So again, this is both an external critique for the first one and then an internal critique after that. So that's what we'll be covering today for the remainder of the rest of chapter two, set of Christ, set Christ apart as Lord. And so in this section, he labels it, he who is not with me. And he talks about a family feud. So this is a fight within a family, right? He begins by talking about a recent feud developed between a group of admitted and committed skeptics. And against the atheist Richard Dawkins. There it is. Right. And he says to summarize that a conference of skeptics, one of the lead debutants found herself being propositioned on an individual. And she's mentioned on an elevator at four o'clock in the morning. What the world would she do in there? I think that happens at four o'clock. And so he says, as is our postmodern customer, first thing that one does when such traumas occur is bog about. That's what she did. Right. The woman's blog, however, failed to garner the emotional empathy of our friend Richard Dawkins.

4:27And a comment by Dawkins of the incident, he uses the woman's blog complaint to attempt his own complaint. He gives the mutilation of Muslim women as a mere proposition on an elevator. So he compares the mutilation of a Muslim woman to the proposition of an elevator. And he sends seems any says that the proposition on the on the elevator at four o'clock in the morning seems a relatively meaningly. And petty problem. Get over it lady, right? That's basically what he said. Right? Compared to compared to other things that happen to women. This is nothing. Right? Get over it. That's what he suggested. And why did he want to say that? Right? He opened up a game or work. Exactly. This is the Brian Regan joke where you never tell a story of two wisdom teeth being pulled because someone's always going to upend you that, oh no, it was four wisdom teeth and they were all impacted and it was this horrible story.

5:28So you're always comparing your position. So you can never complain about it unless you're at the peak position of whatever category it is to complain. Well Dawkins here was ill prepared for the wrath of the rationalist regime, rain down on him, which is a great alliteration there. The vitral was relentless and Dawkins found his own godlike status, I like that term phrase, in serious question. He simply could not understand how his prioritizing of evil deeds could have caused so much caustic consternation. By their own admission, the skeptics pride themselves on their commitment to rationality and evidence based reasoning. That's all we are. If we get rid of religion, all we have is pure reason and we can be a society with flying cars and no death and we can look in the future and travel among the stars. That's what it is. Well, it seems like maybe a little wanting there. However, what ought to be perfectly clear in this kerfuffle is that being rational is insufficient to deal with things like personal offenses, human preservation and any statement of belief with an ought implied in it.

6:38There's the dreaded ought raining its reign of terror yet again. But Dawkins dared to compare the skeptics scare with Muslim mutilation and then to apply arbitrary standards of moral equivalents. Yeah, right. And so notice what Dawkins is doing. He's going to explain it to us here, but he's going to suggest that there are levels of evil basically is what he's suggesting here. And so he's saying, look way to compare to these other levels of evil yours is false, far short. So, you know, what's the big deal. And so often tells us that this might be a good place to introduce some, sometimes useful apologetic tactic. The so called ad hominem, we will read to the man argument. These types of arguments are generally considered to be fallacious, right? They're false, they're not good arguments. So there's no question that such arguments can be fallacious, he tells us. But there's also no question that logical fallacies are not fallacious in every case, right?

7:41So, you know, they're not always fallacious. And so that ad hominem argument, he says, when it's used in the four ways, an attack on a person's personal character, right? On the attack on the person and their character, rather than a response to their arguments. So that's how it's used in a fallacious way. It's a false argument, right? Just because the person's like this doesn't mean that they have a good or a bad argument, right? So, Joe is like this, therefore his argument is bad. No, you need to look at his argument. So that's an ad hominem attack on Joe, but you haven't even examined his argument. So that attack on Joe is fallacious, it's false. It's not a good argument to put down Joe's argument. That's the notion of an ad hominem argument. Right. Right. So this ad hominem argument is not like that is not fallacious is one in which a person's position is challenged based on what that person claims. It is an ad hominem argument because it goes to the challenger's own beliefs.

8:43It seeks to question the consistency of what someone believes, argues, or maintains in light of other beliefs or arguments that he claims to hold. And of course this is the inroad to how he's going to respond to dockens here. So when the ad hominem argument attacks a person's belief based on what they say, now he's suggesting that's not a fallacious way to use the argument. And so the point is an important one and he and it bears repeating and so he's going to explain it to us. An ad hominem argument does not compare, for example, an unbelievers position with Christianity in order to show the unbelieving position to be wanting. In a good ad hominem argument that is an ad hominem argument used in the proper sense, right. The comparison is between a person's basic claims or commitments on the one hand and that same person's behavior complaints and assertions on the other.

9:45Right. So basically your commitments don't match your claims. Right. That's so that's the way he suggests it can be used in a good way. And so he says the problems detected are that the problem that persons basic commitments cannot be consistent with their other claims or complaints. And so this serves. He tells us in part to provide significant pressure on the truthfulness or applicability of one's basic commitments. Right. So if your commitments and your and your behavior don't match, there is a indication that there is a problem there. And we can point to that in terms of our argument. Right. This is the way it's ought to be. Well, it doesn't seem like you also believe that that's not an ad hominem that's attacking the what the what the person arguing is the way that things should be. The ad hominem question to ask here is just what it is about Dawkins complaint that violates rationality or evidential reasoning. Right. So why are we why are we comparing hurt factors in this in this way.

10:54How is this rational? How is this? You know what what evidence are we able to put on the sides of the T. Dotters to figure out which which which side is going to be the most weighty one. Well, no legitimate responsible before coming from such question because none could be for Dawkins. There is an obvious scale of evil. What is done to Muslim women is more evil than what's done to the skeptic. But how would Dawkins account for any evil much less evil on a scale? How is he able to do that? What can you say? How much can he can he weigh that evil out? How much can he titrate it? How much you know if if you broken down into two parts is it is it going to is it going to equal as much as the the other side is claiming to be you know how much abuse could Muslim take that equals out how to how much this claim is. Right. There doesn't seem to be a way that we could square the circle with with with a scale as it comes about with rationality or or with evidence.

11:58Right. So what he's suggesting here is all Dawkins has to work with is rationality and evidential reason. And if that's all we have to work with how can you make the ethical claims. Right. Again, we're going to ask the question by what standard and we're going to see if if there is none, you know, how are how are we to make that. And also once you've made the claim of of this ethical system that you have well, then how does it apply to all people. And so that's that's what's coming into play here for the skeptic. There is a code of morality that must be taken by all with utter seriousness when she is the one violated. But what rational law or evidential fact provides this code to all people again, this is a factor by which we say by what standard and you know you have well, you know, you shouldn't you should do this because you view harm to yourself that you wouldn't want done. You see it in other people and that's all fine and good. If you're living in a Christian world view because we can we can use that for our own portion, but we're just talking about strict rationality.

13:04This is this is spot level behavior that we want to get to from Star Trek and this this scales of evil does not seem to be does not have a place into it. We can't we can't logically look at this and and come out with the formulation. So what are we then going to point to and not only what are we going to point to but why are all people why should all people point to that same that same standard. So this is fascinating. This is tells us the ad hominem argument is an attempt to show the crumbling foundation and it's true light. The supposed basic foundation chosen cannot bear the weight of real life in God's world as God's creatures. It is utterly impotent and so cannot begin to accomplish the task that has been assigned. So it tells us that dockens couldn't set out a you know graduation right or graduation of evil only because he knows deep down that people are more than rational laws and material composites right.

14:10They have characteristics that transcend their thinking and their constitution right they're just not you know Adams and the boy kind of thing they are an image of God and dockens wouldn't put it that way of course but that's basically deep down that's what he's exposing right is what is really believes are right and so that's what he's pointing out. Dockens cannot make this kind of radiation of evil and in his world views really what he's suggesting here right you need as you mentioned the Christian world view to make this kind of gradiation right right and so this is the the internal critique that's being applied here. He's saying okay let's take the position let's let's see what the standard is let's apply it to itself let's let's see if it accounts for all things that we see if it's unable to hold hold all the things if it's unable to hold up under its own weight if it's able to be consistent within itself well then you might have something to work with unfortunately here we don't see that there doesn't seem to be a bottom in place and because there's no bottom in place everything falls and so that that's what's happening here.

15:20So what we have observed in this example is what there are two primary aspects of any argument which we will develop later that is a need to be part of one's analysis and response to an argument first of all that through order here is not important it is crucial to attempt to our kid take just why and how the position one is opposing does not do what it reports to do so he calls us the quicksand quotient in applying the quicksand quotient we attempt to show that the position that we are opposing is sinking sand and cannot stand on its own again that that's the that's the bottom part of the of the divisor there and so once a quicksand quotient is in place then he's tells us it is useful to demonstrate how Christianity itself is alone able to do just to the concerns of the skeptic right so on the one hand we showed our bat position since I do the quicksand and on the other hand we show our Christianity is able to walk above the quicksand as it were right and so in Christianity alone do we find a universal applicable way to navigate how the rational and evidential relate to human beings and to life and to behavior he says we can move them from the quicksand quotient to the covenantal Christian content

16:40and that is so that's part of his apologetic method out right right this is a project so we don't want to just leave them with the destruction of their own worldview we want to then replace it we want them to consider the the replacement of something that does account for all those pieces that they were able to to to want to leave out the accounts for the things that they're feeling and experiencing and seeing and the answer that has a foundation that once applied to itself can stand and so we don't just want to leave them there and we've won the argument and we're pointing them from from the top of our same castle and and laughing at them but we're we're wanting them to to stand on our on our precipice as well. But sometimes people want to turn the quicksand quotient into the Christian direction they want to say oh look here is something that internally is inconsistent with yourself and your your worldview and what you have to say to that Jack and sometimes that claim is that Christianity has no foundation that it's things under its own irrational weight so he's going to then take an example and see how it might go so this is an internal critique then that's been love you that and from from an outside.

17:56Of person not not a Christian but a skeptic who is who is saying that Christians you have your own issues so what do we do with that how do we address it. Right right and so he's going to use Anthony Kennedy as a chapter in a book on this ins and eternity and time and Kennedy in this particular piece sets out in part to show why the traditional contention that God is immutable while unchangeable. Can I be compatible with the traditional notion of God's omniscient that is he knows everything right in the words he is arguing if there are basic Christian tenants that cannot rationally be held so he's trying to you know use the same kind of critique on Christianity right as much you mentioned. And so he gives us a summary of the of Kennedy's argument here and I'll just briefly go through this because he's going to spin at least a few minutes talking about this argument but they're basically seven points that he wants to make you go something like this perfect being is not something to change.

19:02Secondly a perfect being knows everything three being that knows everything always knows what time it is for a being that always knows what time it is is subject to change by a perfect being is there for a subject to change six a perfect being is therefore not a perfect being and seven therefore or there go there is no perfect being right so he kind of you know. Suggest by the notion of change and omniscience these two seemingly contradictory notions you can have both of them in in a perfect being and therefore there is no perfect being so the question he asks us in is how might we go about responding to this particular argument in other words Christianity crashes and burns because it is irrational with regard to its portrayal of who God is all because we wanted to wear watch that that's it. So I think that's right.

20:05The Kenny's supposed is the God of Western theism here it is no stretch to ask him how exactly we come to know that this God is eternal immutable omniscient omnipotent and so on well given kind of the knowledge of a coin is he might reply that such things can be known by reason alone. Even if we grant that point for argument's sake which we can do which is not outside of our ability to our desire to it's not it's not betraying the Christian faith by by granting that for the sake of argument we can then ask Kenny if the attributes delineated by Thomas in his natural theology were contradicted by supernatural revelation according to Thomas they were not. Yeah so notice what he suggests here Kenny in this piece a part of it is criticizing Thomas Aquinas right and so he's having to assume at least some of the things that Aquinas might hold to right and so you know the question is you know where did you come from where did you get this notion of God.

21:06Well you know we can know by reason is what Aquinas would probably say right we can know God by revelation and by reason might so even if we grant the point he says for argument's sake you know now we have to ask Kenny okay you know where do we go from here he says given this we need to make the point that if one is going to argue against the God of Western theism as that God is described by Thomas and others a full or picture of this God can only be asked. God can only be had by way of God supernatural revelation so there it is right it's not we know God not just by reason but also by revelation and so you need to take that into account Kenny. He says Kenny could not dispute without himself being out of a court in accord with the substance of Western theism so you criticize in Western theism you have to take it all into account and so with respect to this Christian God then the one that we know not just by reason but also by revelation central to his identity is that he is triune and that the second and then he's this then the second person

22:18that he's a trinity came down taking on human nature and noticed lived in space and time so notice is critique here as to do with omniscience with regard to what God can know and his unchangeability but we have the second person the trinity that who you know knows all but also lived in space and time that's what the revelation of of Christianity. Right. This is this is the Christian wanting to tell Kenny to abide by the laws of America right so if if we're traveling down the road at 70 miles an hour and then the sign on the road says 70 well then we're in good standing but there's a road sign that I know that's in Mexico that says 50 and so I should be held to this to that standard Kenny's point because that sign says you can only go 50 miles an hour which I would say yeah if you're ready to go. I would say yeah if you're in Mexico you you can you should go that amount but you're not talking about me I'm on I'm on this side so what what's being asked is well Kenny wants to argue against this this position that he's going for but he's not including our actual argumentation so it might not be a straw man if we're taking the best light he's arguing against some notion of this type of perfect being that that's here but he's not arguing against Christianity or kind of this western ascent.

23:47So that's the civilization deity that that is pretty much the Christian God. Well in historic Christianity therefore we do not affirm that there is a God who is simple immutable omniscient and so the simplicity rather Christian deism affirms that there is one God in three persons each of whom is fully God and therefore partakes of all of God's essential attributes. Also affirm that this God in the person of the sun took on the characteristics and properties of creation without in any way undermined subverting denying or in his essential character as God. Well if this is the case then it's no stretch theologically and in terms of historic Christianity to affirm that both God remains immutable and omniscient essentially and eternally knowing all things the room himself and that he is fully cognizant of each and every temporal fact of creation right there's there's nothing that speaks out against that I think it was the fourth point of of this being unable to know time and so it doesn't seem to be that that this argumentation.

24:55So the implementation is to be applied to us it seems to be either leaving us out or not not availing itself to the type of of of argumentation that we would put forth of of the characteristics of that God that he's trying I think to argue against. What he tells us here is a community therefore has to recognize is that the truth of the incarnation requires this absurdity right that he's trying to point out to take on a different meaning than the one that he intends that is so that which is truly absurd is whatever is is in opposition to God and surely the incarnation is not in opposition to God and therefore it's not observed so absurdity therefore has to be measured not in terms of what we've been doing. We can comprehend what our finite minds can put together right but in terms of what God has said to us is revelation of himself so if God can come down and relate himself to his creation and do so for eternity without any way without any way denying his deity then surely what looks absurd to some is actually the very wisdom of God.

26:07Right. We close the script of the community. And this doesn't just take place in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This goes all the way back to walking around the garden. This takes place into the spirit of the Lord hovering over the surface of the earth. This is not something that is drummed up in the year zero AD. This is something that happens in 6000 BC at the start of everything so that's the the argumentation that should be put forth is there is a God who is able to know. Time and again this seems like an odd and an argumentation but if you're going to write a book you're going to want to do something new and that's that's a hindrance to a lot of people that don't want to argue the same thing that's been argued about for since Thomas Aquinas himself so good job but it didn't quite capture Christianity there. Well, the above examples were attended to show how covenantal projects might argue from perspectives of the other position itself. So he says he's tried to show two different attempts at reasoning that are on their own terms, fallacious.

27:10He says he's introduced the quick saying quotient an approach that ties the tries to fair it out the presuppositions of an opposing worldview in order to show the internal inconsistency. Again, that's the internal critique but we have also seen the same quotient can and will be lodged against us so that we must prepare to show its fallacies as well and that's the the internal critique there in all of this or well that's coming from the outside so extra in all this he's pointed out to the reality of Christ the Lord and his word and that must be our ultimate name again. It's not something that we want to shy away from because that's going to be the ultimate goal that's the thing that we're doing the talking for and so let's actually declare Christ is Lord and adopt adopt all those positions. You know, it may be embarrassing to us but that that that comes at a price of denying what we garner as the ultimate truth and you know we might have a place at the table but are we actually representing Christ at that table.

28:15And so there it is set of Christ the part as Lord right and so part of apologizes making sure that we include the gospel and all of all and all the splendor in our apologetic methodology that we are basing our apologetics on Christ as Lord we set him apart as Lord and by doing that now we can begin to confront these various positions. Yep and next chapter chapter three proof to all men we talk about proving that not just to certain aspects but but exactly what what that proof looks like in in scripture to not just the the really smarty smart pants or the really dumb people but everybody in between so so we got the Tony's and we got the Patrick's and we know which ones are which there so join us again next time as we continue on chapter three again you can check out all the past books that we've done that come and go to the center of the page and there's all the books that you can click on and from there all the episodes by cover photo and then you can look through the past portions of this book as well and those can be found as well on on Spotify and all the various video sites and all the audio sites as well.

29:35So join us next time as we turn to chapter three so thanks for joyous and we'll see you next time. See you next time. you