Monday, November 11, 2019

Another of the Critical Things John Lennox Missed

In my last blog post I wrote about the time just last month I watched John Lennox share Christ in a lecture hall of about a hundred people, young and old, at a prominent secular science college. I spoke about a couple of the key things he missed, and no disrespect, Lennox is an amazing apologist. I'd like to think afterwards many in the audience genuinely considered making Christ their Lord and Savior.

Not sure, though. Not being cynical, I just want truth to reign.

One of those other things Lennox missed is the fact that the concept of justice upon which he based a core part of his address is a scientific concept. This thing justice is testable and falsifiable. It is something that can be proven to affect all people in the same way all the time. In the same way photosynthesis is the way plants make energy, justice is the transcendent standard for people to treat other people and know how to treat other people, and it is so scientifically. That we don't know all the aspects of the science doesn't mean it isn't so. We don't know all the aspects of photosynthesis either -- but we still study it scientifically.

When we dismiss science as only applying to the material things the World has told us we must, we simply plop ourselves deep into the philosophical rat hole of David Hume. By default we're supposed to be followers of him -- this is really the grand atheist claim. Empiricism is the reigning default mentality and if you don't adhere to it then you're a fool but we'll humor you so we can look respectable.

Scripture says, "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'"

Hmm. Something's got to give.

This was borne out in the Q & A period when one of those in the audience asked this question, one I've heard a dozen times before but is really quite underhanded. I'd love to take time to go over all the questions in that session, all similar in their insidiously manipulative skepticism, but this one is good for now.

"What proof could be offered that would cause you to abandon your faith in God? What is there that would convince you that God does not exist?"

This sounds so profound, but it is not only really stupid but it is spiteful as well. It sounds fine because it seems to reveal that the student is a seeker, one who does genuinely want to know truth.

In reality it is a backhanded way to say, "Since you don't know for sure about God, and you of all people should know for sure since you in particular are one of the smartest there is about this God thing -- then why should I respect what you say? I only believe in things I can know for sure. I'm the one who is the real truth-holder, and the truth is actually empiricism and that there is no God."

I put in my notes a couple things Lennox said in response, but those things were all rather weak. One thing he said was "I'd have to have proofs that Jesus did not rise from the dead." Now indeed the gospel depends on the Resurrection, but can you see how Lennox puts himself at a severe rhetorical disadvantage? Right away he's throwing doubt into the whole Jesus enterprise. The audience is now thinking, "Oh, but there are all kinds of questions about the Resurrection -- are the records accurate, did He really die, isn't it just a story the disciples made up -- all the standard ways the World throws doubt into what actually happened, all challenges that can be easily answered.

But Lennox had not the time or the wherewithal to answer the question. Really -- I'm sorry, but he should have been more prepared for this kind of atheist bullshit.

I myself don't have the full answer either, I'm not trying to say I'm perfectly capable of it. But I know I'd do more to push back against it. Here's one very good thing to say in response, to the questioner:

"Are you God yourself? Because only God knows everything perfectly. And if God were to share with you the one thing that proves Him false, it would mean you yourself would then know everything there is to know, and you yourself would be God. In that sense, logically, you are proving God. Otherwise what's really going on here is your question is an underhanded way to try throw doubt into the minds of genuine seekers by simply making it seem there is something out there that disproves God. You already assume there is, and that 'truth' is the empiricism claim. Furthermore how does one know a thing that he doesn't know? Indeed how can one certainly identify this presumed thing a temporal and limited mind cannot know? The question assumes you can prove a negative. No, what's really happening here is you are not really seeking -- you are merely using your own dogmatic skepticism to bully someone who does know what you stubbornly refuse to allow yourself to know."

Now Lennox did say throughout his talk that there is overwhelming evidence for God. He shared much of it. Good for him. There is more evidence for him than against him -- and yes all the supposed evidence against put forth by the atheist is easily shot down. What is so sad, however, is how little do we challenge the rank idiocy of these people who ask questions like this.

It is getting scarier and scarier, because so many young people are becoming more and more indoctrinated by the System's propaganda -- the humanism and the atheism and the scientism and the simple flat-out folly -- Scripture's warning us about the children turning against their fathers looks more and more like reality.

Wow. Prophecy is just future reality.

John Lennox is an expert apologist, he really is.

Who will be stepping up to replace him in the next several years?
___