You don’t agree? … so what?

REJECTION IS NOT REFUTATION

Dr. Don Kistler, founder of the Northampton Press, was born in California in 1949, the second of five sons of Jack and Faye Kistler. He grew up on a dairy farm in Central California and graduated from Azusa Pacific College in Southern California in 1971 with a double major in public speaking and religion. He holds the M. Div. and D. Min. degrees, and is an ordained minister. Prior to entering the gospel ministry, Dr. Kistler coached high school and college football for over 15 years.

Dr. Kistler pastored a local church for four years. As part of his preaching and teaching ministry, he has spoken at conferences with such notable figures as Dr. John MacArthur, Dr. R. C. Sproul, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Dr. J. I. Packer, Dr. John Gerstner, Elisabeth Elliot, Dr. Sinclair Ferguson, Dr. Michael Horton, Rev. Alistair Begg, Dr. Albert M. Mohler, the late Dr. James Boice, and Rev. Eric Alexander, to name just a few.

Dr. Kistler is the author of the book A Spectacle Unto God: The Life and Death of Christopher Love, and Why Read the Puritans Today? and is the editor of all the Soli Deo Gloria Puritan reprints. He was a contributing author for Justification by Faith ALONE!; Sola Scriptura; Trust and Obey: Obedience and the Christian; Onward, Christian Soldiers: Protestants Affirm the Church; and Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching.

He has edited over 150 books. He currently resides in Orlando, FL.

(The following is a transcript I wrote, taken from Lecture 2 of a seminar on Jonathan Edwards by Dr. Don Kistler, at Saint Andrews Chapel, Sanford, Florida, September 2003.)

Dr. Don Kistler – “People will often say “I don’t agree with you” but what does that prove? So what?”

“Let me tell you how this was driven home to me by the late Dr. John Gerstner. I was his pastor for four years (and you think you have pressure on the job). We used to drive to a Bible Study and I’d gotten a question in the mail from someone about Sabbath breaking (someone who was a very strict Sabbatarian) and they asked if anyone who did not keep a very strict Sabbath could REALLY be a Christian (that was the essence of the question).

I always drove Dr. Gerstner in his car and so I asked him, “how would you respond to this question?” I realized, you don’t ask him questions. He asks the questions.

Dr. Gerstner said, “Lets suppose for the sake of the argument that you are a practicing Sabbath breaker and I am a practicing homosexual.” He says, “Are you going to heaven or to hell?”

I said, “I’m going to heaven.”

He said, “Am I going to heaven or to hell?”

I said, “You’re going to hell.”

He said, “So you’re violating one of God’s commands and you get to go to heaven but I am violating one of God’s commands and I have to go to hell. What is it, did I pick the wrong command, Don?”

“Well,” I said, “the scripture is not as emphatic about Sabbath breaking as it is about homosexuality. Paul calls that the lowest form of degradation that there is. The Bible never calls Sabbath breaking an abomination… errr.. how’s that?”

Gerstner responded, “How’s that?… How’s what?”

I said, “my answer.”

He said, “what answer? You fumbled around and tried to throw a few verses at me. Did you think you were going to intimidate me with a couple of verses? Now do you have an answer to my question or not?”

Panting for breath I said, “well, good and godly men have disagreed over the issue of the Sabbath, you know Calvin and Luther and your man Sproul.”

He said, “ok, Calvin and Luther and Sproul and you and me will all be in hell together. Now what is your response to my question? Why is it YOU get to go to heaven and you can violate a command of God and I can’t violate a command of God but I have to go to hell. What kind of a system are you running here?”

Well I am really sweating bullets… and so we pull up to the place we are going and I ask, “what’s the answer?”

He said, “we’ll talk about it on the way home.”

“On the way home? That’s another hour!”

Well he did this all the way home and when we got there I said, “now tell me what the answer is.”

He said, “we’ll do it next month.”

“No, we’re not doing it next month. I want to sleep between now and next month.”

(I was ready to admit that practicing homosexuals could go to heaven)….

I said, “what’s the answer?”

He said, “you gave me the answer the first time I asked you.”

I said, “what?”

“Yeah, you’re absolutely right. The Bible does not say that Sabbath breaking is an abomination and does not put it on the same level as homosexuality. Paul is very clear that those who practice homosexuality shall not inherit the kingdom of God. He does not say that about Sabbath breaking. You gave me the right answer.”

I said, “then why did you do that to me?” (I was really mad)

And he said, “Don Kistler, you had the truth and you had Scripture behind you and you caved because somebody you admired didn’t agree with you. Don’t you ever in your life compromise the Scriptures because of some man’s reputation in your mind. You stand uncompromising for the word of God no matter who says anything.” And then he said, “rejection is not refutation.”

Deconstructing Defeater Beliefs by Tim Keller

This is an excellent presentation concerning understanding the concepts people have in their minds when we share the Gospel. It’s not a quick read, but Dr. Tim Keller’s grasp of how to communicate the Gospel to the Western mind is outstanding. Of course, that’s just my opinion so you’ll have to check it out for yourself:

A. THE IMPLAUSIBILITY STRUCTURE OF A CULTURE

1. Defeater beliefs

Every culture hostile to Christianity holds to a set of ‘common-sense’ consensus beliefs that automatically make Christianity seem implausible to people. These are what philosophers call “defeater beliefs.” A defeater belief is Belief-A that, if true, means Belief-B can’t be true.

Christianity is disbelieved in one culture for totally opposite reasons it is disbelieved in another. So for example, in the West (as we will explore below) it is widely assumed that Christianity can’t be true because of the cultural belief there can’t be just one “true” religion. But in the Middle East, people have absolutely no problem with the idea that there is just one true religion. That doesn’t seem implausible at all. Rather there it is widely assumed that Christianity can’t be true because of the cultural belief that American culture, based on Christianity, is unjust and corrupt. (Skeptics ought to realize, then, that the objections they have to the Christian faith are culturally relative!) So each culture has its own set of culturally-based doubt-generators which people call ‘objections’ or ‘problems’ with Christianity.

When a culture develops a combination of many, widely held defeater beliefs it becomes a cultural ‘implausibility-structure.’ In these societies, most people don’t feel they have to give Christianity a good hearing – they don’t feel that kind of energy is warranted. They know it just can’t be true. That is what makes evangelism in hostile cultures so much more difficult and complex than it was under ‘Christendom.’ In our Western culture (and in places like Japan, India, and Muslim countries) the reigning implausibility-structure against Christianity is very strong. Christianity simply looks ludicrous. In places like Africa, Latin America, and China, however, the implausibility structures are eroding fast. The widely held assumptions in the culture make Christianity look credible there.

Read More Here.

Keller goes on to talk specifically about the defeater beliefs of Western culture:

What are the dominant defeaters in contemporary Western civilization? These are the dominant defeaters discovered in a recent survey I did of young under 25 year olds in NYC who are not Christian. Below six ‘defeaters’ are stated and answered in a nutshell. Why Christianity can’t be true – because of:

a) The other religions. Christians seem to greatly over-play the differences between their faith and all the other ones. Though millions of people in other religions say they have encountered God, have built marvelous civilizations and cultures, and have had their lives and characters changed by their experience of faith, Christians insist that only they go to heaven — that their religion is the only one that is ‘right’ and true. The exclusivity of this is breath taking. It also appears to many to be a threat to international peace.

Brief response: Inclusivism is really covert exclusivism. It is common to hear people say: “No one should insist their view of God better than all the rest. Every religion is equally valid.” But what you just said could only be true if: First, there is no God at all, or second, God is an impersonal force that doesn’t care what your doctrinal beliefs about him are. So as you speak you are assuming (by faith!) a very particular view of God and you are pushing it as better than the rest! That is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical, since you are doing the very thing you are forbidding. To say “all religions are equally valid” is itself a very white, Western view based in the European enlightenment’s idea of knowledge and values. Why should that view be privileged over anyone else’s?

b) Evil and suffering. Christianity teaches the existence of an all-powerful, all-good and loving God. But how can that belief be reconciled with the horrors that occur daily? If there is a God, he must be either all-powerful but not good enough to want an end to evil and suffering, or he’s all-good but not powerful enough to bring an end to evil and suffering. Either way the God of the Bible couldn’t exist. For many people, this is not only an intellectual conundrum but also an intensely personal problem. Their own personal lives are marred by tragedy, abuse, and injustice.

Brief response: If God himself has suffered our suffering isn’t senseless. First, if you have a God great and transcendent enough to be mad at because he hasn’t stopped evil and suffering in the world, then you have to (at the same moment) have a God great and transcendent enough to have good reasons for allowing it to continue that you can’t know. (You can’t have it both ways.) Second, though we don’t know the reasons why he allows it to continue, he can’t be indifferent or un-caring, because the Christian God (unlike the gods of all the other religions) takes our misery and suffering so seriously that he is willing to get involved with it himself. On the cross, Jesus suffered with us.

Read More Here.

Also, if you have never watched this video, I strongly encourage you to do so, especially the first 30 minutes.

On March 4, 2008, at The University of California, Berkeley, Dr. Tim Keller discussed the place of exclusive truth in a pluralistic society, followed by a lively question and answer session.

Atheist Question Time

Dear Atheist, I am going to be entirely honest with you right from the start and tell you that I dont believe you exist. By that, I do not mean you are not physically in existence. Clearly someone pressed the “send” button” to transfer the letter I found in my e-mail box this morning that reports to have come from you. I see no reason to question its authenticity.

What I mean is that I dont believe you are a true atheist. I dont just say that about you though, I say that about every professing atheist. That is because, from my worldview as a Bible believing Christian, the God who has clearly revealed Himself both through this natural order and in Scripture has told us:

Romans 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools…

God does not believe that genuine atheists exist. He has made the truth of His existence known to you and you are suppressing this knowledge with all the mental gymnastics you can muster from a heart in defiance of Him. Actually, that leads me to my first question:

(1) Why do you spend so much time on the internet and in every other possible venue seeking to spew out hatred for a God you say you dont believe in? If he does not exist, why do you seem to hate Him so much?

(2) In your evolutionary material worldview, where all things came from minute particles of matter exploding, can you please explain where personality comes from? For instance, if all there ever was was rock, which rock decided to expand itself to think, to choose, to like, to dislike – and how exactly did it do that?

(Just telling you right up front, if your answer is “matter, if given a whole lot of time developed personality ” you will have lost me. Something without personality cannot develop personality whether left to itself for 5 minutes or 5 billion years. If you then say that science has yet to observe this but I am sure it will, once again you will have lost me. Science has not only never observed it, but it defies all its basic premises. You are merely hoping for something and that is not dealing with the present reality we all have to deal with, the data currently available to us).

(3) You seem hell bent (pardon the expression) on tearing down the God of the Bible suggesting He does not live according to His own standards of goodness. You say that if He is ultimately reponsible for all that is and all that happens in this world, this raises serious questions about His goodness. But may I ask, where are you even getting the concept of good? Aren’t you having to borrow from my worldview to even find such a thing as moral goodness? How can there be moral goodness in an atheistic worldview? Aren’t you left with only moral preferences – you prefer to eat nicely at a restaurant today rather than go on a genicidal run to exterminate all people from Iceland, but in your system, those who choose the latter are merely those with a different preference for the day. There is no right and wrong when ultimately there is no one to answer to. And if you say that society at large comes up with morality, then nothing is fixed, because society (if we mean by that, what most people in a society think) changes its view regularly (slavery was one considered acceptable in America, and now obviously is not).

As one man observed, “what makes your moral standard more than a subjective opinion or personal preference? What makes it truly binding or obligatory? Why can’t I just ignore it? Won’t our end be the same (death and the grave) either way?”

(4) Why not be a full blown, out in the open, militant racist? If all we are is grown up germs (in an evolutionary/atheistic framework) who cares if black grown up germs or white ones, sit at the back of the bus. We get rid of germs in the sink, why not get rid of grown up germs in our neighborhood?

You realize that because there is an ultimate law giver who has made His will known and to whom all of us in every culture is accountable, I know WHY such a thing is wrong, but where in your system can you say any of this slaughter of people of a different color is morally “wrong”?

(5) I have asked where you get morality. Now I ask you what it is. If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, help me understand what a morality is (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?

(6) I know you believe in morality because you accuse God of not being moral enough, so please tell me, how did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of objective morality? As one man asked so well, “Did the big bang really spew forth “love your enemy?” If so, you have to help me understand that.”

For my part, I believe there is no moral “good” apart from the God you say you dont believe in, and whose character you question.

I look forward to receiving your reply.

Sincerely,
John Samson