Exposing the Fool's Folly

The best defense is a good offense

When I played basketball as a kid my coach always said, “The best offense is a good defense.”  We emphasized defense, because, if the other team couldn’t score, we would win. 

When it comes to apologetics we say just the opposite.  Our motto is that “The best defense is a good offense.”  Yet, while our mottos might be reversed, the implications are the same:  If the other team (i.e. the unbeliever) cannot score, we win!

The task of Christian apologetics is to defend the faith by going on the offense.  This is what is meant in Proverbs 26:5 when it says, “Rebuke a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”  Our job as Christians is to rebuke the unbeliever by means of exposing the foolery of his own worldview. 

How do we do this?  We expose his foolishness by entering into their system of thought in order to critique it.  What we want to do is push his/her beliefs to its logical conclusion and so reveal how completely absurd it is. 

The unbeliever is called a fool because he rejects the word of God, which is the basis for true knowledge.  He "exchanges the truth of God for a lie."  And like a faulty foundation to a house, cannot give a coherent and true system of belief. 

In sum, we defend the faith by demolishing unbelief.

Here’s another way to think about what we are doing in the task of apologetics: 

When I was younger, I used to play a game called “King of the Mountain.”  We would begin by having everyone stand at the bottom of a large snow pile.  When we said go, we would all scramble to the top as fast as we could.  When we got there, we would begin to push and shove one another. 

The goal of the game was to be the only one who stands a-top of the snow pile (i.e. the “king”).  But that meant that the king had to knock everyone else down off the hill when they charged.  The king, then, was the one who was able to defend his territory by attacking the attackers.  His kingship was due to his ability to disable his opponents and reveal their complete weakness and inability to stand.

In the same way, we defend the faith by showing the inability of other faiths to stand.  We defend the legitimacy of the Christian faith by showing that it is the only belief system that is logically coherent.  In sum, we reveal Christ to be the King of the Mountain by attacking the false faiths, exposing how they are foolish and have no ground upon which to stand.

I Pitty the Fool!

A Practical Example of Exposing Foolery

The Bible says that the one who builds his house upon the rock (i.e. the word of God) will not be moved.  However, the one who builds his house on the sand (foolish unbelief) will find that his system comes crashing down.

As we said above, part of our duty is to push the unbeliever's worldview and show how it falls into shambles.  Let's take a moment and talk about how we just might do this given a certain objection to the faith.

Suppose you are talking with someone and they say, “I don’t believe God exists.”  You might ask them why they believe this.  He may answer, “Because there is no evidence for God.”   How do we address this situation?  

It would be easy as saying this,

“How do you know there is no evidence for God?  Have you searched the entire universe?  There very well may be evidence that you simply have not found.”

In saying this we have just exposed the weakness of his argument.  He has made a categorically absolute statement that there is no proof.  However, he cannot be sure because he has not examined all possible means of gaining evidence.  There very well may be proof that he does not know of and simply has not found.  If he wishes to be “scientific” he must abide by the rules of his method!

We can now begin to press his worldview to expose how it cannot even account for the rationality he claims.  We may say something like this,

“You are assuming that everything has to be proven by means of scientific investigation (i.e. by your ability to see, taste, touch, smell).  Can you prove the scientific method by means of the scientific method? 

The answer is obviously no.  His basis for life (the scientific method) has no authoritative grounding.  If the truth were told there are in fact many other things that cannot be proven by sensory experience, such as laws of logic, thoughts, dreams, etc.

You can continue to press his worldview and expose its folly.

“You are also assuming your senses of sight, taste, & touch are reliable.  But it must be asked, ‘How do you know that they are reliable?’  How can you be sure that what you see is actually there and not a figment of your imagination?  Just because I think I am holding a pencil, doesn’t mean that it could not really be a knife.  Just because I don’t see any blood, doesn’t mean there isn’t any.  My sense of perception may not be accurate.

"As a matter of fact, I could be dreaming this whole conversation!

“The fact of the matter is, sensory perception cannot be trusted in and of itself.  There has to be a God who has made the eye, the hand, and the nose to validate the authenticity of sensory experience. 

“So, in the end, the very thing you claim (i.e. There is no evidence for God) is not only untrue (there may very well may be evidence that you do not know of), but the possibility of using our senses to verify evidence proves that God must exist.  The very claim you make necessarily implies the very God you deny.”

We’ve now disarmed our proud fool, stripped him of his ability to argue, and given him reason to consider the need for the Christian faith.  Or, to put it another way, Christ remains king of the mountain and the unbeliever’s worldview has been cast down and dashed to pieces.

It is admitted that the unbeliever may still wish to remain in his unbelief.  Just because we have exposed his folly, doesn’t mean he will automatically leave it. 

However, we have properly defended the faith to this point.  We have cast down every lofty thing exalted against Christ and, theoretically speaking, kept the fool from being wise in his own eyes.

 

Providence Church