Module review

I would start with step one, gathering information: 'What do you mean by no absolute truth?', because she may mean the humble point that people see things differently, which I can agree with. Step two reverses the burden of proof: 'How did you come to that conclusion?', since she is making a claim too. Step three uses a leading question: 'Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?' This shows that the strong version is a suicide view: it claims to be true for everyone while denying that anything is. Her second claim is the genetic fallacy, because where a belief came from does not decide whether it is true; I could admit my upbringing and ask whether her own views are also shaped by hers. I would avoid saying 'That's a fallacy!' and instead say, 'I agree my upbringing shaped me, but the real question is whether it's true.' Then I would turn to a question about Christ, such as, 'If Jesus really did rise from the dead, would that matter for you?' I would be ready to explain the gospel if she is open, and trust the Spirit with the results if she is not.

• Uses all three Columbo steps in a natural order
• Identifies the strong relativist claim as self-refuting (suicide view)
• Identifies and answers the genetic fallacy
• Gracious tone, explaining rather than labelling
• Ends with a Christ-centred stone in the shoe and openness to the gospel

Vicious circularity assumes a narrow conclusion in a premise, such as 'The Bible is true because it says so, end of story', and proves nothing. Transcendental reasoning is different: it asks what must be true for logic, science and morality to be possible at all, and argues from the impossibility of the contrary that only the Christian worldview can account for them. Every worldview has an ultimate standard that cannot be proved by appeal to something higher; even the rationalist must use reason to defend reason. So the real question is which ultimate standard makes sense of the reasoning we are both using. The special pleading charge also misstates the argument. The Kalam argument says whatever begins to exist has a cause, and God, who is eternal, did not begin to exist, so he is outside the scope of the premise rather than an arbitrary exception. Classical apologists such as Craig prefer to start from shared premises and evidence, while presuppositionalists such as Bahnsen start from worldview foundations; these are complementary tools, and in one conversation you can ask a 'by what standard?' question and also present evidence for the resurrection. Throughout, I would answer gently, engaging the best form of his objection.

• Distinguishes vicious circularity from transcendental reasoning
• Explains impossibility of the contrary / every worldview has an ultimate standard
• Answers special pleading: 'whatever begins to exist' and God's eternity
• Presents classical and presuppositional methods as complementary without belittling either
• Gentle, engaged tone

My target concession is that some things are objectively wrong regardless of human opinion. A chain might be: 'Was the Holocaust wrong?' 'Would it still have been wrong if the Nazis had won and convinced everyone it was good?' 'So its wrongness does not depend on human opinion?' 'Do you agree that is what we mean by an objective moral fact?' 'On your view, is the universe all that exists?' 'Can you name the source of that objective fact within that view?' In my rebuttal I would say: 'In cross-examination my opponent agreed some things are objectively wrong; she has still given no account of what grounds that,' and point out the dropped argument. On the burden shift, I would note that anyone who claims 'there is no good evidence for God' or 'the universe is all there is' is making a claim and must support it. If she filibusters, I would politely interrupt: 'Thank you, I have limited time; would you say yes or no?' I would keep the questions honest and free of hidden assumptions, answer her questions briefly when it is her turn, and end my closing with the gospel where the format allows.

• Questions are short, closed, honest and build a logical chain
• Clearly states the target concession and its use in rebuttal (including dropped arguments)
• Answers the 'lack of belief' burden shift correctly
• Handles the filibuster politely and firmly
• Maintains gracious debate character and keeps Christ in view

I would stay calm and good-humoured, refusing to mock back (1 Pet 3:9; Prov 15:1), and would not try to answer every objection in his steamroller. Instead I would pick one and ask a Columbo question: 'What do you mean by fairy tales? How did you come to that conclusion?' I would answer the side issue briefly, then use a bridge back to the centre: 'Good question; can I ask you a bigger one?' Since he claims to be a good person, the law-to-the-proud approach fits: I would ask kindly whether he has ever lied, stolen or lusted, and admit that I have too, so that he can see God's standard rather than compare himself with others (Rom 3:20; Matt 5:28). Then I would explain the gospel clearly: Jesus kept the law, died in our place and rose again, and God calls us to repent and trust him. On filming, I would ask for clear consent before being filmed myself, never film him without his consent, and refuse any edit that would mock him. If he only wants to perform for the crowd, I would end graciously (Prov 26:4; Matt 7:6), perhaps leaving a stone in his shoe. Throughout I would remember he is not an enemy to defeat but someone God may grant repentance (2 Tim 2:24-26).

• Refuses the steamroller; uses a Columbo question on one objection
• Uses the law with compassion and humility, then states the gospel clearly (including repentance and faith)
• Handles filming with consent and honest editing
• Knows when to stop (Prov 26:4; Matt 7:6) and leaves a stone in the shoe
• Displays gentleness and respect (1 Pet 3:15-16; 2 Tim 2:24-26)

I would thank her for her honesty and agree that believing in a God is not the same as knowing him. A bridging question might be: 'If God is real and good, how do you think you'd stand with him?' Then I would present the gospel. God is the holy Creator to whom we all give account (Heb 9:27). We have all sinned (Rom 3:23), and being 'decent' by human standards does not meet his standard; even one broken commandment makes us guilty (Jas 2:10). Christ lived the life we have not, died as our substitute bearing God's just penalty, and rose bodily from the dead (2 Cor 5:21; 1 Cor 15:3-4). God freely forgives everyone who repents and believes (Mark 1:15; Rom 4:5). I would speak to her sense of guilt, her longing for meaning and her need for hope beyond death. I would invite her clearly to turn to Christ, without pressure, leaving the results to God, and offer to read the Gospel of John together.

• Natural bridging question from her admission
• All four parts: God, man, Christ, response
• Addresses 'decent person' using the law (e.g. Jas 2:10)
• Secular key: guilt, meaning or hope
• Clear call without pressure; follow-up such as reading John

God's sovereignty does not make evangelism pointless, because God ordains the means as well as the end: people are saved by hearing the word of Christ (Rom 10:14-17). God told Paul to keep speaking in Corinth because 'I have many in this city who are my people' (Acts 18:9-10), and Paul endured everything for the sake of the elect (2 Tim 2:10). So sovereignty fuels evangelism, giving us confidence, patience and prayerfulness, as Packer argued. We must still call everyone to repent and believe (Acts 17:30), because we do not know who the elect are. But the new birth is God's work (John 3:8; 1:13), so we avoid decisionism: we do not treat a prayer or raised hand as proof of salvation, and we do not use pressure. Using the law is not manipulation when it is honest and leads to grace: Calvin called the law a mirror, and the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q95) says it humbles us so that we see our need of Christ. Non-Calvinist evangelicals share this urgency, and we make the same call to the same Christ.

• God ordains means and ends (Rom 10:14-17)
• Acts 18:9-10 and/or 2 Tim 2:10
• Call all to repent and believe; new birth is God's work
• Rejects decisionism and pressure
• Law as mirror leading to grace (Calvin; WLC Q95)