Apologetics and Green Beer
The following is from a paper I wrote for one of my first classes at Westminster Seminary. Fun with apologetics...
In the rural countryside of Sussex, Mr. Sherlock Holmes had retired himself to beekeeping. After some time his faithful friend Dr. Watson had given over his medical practice to a partner, joining his friend in Sussex. No longer occupied with cataloging the exploits of the great detective, Watson had taken up the study of metaphysics. In the end even the aging Mrs. Hudson, their onetime landlord, finally acknowledged that she missed her former tenants (and they too acknowledged the same for her), and sold the famous residence on Baker Street, joining Holmes and Watson in Sussex. By now she was rather old and eccentric, so the housekeeping was left to younger hands, while Mrs. Hudson took up a rather curious hobby: brewing her own beer.
On a fine Spring morning sometime in the midst of the fourth decade of the new century, Mrs. Hudson found Dr. Watson devouring books on metaphysics in the study of their rural estate. She brought with her a large pitcher of beer and two mugs.
Watson: Why, Mrs. Hudson, this must be your latest creation!
Mrs. Hudson: So it is, so it is. I’m hoping you and Mr. Holmes will give me the courtesy of your opinion.
Watson: And so we shall. I’m expecting him in from inspecting his hives any moment.
Mrs. Hudson carefully set her offering on a table between the two men’s favorite reading chairs and hurriedly left the room. Though she was fond of Mr. Holmes, his unpredictable behavior still somewhat frightened her, and she was uncertain of the reaction her latest concoction would evoke.
Holmes: (bursting in) My dear Watson, what a glorious day! My bees are fairly abuzz. This latest spate of warm weather has shaken off the doldrums. What’s this? I see that Mrs. Hudson has been a-brewing. What a curious color, though.
Watson: Yes! I say, it is a fair shocking shade of green at that. But, tell me Holmes, how did you know that Mrs. Watson brewed this beer?
Holmes: Come now, Watson. You know my methods. Of course I deduced it from the evidence!
Watson: But my dear Holmes, how do you know that Mrs. Hudson is the creator of this beer. I contend you only have a probable knowledge, and the only way to truly know she brewed this beer is to pre-suppose Mrs. Hudson.
Holmes: I see your purpose, old friend. You’re trying to draw me into a debate of that new metaphysics you’ve been reading from across the Pond. Who’s the author again?
Watson: Van Til. He’s still young, but he shows great promise. Listen, what better way to spend a splendid Spring day than to sharpen the mind with a good debate? What say you?
Holmes: I say I’ve never been fond of metaphysics. But my bees have enlivened me. Let us have to. The game is afoot!
Watson: Shall we use an analogy? Mrs. Hudson shall be our analogue for God; her abnormally colored beer an analogue for God’s revelation.
Holmes: Again I see your purpose, old man. I shall acquiesce for now, while asserting that God – pardon, Mrs. Hudson -- must communicate to us in real facts. Otherwise we can’t really know anything about Him. And the real facts are these: Mrs. Hudson brews beer; I know from past experience that her efforts often produce odd results; it is highly unlikely any local brewer would produce such an odd concoction. From these simple facts I can readily deduce that Mrs. Hudson made this green potable.
Watson: My dear Holmes, you’ve just bolstered my own argument. Using phrases like “highly unlikely” doesn’t make a very certain case, ultimately. But before we discuss the beer in question I think we need to be clear about Mrs. Hudson.
Holmes: Mrs. Hudson has left behind a littered trail of clues by which and with which we can reason. Let us use that reason. Would you like me to list more clues?
Watson: Thanks all the same. Perhaps later. First let me clarify: we are not the same as Mrs. Hudson – we’ve got to maintain the woman-man distinction. Men and women just think differently! Admittedly however, Mrs. Hudson is rational and knowable in some ways, so we can’t treat her as something utterly different than we men. So our thinking is like hers in some sense. If Mrs. Hudson is God, and we are her creatures, then our knowledge of her is created as well. So, the only way to reason that makes sense is by analogy. We must submit our knowledge of the green beer to hers. She knows that she made it. Only because she knows are we also able to know.
Holmes: Watson, you know my opinions of women! But the simple truth is that no matter how different she is, Mrs. Hudson must communicate intelligible facts to us. We are the ones who must reason using those facts.
Watson: Remember that in our analogy Mrs. Hudson is God. Your approach amounts to sitting in judgement of God. My approach maintains Mrs. Hudson’s sovereignty. Mrs. Hudson made and knows perfectly and completely everything about this beer. Only by presupposing her existence and her knowledge of the beer can we really know anything about the beer and, ultimately, Mrs. Hudson.
Holmes: You’re making a capital mistake. You can’t theorize about something before you have the data. Your approach amounts to circular reasoning. We must start with the facts and our ability to reason from them. Even if you “presuppose” Mrs. Hudson, you are still the one making the decision to believe or not believe in her existence, much less the existence of any green beer she’s brewed.
Watson: I don’t deny that I’m the one who has to make a decision. What I’m saying is that Mrs. Hudson’s knowledge is the ultimate criterion of truth regarding this beer. We can’t use our criteria or – I emphasize again – we set ourselves up as judges of God. That is simply unacceptable.
Holmes: I don’t deny that Mrs. Hudson’s criteria – whatever they are – are ultimate. But remember you’ve said that Mrs. Hudson is different enough from us that we have to think about her by analogy. That’s not adequate, and it is a fatal flaw. Look, she knows everything there is to know about this beer right?
Watson: Perfectly.
Holmes: And we must think like her in some analogical manner, correct?
Watson: Precisely. We must think our thoughts after her, according to her way of thinking.
Holmes: That’s all well and good, but practically it makes no sense. As soon as we think thoughts “after” someone, we move from analogical to univocal thinking. In other words, there must be points of connection in her and our thinking. That connection is reason and logic. So when I use reason and logic I use the God-given tools for reason. Since they are God-given then I am using His criteria for judging anything, including green beer.
Watson: You’re making progress, but there’s still a problem. You still need a standard by which to judge your use of reason and logic. That standard can only be Mrs. Hudson. It’s her beer. Or, analogously, it’s God’s world.
Holmes: But I can’t make Mrs. Hudson the supreme standard if I don’t know her – which you’ve asserted I can’t. Therefore I must use some other standard. Metaphysically, that would be something like the law of non-contradiction. It’s universal. For this beer I fall back on the standby of elementary deduction: eliminate all possibilities but one, and the one that remains, no matter how implausible, must be the truth.
Watson: Since you’ve brought up metaphysics, let me introduce God’s own revelation. Your approach violates the teaching in Romans 1, verses 18 through 21, that everyone knows God already. It also violates the teaching in 1 Corinthians 10, verse 31. There we learn that everything must be done to the glory of God. Using your standby of deduction or even the law of non-contradiction fails to do that.
Holmes: You still haven’t answered my accusation of circular reasoning.
Watson: It’s quite simple, really. Certainly some circular reasoning is faulty. One cannot say that the Bible is God’s Word because it says it is God’s Word. But one can claim that evidence understood according to God’s criteria shows the divine authority of Scripture. Ultimately all forms of reasoning amount to such a broad circle. Take logic. Data interpreted according to the overall rules of logic demonstrate the validity of logical thinking.
Holmes: That’s very clever, but really begs the question --
At that moment Chauncey their gardener entered the room with a bouquet of freshly cut flowers. Though a talented gardener, Chauncey was a bit dim, and moved to place his bouquet in the still full pitcher of green beer.
Watson: Hold, man! Can’t you see what that is? You can’t put flowers in there!
Chauncey: Oh dear, I’m very sorry, sir! Why not?
Holmes: (motioning to Watson that he had a plan) Don’t you know what that is?
Chauncey: No, but it is very pretty.
Watson: Holmes, are you suggesting what I think – that we should witness to this dear fellow?
Holmes: (as Chauncey wandered to a far corner looking for a more suitable vase) Exactly! Why not take this silly analogy a step further. Here we have, in Chauncey, an unbeliever. How do you propose to convince him that Mrs. Hudson brewed this beer?
Watson: Chauncey knows that Mrs. Hudson brewed this beer. He’s just suppressing the truth. He must be confronted with the truth and his own rebellious suppression of it. What’s your proposal?
Holmes: Simply present the evidence, and reason with him toward the truth. Do not the same Scriptures you’ve quoted say, “Come let us reason together?” This is what I propose to do, in all obedience.
Watson: You can’t appeal to his reason. He is using his reason to suppress the truth. That’s what Romans 1 is all about.
Holmes: I respectfully disagree. His reason is intact. In fact, his reason is a remnant of the image of God left after the Fall. The problem is that he isn’t using it properly. My job is to reason with him, properly.
Watson: That denies the doctrine of total depravity – or at best it’s a weak doctrine of total depravity. The Fall has corrupted him through and through. Every aspect of his thought and life is dedicated to resisting God.
Holmes: I’m not denying total depravity at all. You’re simply asserting your own definition. Total depravity affects the heart, the will. The mind is certainly wicked due to the depravity of the heart, but it is still capable of reasoning soundly. I simply need to state the brute facts and use reason to show that this green beer was brewed by Mrs. Hudson.
Watson: Ah, yes – “brute facts.” In what foreign world do these exist? There are no such things as brute facts. Merely stating a fact is an interpretation of that fact. Saying, “this beer is green” is an interpretation of “beer” and “green” at the very least.
Holmes: Watson, you amaze me. And after all those years together gathering clues and observing my methods. Do you think we could ever have seen any criminal convicted if facts were so subjective?
Watson: I’m not saying that there aren’t objective facts. What I am saying is that the only legitimate interpreter of facts is God. The only legitimate interpretation of the facts regarding this pitcher of green beer is the one in Mrs. Hudson’s mind. We’re back at criteria again. You simply can’t start with some set of “neutral” facts and use those to reason toward God. Rather, we must reason from God’s mind to what He has revealed to how that revelation speaks to us, inevitably, about the existence of God. Chauncey is bringing a set of ultimate heart commitments about the world – his presuppositions – to any interpretation of the evidence surrounding Mrs. Hudson’s green beer. These presuppositions must be dealt with.
Holmes: You’re falling into subjectivism. Why in the world should Chauncey exchange his presuppositions for yours? In your own way you’re making man the judge of God. You’re denying the objective truth that exists in a set of facts. Mrs. Hudson’s beer is green not because of any presuppositions about “beer” or “green.” The beer is green because the beer is green.
Watson: Are you denying that Chauncey has presuppositions that affect his thinking?
Holmes: No. But the solution is not to exchange one set of presuppositions for another. Rather, by reason Chauncey must be called upon to abandon his presuppositions and use reason as the starting point in his search for truth about this mysterious green liquid that he sees. Romans 1 tells us that what may be known about God is made plain. Therefore by this evidence and reason we can know God. This isn’t a presupposition, it is a conclusion.
Watson: That what may be known about God is made plain is true simply because God is a self-attesting God. He has graciously made Himself known through His revelation. This doesn’t imply reason from facts. The knowledge is made self-evident by a God who speaks to us about Himself in His revelation.
Holmes: That’s a nice theory but, again, what practical use is it? Chauncey’s mind still has to function, use some sort of reasoning capacity, to see God in His revelation. Of course I acknowledge that God must reveal Himself to us in order for us to know Him. His revelation appeals to our capacity to reason about His revelation.
Watson: That’s why we have the Holy Spirit. He testifies inwardly of the self-attesting God.
Holmes: Where’s the Holy Spirit in your green beer analogy?
Watson: Let’s not go there.
Chauncey: (wandering back and eyeing the green beer suspiciously) I’m thirsty.
Watson: The point is that our dear Chauncey here cannot truly know anything without the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.
Holmes: Are you saying then that only Christians have true knowledge, since only they possess the Holy Spirit?
Watson: Absolutely not. Certainly unbelievers know some things truly, but that is largely a happy inconsistency, or an accident, in their thinking.
Holmes: I think you have a peculiar understanding of the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit imparts to all men an ability to understand some truth, for example the basic truths of Scripture. But only to Christians is given a knowledge that leads to salvation. Once again you’re sounding awfully subjective in your approach, Watson.
Watson: And you still sound as if you are rejecting the clear teaching of Romans 1, that men like Chauncey willingly suppress the truth with every ounce of their being.
Chauncey: I’m really thirsty! Just a drop or two would quench the parch.
Holmes: So, where does this leave us? I don’t think we’ve really resolved our little debate.
Chauncey: Begging your pardon, gentlemen, but would you have anything to drink?
Watson: I think you are suppressing the truth, Holmes!
Holmes: Watson, you see but you do not observe!
Mrs. Hudson: (returning in hopes of a verdict on her latest brew) What’s this? You two have sat here all morning and not had a drop! What’s that Chauncey?
Chauncey: I’m really very thirsty!
Mrs. Hudson: (pouring Chauncey a mug full of green beer) Here, drink this.
Chauncey: What is it?
Mrs. Hudson: Beer. It’s got a funny greenish tint to it, but beer nonetheless. Brewed it myself!
Chauncey: (draining his mug in one swig) Aaaah!!!
Watson & Holmes: (in unison) See, I told you!!!
The Curious Question of the Tainted Beverage
Or
Or
Jesus as a Green Beer
In the rural countryside of Sussex, Mr. Sherlock Holmes had retired himself to beekeeping. After some time his faithful friend Dr. Watson had given over his medical practice to a partner, joining his friend in Sussex. No longer occupied with cataloging the exploits of the great detective, Watson had taken up the study of metaphysics. In the end even the aging Mrs. Hudson, their onetime landlord, finally acknowledged that she missed her former tenants (and they too acknowledged the same for her), and sold the famous residence on Baker Street, joining Holmes and Watson in Sussex. By now she was rather old and eccentric, so the housekeeping was left to younger hands, while Mrs. Hudson took up a rather curious hobby: brewing her own beer.
On a fine Spring morning sometime in the midst of the fourth decade of the new century, Mrs. Hudson found Dr. Watson devouring books on metaphysics in the study of their rural estate. She brought with her a large pitcher of beer and two mugs.
Watson: Why, Mrs. Hudson, this must be your latest creation!
Mrs. Hudson: So it is, so it is. I’m hoping you and Mr. Holmes will give me the courtesy of your opinion.
Watson: And so we shall. I’m expecting him in from inspecting his hives any moment.
Mrs. Hudson carefully set her offering on a table between the two men’s favorite reading chairs and hurriedly left the room. Though she was fond of Mr. Holmes, his unpredictable behavior still somewhat frightened her, and she was uncertain of the reaction her latest concoction would evoke.
Holmes: (bursting in) My dear Watson, what a glorious day! My bees are fairly abuzz. This latest spate of warm weather has shaken off the doldrums. What’s this? I see that Mrs. Hudson has been a-brewing. What a curious color, though.
Watson: Yes! I say, it is a fair shocking shade of green at that. But, tell me Holmes, how did you know that Mrs. Watson brewed this beer?
Holmes: Come now, Watson. You know my methods. Of course I deduced it from the evidence!
Watson: But my dear Holmes, how do you know that Mrs. Hudson is the creator of this beer. I contend you only have a probable knowledge, and the only way to truly know she brewed this beer is to pre-suppose Mrs. Hudson.
Holmes: I see your purpose, old friend. You’re trying to draw me into a debate of that new metaphysics you’ve been reading from across the Pond. Who’s the author again?
Watson: Van Til. He’s still young, but he shows great promise. Listen, what better way to spend a splendid Spring day than to sharpen the mind with a good debate? What say you?
Holmes: I say I’ve never been fond of metaphysics. But my bees have enlivened me. Let us have to. The game is afoot!
Watson: Shall we use an analogy? Mrs. Hudson shall be our analogue for God; her abnormally colored beer an analogue for God’s revelation.
Holmes: Again I see your purpose, old man. I shall acquiesce for now, while asserting that God – pardon, Mrs. Hudson -- must communicate to us in real facts. Otherwise we can’t really know anything about Him. And the real facts are these: Mrs. Hudson brews beer; I know from past experience that her efforts often produce odd results; it is highly unlikely any local brewer would produce such an odd concoction. From these simple facts I can readily deduce that Mrs. Hudson made this green potable.
Watson: My dear Holmes, you’ve just bolstered my own argument. Using phrases like “highly unlikely” doesn’t make a very certain case, ultimately. But before we discuss the beer in question I think we need to be clear about Mrs. Hudson.
Holmes: Mrs. Hudson has left behind a littered trail of clues by which and with which we can reason. Let us use that reason. Would you like me to list more clues?
Watson: Thanks all the same. Perhaps later. First let me clarify: we are not the same as Mrs. Hudson – we’ve got to maintain the woman-man distinction. Men and women just think differently! Admittedly however, Mrs. Hudson is rational and knowable in some ways, so we can’t treat her as something utterly different than we men. So our thinking is like hers in some sense. If Mrs. Hudson is God, and we are her creatures, then our knowledge of her is created as well. So, the only way to reason that makes sense is by analogy. We must submit our knowledge of the green beer to hers. She knows that she made it. Only because she knows are we also able to know.
Holmes: Watson, you know my opinions of women! But the simple truth is that no matter how different she is, Mrs. Hudson must communicate intelligible facts to us. We are the ones who must reason using those facts.
Watson: Remember that in our analogy Mrs. Hudson is God. Your approach amounts to sitting in judgement of God. My approach maintains Mrs. Hudson’s sovereignty. Mrs. Hudson made and knows perfectly and completely everything about this beer. Only by presupposing her existence and her knowledge of the beer can we really know anything about the beer and, ultimately, Mrs. Hudson.
Holmes: You’re making a capital mistake. You can’t theorize about something before you have the data. Your approach amounts to circular reasoning. We must start with the facts and our ability to reason from them. Even if you “presuppose” Mrs. Hudson, you are still the one making the decision to believe or not believe in her existence, much less the existence of any green beer she’s brewed.
Watson: I don’t deny that I’m the one who has to make a decision. What I’m saying is that Mrs. Hudson’s knowledge is the ultimate criterion of truth regarding this beer. We can’t use our criteria or – I emphasize again – we set ourselves up as judges of God. That is simply unacceptable.
Holmes: I don’t deny that Mrs. Hudson’s criteria – whatever they are – are ultimate. But remember you’ve said that Mrs. Hudson is different enough from us that we have to think about her by analogy. That’s not adequate, and it is a fatal flaw. Look, she knows everything there is to know about this beer right?
Watson: Perfectly.
Holmes: And we must think like her in some analogical manner, correct?
Watson: Precisely. We must think our thoughts after her, according to her way of thinking.
Holmes: That’s all well and good, but practically it makes no sense. As soon as we think thoughts “after” someone, we move from analogical to univocal thinking. In other words, there must be points of connection in her and our thinking. That connection is reason and logic. So when I use reason and logic I use the God-given tools for reason. Since they are God-given then I am using His criteria for judging anything, including green beer.
Watson: You’re making progress, but there’s still a problem. You still need a standard by which to judge your use of reason and logic. That standard can only be Mrs. Hudson. It’s her beer. Or, analogously, it’s God’s world.
Holmes: But I can’t make Mrs. Hudson the supreme standard if I don’t know her – which you’ve asserted I can’t. Therefore I must use some other standard. Metaphysically, that would be something like the law of non-contradiction. It’s universal. For this beer I fall back on the standby of elementary deduction: eliminate all possibilities but one, and the one that remains, no matter how implausible, must be the truth.
Watson: Since you’ve brought up metaphysics, let me introduce God’s own revelation. Your approach violates the teaching in Romans 1, verses 18 through 21, that everyone knows God already. It also violates the teaching in 1 Corinthians 10, verse 31. There we learn that everything must be done to the glory of God. Using your standby of deduction or even the law of non-contradiction fails to do that.
Holmes: You still haven’t answered my accusation of circular reasoning.
Watson: It’s quite simple, really. Certainly some circular reasoning is faulty. One cannot say that the Bible is God’s Word because it says it is God’s Word. But one can claim that evidence understood according to God’s criteria shows the divine authority of Scripture. Ultimately all forms of reasoning amount to such a broad circle. Take logic. Data interpreted according to the overall rules of logic demonstrate the validity of logical thinking.
Holmes: That’s very clever, but really begs the question --
At that moment Chauncey their gardener entered the room with a bouquet of freshly cut flowers. Though a talented gardener, Chauncey was a bit dim, and moved to place his bouquet in the still full pitcher of green beer.
Watson: Hold, man! Can’t you see what that is? You can’t put flowers in there!
Chauncey: Oh dear, I’m very sorry, sir! Why not?
Holmes: (motioning to Watson that he had a plan) Don’t you know what that is?
Chauncey: No, but it is very pretty.
Watson: Holmes, are you suggesting what I think – that we should witness to this dear fellow?
Holmes: (as Chauncey wandered to a far corner looking for a more suitable vase) Exactly! Why not take this silly analogy a step further. Here we have, in Chauncey, an unbeliever. How do you propose to convince him that Mrs. Hudson brewed this beer?
Watson: Chauncey knows that Mrs. Hudson brewed this beer. He’s just suppressing the truth. He must be confronted with the truth and his own rebellious suppression of it. What’s your proposal?
Holmes: Simply present the evidence, and reason with him toward the truth. Do not the same Scriptures you’ve quoted say, “Come let us reason together?” This is what I propose to do, in all obedience.
Watson: You can’t appeal to his reason. He is using his reason to suppress the truth. That’s what Romans 1 is all about.
Holmes: I respectfully disagree. His reason is intact. In fact, his reason is a remnant of the image of God left after the Fall. The problem is that he isn’t using it properly. My job is to reason with him, properly.
Watson: That denies the doctrine of total depravity – or at best it’s a weak doctrine of total depravity. The Fall has corrupted him through and through. Every aspect of his thought and life is dedicated to resisting God.
Holmes: I’m not denying total depravity at all. You’re simply asserting your own definition. Total depravity affects the heart, the will. The mind is certainly wicked due to the depravity of the heart, but it is still capable of reasoning soundly. I simply need to state the brute facts and use reason to show that this green beer was brewed by Mrs. Hudson.
Watson: Ah, yes – “brute facts.” In what foreign world do these exist? There are no such things as brute facts. Merely stating a fact is an interpretation of that fact. Saying, “this beer is green” is an interpretation of “beer” and “green” at the very least.
Holmes: Watson, you amaze me. And after all those years together gathering clues and observing my methods. Do you think we could ever have seen any criminal convicted if facts were so subjective?
Watson: I’m not saying that there aren’t objective facts. What I am saying is that the only legitimate interpreter of facts is God. The only legitimate interpretation of the facts regarding this pitcher of green beer is the one in Mrs. Hudson’s mind. We’re back at criteria again. You simply can’t start with some set of “neutral” facts and use those to reason toward God. Rather, we must reason from God’s mind to what He has revealed to how that revelation speaks to us, inevitably, about the existence of God. Chauncey is bringing a set of ultimate heart commitments about the world – his presuppositions – to any interpretation of the evidence surrounding Mrs. Hudson’s green beer. These presuppositions must be dealt with.
Holmes: You’re falling into subjectivism. Why in the world should Chauncey exchange his presuppositions for yours? In your own way you’re making man the judge of God. You’re denying the objective truth that exists in a set of facts. Mrs. Hudson’s beer is green not because of any presuppositions about “beer” or “green.” The beer is green because the beer is green.
Watson: Are you denying that Chauncey has presuppositions that affect his thinking?
Holmes: No. But the solution is not to exchange one set of presuppositions for another. Rather, by reason Chauncey must be called upon to abandon his presuppositions and use reason as the starting point in his search for truth about this mysterious green liquid that he sees. Romans 1 tells us that what may be known about God is made plain. Therefore by this evidence and reason we can know God. This isn’t a presupposition, it is a conclusion.
Watson: That what may be known about God is made plain is true simply because God is a self-attesting God. He has graciously made Himself known through His revelation. This doesn’t imply reason from facts. The knowledge is made self-evident by a God who speaks to us about Himself in His revelation.
Holmes: That’s a nice theory but, again, what practical use is it? Chauncey’s mind still has to function, use some sort of reasoning capacity, to see God in His revelation. Of course I acknowledge that God must reveal Himself to us in order for us to know Him. His revelation appeals to our capacity to reason about His revelation.
Watson: That’s why we have the Holy Spirit. He testifies inwardly of the self-attesting God.
Holmes: Where’s the Holy Spirit in your green beer analogy?
Watson: Let’s not go there.
Chauncey: (wandering back and eyeing the green beer suspiciously) I’m thirsty.
Watson: The point is that our dear Chauncey here cannot truly know anything without the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.
Holmes: Are you saying then that only Christians have true knowledge, since only they possess the Holy Spirit?
Watson: Absolutely not. Certainly unbelievers know some things truly, but that is largely a happy inconsistency, or an accident, in their thinking.
Holmes: I think you have a peculiar understanding of the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit imparts to all men an ability to understand some truth, for example the basic truths of Scripture. But only to Christians is given a knowledge that leads to salvation. Once again you’re sounding awfully subjective in your approach, Watson.
Watson: And you still sound as if you are rejecting the clear teaching of Romans 1, that men like Chauncey willingly suppress the truth with every ounce of their being.
Chauncey: I’m really thirsty! Just a drop or two would quench the parch.
Holmes: So, where does this leave us? I don’t think we’ve really resolved our little debate.
Chauncey: Begging your pardon, gentlemen, but would you have anything to drink?
Watson: I think you are suppressing the truth, Holmes!
Holmes: Watson, you see but you do not observe!
Mrs. Hudson: (returning in hopes of a verdict on her latest brew) What’s this? You two have sat here all morning and not had a drop! What’s that Chauncey?
Chauncey: I’m really very thirsty!
Mrs. Hudson: (pouring Chauncey a mug full of green beer) Here, drink this.
Chauncey: What is it?
Mrs. Hudson: Beer. It’s got a funny greenish tint to it, but beer nonetheless. Brewed it myself!
Chauncey: (draining his mug in one swig) Aaaah!!!
Watson & Holmes: (in unison) See, I told you!!!
