Proving the authority of God

Is it true that Scripture posits God as the absolute and ultimate authority?  And would it not follow that, if such is the case, God is the authority over all forms of human reasoning?  The answer to both is obviously, yes.  However, the unbeliever agrees with none of this.  Instead, he asserts that God's very existence needs to be proven, let alone His authority.

Let's say the unbeliever decides to go on an "unbiased" investigation of the existence of God.  In this investigation, he looks at the arguments from both sides and decides that God is real and His revelation is true.  However, something interesting happened along the way.  He went from viewing God as non-existent and non-authoritative to existent and authoritative.  But how can this be?  At some point, this unbeliever had to decide that God was the absolute authority over his reasoning process.  That is, he had to agree that all knowledge is dependent upon God and His revelation (Proverbs 1:7); including the knowledge of unbelievers.  And from this point forward, this former unbeliever will (if he wants to be consistent with Scripture) now present his message to unbelievers as follows: "Since God is the ultimate authority over all things, including man's reasoning, you must repent of your unbelief and give God the glory for your ability to reason; because without God, you couldn't reason at all."

When unbelievers ask for evidence for God, what "god" are they asking about?  The biblical God?  If so, then they are asking about a God who is the ultimate authority.  That is, no evidence or human reasoning is higher than this God. According to the God of the Bible, He is the foundation of all knowledge and reasoning (Colossians 2:3).  If the unbeliever admits that this is the God he is asking about, then he has to consider two options:

1. Believe in this God

2. Assert that such a God is impossible

Most unbelievers would be very hesitant to take option 2 because the burden of proof would be on them to substantiate their view.  To assert that such a God can't exist would be to claim omniscience.  Similarly, most unbelievers will not agree with option 1 either.  The likely response from the unbeliever will be, "Why can't there be a third option; one that asserts that such a God must be proven by evidence and reason?"

If the unbeliever desires to go this route, he needs to understand a condition; he must believe that God's revelation is false from the outset.  Why?  Because this God is the ultimate authority and says things like, "he who is not with Me is against Me." (Matthew 12:30) Thus, if the unbeliever isn't in a position to accept that he is with Christ, then he is against Him even before his investigation.  Bahnsen says it best:

Thus, the very thing that most unbelievers demand--a neutral and autonomous investigation of the facts to see whether God's word can be recognized as true and authoritative--already precludes the kind of God of which Scripture speaks.  Apologists need to come to grips with this, lest their method of defending the faith betrays the object of their faith (Van Til's Apologetic, p. 97 fn. 23)

Unbelievers must submit their reasoning to the God of Scripture.  Otherwise, they are left in an epistemological bind whereby all knowledge ceases to be knowledge.  Yet, the unbeliever will continue to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18) and deny the God that he knows exists.  

 

A Presuppositional approach to theistic evidences

Many critics of presuppositional apologetics allege that presuppositionalists do not use evidences.  And though it is true that they don't use evidences in the same way as an evidentialist apologist might, it is not true that they are avoided altogether.  Evidences certainly have their place but can only be appropriated within a biblical framework.  I'd like to see more presuppositionalists use evidences, but at the same time, not compromise their commitment to the Lordship of Christ in the process.  That is, one's theology should drive how they view evidence as opposed to the other way around.

Below, Chris Bolt of CHOOSING HATS provides an excellent SUMMARY of some of the theistic arguments as they could be used in a biblical framework:


              By C.L. Bolt

There are many arguments that Christian tenets are true. For example, we believe that everything that begins to exist has a reason for its coming into being. Intuitively we believe that something cannot come from nothing, and so everything that comes about must have a cause for its coming into being. If there were no conditions to be met through a cause before something could start existing, then it seems that things would pop into being right away and saturate the entire universe with entities of all shapes and sizes. We are impressed by performing arts magicians because they seem to make things come into existence all by themselves and seemingly without cause or at least without their usual causes. We would not be so mystified if it was part of our normal everyday experience to see things popping into being uncaused. The Bible even gives us an indication that things begin to exist because they are caused, as this is God’s world and is an orderly place that He wants us to know in order to come to know Him better.

The Bible also teaches that the universe began to exist. It seems strange to think of a universe that has existed an infinitely long time, since we might wonder how, if there were an infinite number of points in time prior to this point in time, we ever reached this point of time. How long would it take you to count to infinity? Could you do so before tomorrow? Of course not. How long would it take the universe to count to infinity? Could it do so before to tomorrow? So one wonders how we reached this point in time if an infinite number of such points in time came before now. Scientists also tell us that the universe is expanding. Eventually the gravity between entities will weaken so much that orbits will deteriorate and entities will begin moving at higher speeds. Eventually the universe will expand outward so quickly that it reaches a heat death. At least, this is what scientists, theorizing, tell us may happen. But, if there was an infinite amount of time before now in which this heat death could have happened, then it would have already. Yet it has not happened, and so the universe must have had a beginning. Of course, much of this is speculation, and probably not very good argument, but we know that insofar as these things are true and are based upon good argumentation, they support what the Bible teaches, for the Bible teaches that the universe began to exist.

Now if everything which begins to come into being has a cause for its coming into being, and the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause! We know from the Bible that this cause is God. God is the Creator. God created the universe, and He did so at a finite point in the past. The universe has not always existed; it was created by all-powerful God out of nothing. In the case of this particular argument then, we not only have the Bible to tell us the truth about the universe being caused by God, but we have an argument that confirms our belief.

The same is true about design. When we look out around us in the world we see amazing examples of design in our world. The universe is so finely tuned that it permits life, like us, to not only exist, but flourish! The human body is fearfully and wonderfully made, as medical doctors are finding more and more to be the case all the time. There are numerous other instances of incredible design in the natural world; instances of design that indicate someone designed them. There are parts that tiny living things use to propel themselves that look like what humans have built to propel boats. There are parts in creatures like eyes which are completely useless if they are not formed in one fell swoop much like a mousetrap is useless if all of its parts are not together at the same time. However, when there is design that means that there must be a designer, and again we know from the Bible that God not only created the world but designed what He created. So we know that the designer of the world is God, and we can know Him through the evidence of the argument from design in nature.

Even thinking of God leads us to believe that God exists. If God is the most perfect being as it appears that the Bible indicates, then there is nothing greater than God! But if we think of a god in this way who also exists when our God does not, then our God is no longer the greatest possible being or most perfect being, the other being is. Think through it again; it is greater for something to exist than not to exist. For example, a unicorn in our minds can be very nice, but the unicorn that only exists in our minds is not more real than the unicorn which actually exists. The unicorn which actually exists is greater than or more perfect than the unicorn that does not exist.

If we think of God as the most perfect being, He is only the most perfect being if He exists. If another perfect being is thought of but thought of as not existing, then there is a more perfect being, namely, the one that might exist. So then the perfect being, by definition, must exist. The unicorn does not exist because it is not a most perfect being. A unicorn can be the most perfect unicorn ever in our thoughts, but that is very different from thinking about a completely perfect being. So God exists.

Finally, we know that Jesus lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. We have historical testimonies outside of the Bible that tell us this. The Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman official Tacitus both tell us this, for example. We infer from the accounts of crucifixion in those days that Jesus was really and truly put to death. We know that He was then buried. He was buried in the tomb of a prominent figure whom people would have known about. Yet, the body of Jesus was found missing from the tomb. The Jewish authorities who were opposed to Jesus wanted people to go around and say that the body of Jesus had been stolen. But the only reason for them to make this story up is if they needed to try and explain why there was no body there! We know that there was no body in the tomb of Jesus, because the Jews were making up stories to cover up the fact that the body of Jesus was not there in the tomb. The body and tomb would have been right there in Jerusalem for anyone to go check out to see whether or not the body was really still there or was really gone, but no one ever turned up information that the body was still in the tomb. There is also a testimony concerning three women who were some of the first to find the empty tomb. Women in that society were much less trusted as witnesses by society. The authors of the Gospels would not have included this testimony of the empty tomb of Jesus had they of not actually told of their experience. Not only were there reports and evidence of a death and empty tomb, but there were appearances of the Lord Jesus to the disciples and many others as well. The Bible tells us plainly what happened; Jesus was crucified for our sins, buried, and raised again on the third day in accordance with the Word of God.

There are many more arguments like these for the truth of the Christian worldview, but we should not expect others to accept them, especially since they do not share our presuppositions which make these proofs so appealing and seemingly obviously sound.

Great interview on Presuppositional Apologetics

Recently, Sye TenBruggencate (Who recently DEBATED on the UNBELIEVABLE radio show) appeared for an interview on the THEOPOLOGETICS podcast. There, he was interviewed on the presuppositional approach. I found this interview to be very useful on many levels. I am not completely sold-out on this view yet, but it is very quickly growing on me. In fact, it is growing on me so fast that I am really hitting the books on this topic and really want to start promoting it. Not only do I believe this apologetic brings God glory in sanctifying Christ (1 Pt. 3:15), but it is extremely powerful.

If you are a Christian, you really need to learn this apologetic. Believe it or not, i'm finding it to be very sanctifying in my Christian walk as well. I'll share more about this as time goes on. But for now, i'm still studying and searching this out. In the meantime, do yourself a favor and LISTEN to this interview and consider SUBSCRIBING to the Theopologetics podcast as well!

Apologetics as defined in the Bible

I finally got around to listening to this and found it to be very helpful. Regardless of what you name your apologetic methodology (i.e. evidentialism or presuppositionalism), be sure that you are honoring what God has spoken in his word. I don't agree with everything Dr. White has said here, but his overall application was very convicting to me.

D.A. Carson on the existence of God

How do I know God exists? from A Passion for Life on Vimeo.


I don't think I can find anything disagreeable about Dr. Carson's excellent presentation here.  Certainly, he is coming at this from a presuppositionalist angle.  But while I can find agreement with Carson in his approach, I certainly wonder how evidence can play into this.  If it is the case that we cannot place ourselves in a state of judgment as to whether or not God exists, or whether not the resurrection is an historical event, then where does the process of evaluation come into play with the unbeliever?  Certainly, Paul presented the resurrection to those at Mars hill in presupposing the existence of the Christian God, and even presenting this resurrection as a fact.  However, when we find the unbeliever in disagreement with these presuppositions, where do we draw the line in where we move from evaluating the evidence to "being in judgment of the creator, reducing him to mere arguments and syllogisms?"

Again, i'm not disagreeing with Carson per se, but am trying to find what the most consistent and God-honoring apologetic is when we are presenting our beliefs to unbelievers as well as reasoning with things ourselves.

How Confident can we be?

I admire and respect men like Greg Koukl and would recommend his Radio show/Podcast to anyone who is interested in hearing a defense of the Christian faith in light of opposition. However, I cannot say that I am in full agreement with Mr. Koukl in the area of "absolute assurance" as far as our Christian beliefs are concerned. Of course, I agree that there are plenty of things in which we cannot have absolute assurance of. But wouldn't Mr. Koukl agree that there are plenty of things that we can have absolute assurance of? I'm sure he would. For instance, isn't the Law of non-contradiction something that we can have absolute certainty of? Of course, for without it and other laws of logic (such as the law of excluded middle, etc.) we can have no degree of intelligibility for which we can view the world and our experiences.

But when it comes to the Christian faith and those tenants by which we stake our eternal salvation (such as Christ's death, burial, and resurrection), we can't have the same "absolute assurance." But why not? Of course, Mr. Koukl along with many other Christians would not view the Bible as an Axiom. Instead, it is based on believing something in light of adequate or sufficient reasons. Though i'm not suggesting that Mr. Koukl and others like him shouldn't believe in Christianity merely based on adequate reasons, I believe that Christianity is far more than reasonable, as someone like William Lane Craig would characterize it.

Consider the words of the apostle Paul:

“Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument…See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:3, 8)

If Christ is really where "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" are "hidden" or found, then on what basis can we place our epistemology in something else, namely, human reasoning? This is not meant to be a discussion of whether Christianity is true or false necessarily, but what your epistemological foundations should be if you are a Christian. For the Christian (and for everyone else, I would also argue, though not for the strict purpose of this blog), if your epistemology is not grounded in Christ, then you have a flawed axiom. That is, there is no biblical basis for which one begins with human reasoning and finds "adequate" reasons for believing that Christianity is true. Instead, the Bible should be your axiom, the very basis for which we can have absolute logical laws at all! For without it, you are subject to what Paul says of the pagan Gentiles, who do not worship the God of the Bible:

“So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.” (Ephesians 4:17-18)

Is William Craig a presuppositionalist?

Most definitely not. But he does give several examples of things that are assumed by just about everyone. This is probably about as close to a presuppositional argument that one will ever hear from Craig. Though I believe there is power in the evidentialist approach, I only wish that Craig would add the TAG argument to his collection.



(ht: Triablogue)