“The Author of Scripture”
The Scriptures assume the very existence of God from Genesis 1 to the book of Revelation. No argument is made whatsoever to prove that He exists only that He is absolutely sovereign and Holy. He is assumed to be an extra mundane personal God. This can easily be seen from the encounter between God, Adam, Eve and Satan in the Garden of Eden. It is seen that God is personal and does talk to mankind. It is also seen that He holds the only authority and His decisions are final. Hence, the very simple statement, “In the beginning God…” (Genesis 1:1)[1]
Theology divides the study of God into two distinct and separate sections or areas. They are natural revelation and special revelation. Each of these has its own distinct set of arguments, which are set forth to prove a specific point. Both seek to prove that God exists, but only one is authoritative. While natural revelation certainly proves the possibility of the existence of God it has no authority. Special revelation seeks to prove certain things about God’s attributes and character based on the scriptures as the only authority.
Part I Natural Revelation
Natural revelation seeks to prove that God exists based on certain philosophical arguments. This is the point at which both the philosopher and the theologian enter the argument by really asking the same question, but have different answers with different terms. This is the area that is known as epistemology or the how to of knowing. How do we know that what we believe is true? The philosopher has one answer to this, but religion has a completely different answer and in different terms. The question is of being and existence both of man and morals. Here is the dilemma we have man on one side and we have how he knows he exists or even knows that anything exists on the other. The problem here for the Christian theologian is learning to relate in a real world by understanding the nature of epistemology and how it relates to our beliefs and the world around us. Thus when we view arguments in support of natural revelation we find our selves in a dilemma, that these arguments are not conclusive and are also not rational, but then we insist on a bible oriented theology, which the world of philosophy rejects as also being inconclusive.[2]
The modern philosopher that subscribes to behaviorism and determinism have consistently insisted that man is not personal. They insist that man is not very different from animals. They also subscribe to a human history of 40,000 years based on modern dating methods. This is history that has been of man making observations of about him self.[3] Man can not remain impersonal and then make personal observations about him self. History is full of men making observations about himself, his neighbors and then writing them down.
These arguments are in most cases purely speculative, but this is not to say there is no gain in being awe struck by seeing God’s involvement in nature. However, when the subject is further studied, it becomes clear that there are two distinct sets of arguments that are included under the general subject of natural revelation, first of these are arguments that are external to man and second are arguments that are internal to man. An external argument for example would be the starry heavens. An internal argument would be the religious nature of man.[4] “Those who deny that natural theology teaches anything reliable concerning God commonly understand by nature the external material universe.”[5]
Philosophical arguments are subject to being very vague and no exception to this can be found in these two sets of arguments. There exists no infallible authority among these arguments that will judge as to the validity of the arguments. When the premise of the argument has been stated there is no conclusive answer from the premise that proves the existence of God. Philosophical arguments for the existence of God are at the very best observed by Hodge as being: “…Its arguments are inconclusive. This is a point which no man can decide for other men.”[6]
Finally arguments for the existence of God based on natural revelation are of such a subjective nature, that they really prove nothing. Instead of coming from an external revelation, it comes from an internal man made observation. One of the Biblical arguments that relates to natural revelation comes from the book of Romans. God does hold man accountable for what he has revealed about Himself in nature, however nature is not sufficient to bring a saving knowledge of Christ to man. Animals generally do not bash the heads of their children against walls. Animals do not make bombs or guns to kill each other. Animals do not have long drawn out wars. Certainly nature teaches us much about God, but is it enough?
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own bodies betwe0en themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Romans 1:18-25
This is why we need a final and sole authority, because that nature shows nothing of a conclusive decision. Those maters that are rooted in subjective truth are changeable and thusly are of no real value. Those beliefs and practices that are based on a supernatural and special revelation are not subject to change. Objective special revelation and the propositional truths that the scriptures set forth are not subject to change for “the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” I Peter 1:23
Is it possible to have a trustworthy set of beliefs? “Is it possible to have intellectual integrity while holding to the position of verbalized, propositional revelation? I would say the answer is this: It is not possible if you hold the presupposition of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.”[7] Being of a subjective nature these philosophical arguments for the existence of God lead men away from an objective revelation and place it in a humanistic rationalistic philosophy. Those who believe in the uniformitarian principle find it impossible to believe in a propositional, verbalized revelation. It is obvious; therefore, that what will convince one man will not convince the next man.[8]
So then we must turn and look not at all of these arguments, but at the chief ones. It is necessary to carefully define what they are and then make our conclusions. From the very start it is important to note that these arguments are insufficient to bring man to the knowledge of the truth, but as far as showing that such a being as God exists and of His power they do have merit.[9]
There are four primary arguments all others are either insignificant or derive themselves from one or more aspects of these four. Then these four are divided into distinct sets of arguments. Those that we term à priori, which is an argument which is based on a pre-conceived assumption, that if the idea of God exists in the mind, then he must actually exist.[10] The second set of arguments conforms to being à posteriori that is it “proceeds from effect to cause.”[11] The four arguments to be considered are ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral.[12]
Ontological—this argument is inherent in the word itself, which has the notion of reality. If God exists in the mind then he must exist in reality. The argument goes like this, “That which exists in re is greater than that which exists only in the mind[13] Anselm was a more modern version of Augustine and held some of the same ideas that Augustine did in City of God. According to Hodge, Anselm stated the Ontological argument like this: “We have an idea of an infinitely perfect Being; but actual existence is included, in the infinite perfection. Because, if actual existence be a perfection, and if God is not actually existent, then we can conceive of a Being greater than God.”[14]
The main problem with this argument is that it is proceeds from an à priori argument and argues that since such a notion of God exists in the mind of man there must therefore be a first cause. What is said here about the Ontological argument being à priori can be said of all the arguments in this area that are not à posteriori “It is designed to show that the real objective existence of God is involved in the very idea of such a being.”[15] It is further argued that, “If the idea of God as it exists in every man’s mind includes that of actual existence, then so far as the idea goes, he who has the one has the other”.[16]
Dr. Samuel Clark argued that “Space and duration, however, are not substances; therefore, there must be an eternal and necessary substances; (i.e., God), of which they are the accidents.” This is not properly an à priori argument, because it does not proceed from a effect to cause relationship.[17] Another argues that since man is finite then there must be an infinite. “you can not have the one without the other”.[18] It should be concluded that theism gains very little from these meta physical arguments (if any at all).[19] They might have some authority, but not to all men and certainly not of a final authority. We can go no higher then God’s word for authority.
Cosmological—“The branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements and laws and especially with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality and freedom.”[20]
This is an à priori argument that proceeds from that idea that since the universe exists then a creator must exist. Since the universe is one of order and rationality it pre-supposes that it can only come from a rational first cause. Emmanuel Kant objects to this argument on the grounds that “…the concept of causality cannot proceed beyond the domain of sensuous existence, and therefore, the first cause given by the cosmological argument would not be intelligent.”[21] To this Hume responds that cause and effect are relative terms one implies the other. However, it is simply stated “The existence of a rational universe implies that of a rational first cause.”[22]
“The universe is a phenomena or an effect which connotes an adequate cause. The cosmological argument adduces evidence that God exists and is the first cause of all things”.[23] This argument as well stated with the assumption that since what we now see has not always existed from all eternity. If the starry heavens are produced ex nilho, by nothing then it is absurd because something produced must have a cause.[24]
This argument is distinguished from the teleological argument and others by the fact that it proceeds from causation. The other arguments are also just as equally cosmological.[25]
Teleological—This argument takes the form of a syllogism and stated in its simplest form is thus :
A. Whatever gives proof of design must have a designer.
B. The universe gives proof of design.
C. Therefore, it must have had a designer.[26]
This is an argument à posteriori and proceeds from facts to causes.
There is as a particular aspect of the universe the evidence of design. It shows itself as having been adapted to its own ends as well as having design.[27] This argument proceeds then to establish by reason, evidence that proves an intelligent and purposeful designer (God) was manifested in creation of all things.[28] Stated simply nothing happens by way of chance, but shows purpose and design.
“If a man can believe that a book was written by chance or by blind, unconscious force, then and not otherwise can he rationally deny the validity of the argument from design in proof of the existence of a personal God”.[29]
Anthropological—This argument entails parts of two other arguments. What is known as the moral argument and the ethnic argument. It proceeds from an à posteriori position and is perhaps one of the more valid arguments, but it falls short of the necessary level of authority. Basically it is stated thus: “…The anthropological argument is restricted to the field of evidence as to the existence of God and His qualities which may be drawn from the constitution of man”.[30]
Man is a moral creature, he therefore must have had something in his past to instill this aspect. Man is a religious creature, how did this religious nature occur? Why it is that even fallen man has a conscience all though it has been desensitized. Man is a material as well as an immaterial creature. These two things speak to a cause for their existence.
“…The material part of man is similar to that of higher forms of animals it is so refined as to be superior to all features of material creation. The immaterial part of man, which embodies the elements of life, intellect, sensibility, will, conscience and an inherent belief in God, presents even a more insistent demand for an adequate cause”.[31]
There is the ever present possibility of dependence on highly philosophical and humanistic argument to prove what we believe about God. Hodge best states this when he says: “…respecting natural theology is that it precludes the necessity for a super natural revelation”.[32]
Only God can decide what is necessary to salvation, it is at this point that natural theology falls short. “The question as to the sufficiency of natural theology or the truth of reason is to be answered on the authority of scripture. No man can tell à priori what is necessary to salvation, stated simply salvation is of God.[33]
Even of more significant, historical theology is full of evidence to prove that all branches of the Christian faith have denied that natural theology is sufficient to lead fallen man to salvation, this can be said even more so of the most historical branch of all Baptists. It is at this point that natural theology fails. “How can a man be just with God? Or How can God be just and yet justify the ungodly?”[34]
Part II Special Revelation
The philosophical arguments have shown us no certain and infallible arguments concerning God. They have not shown any evidences concerning His character or attributes. They have only shown that He exists, but have not given in themselves any hint as to who He is. There is no mention of God’s purpose in election seen in nature, neither is there any mention of the atoning work of Christ revealed in Nature. We must turn our attention elsewhere to find answers to these questions.
Now we turn our attention to arguments concerning the person of God. There are two arguments to the person and existence of God and they are on exactly opposite ends of the scale. Atheism represents that there is no God and thus no special revelation. Theism represents that there is a God and He can be personally known, because He is revealed in scripture.
The atheist states that the theist believes in an infinite being, but infinity is impossible since it is only made up of the finite infinitely repeated of contingent parts. However, this is impossible because the parts that make it up are not eternal and are not self existent.[35] This leaves the atheist without any foundation when it comes to the world around them. The net result of this is existentialism.
The atheist refuses to accept testimony in preference to hypothesis especially in the light of the following: “…The atheist may object, that men, as creatures themselves have no right of their own knowledge, to utter such traditional testimony; for they could not be present before the organisms existed to witness how they were brought into existence. The only pretext for such a tradition would be that some prior super human being, who did witness man’s production revealed to him How he was produced. Whether any such prior being ever existed is the very thing in debate and so may not be taken for granted. The existence of the testimony must be granted, for it is a fact that it exists and it must be accounted for”.[36]
Since we have the scriptures then the argument of special revelation must be accounted for. The atheist cannot be allowed to glibly dismiss them as not being of any value. Once the scriptures are dismissed then all want of reason is gone. Atheism then is actually the position that excludes God altogether.[37]
The agnostic is of a different sort altogether. There are very few true atheists, but most that call themselves atheists are really agnostics for the following reason: “Agnosticism is a denial that God can be known. Etymologically agnostic and ignoramus mean the same thing. The former is the Greek and the later is from the Latin derivative for the Greek word.”[38]
The agnostic believes that God exists, but cannot be known. This is similar to the Gnostic who says that there is a mystery to the knowledge of God that cannot be known by flesh and blood.
Actually belief in God was originally very simple monotheism, but in time this primitive monotheism was corrupted by pantheism. The creature was worshiped more then the creator [39]. Man began to worship nature and forget God; the next step was polytheism, the worship of many gods. “Here, the unity or the one substance of pantheism is subdivided and the subdivisions are personified;”[40]
Paul tells us that pantheism and poly theism are a step down not a step up. [41] In other words they are moving away from primitive mono theism toward rampant unbelief the ultimate end is of course atheism. Each of these theories was developed on a historical model, it bought with it a necessity to define beliefs in more details such as in the following: “…But when poly theism ceased to be the great foe of Christianity and deism took its place it became necessary to lay special stress upon the distinction between the unwritten and the written revelation.”[42]
Another of these theories of god is dualism, stated briefly it is “This theory assumes that there are two distinct and irreducible substances or principles. In epistemology these are idea and object; in meta physics, mind and mater; in ethics, good and evil; in religion, good (God and evil (Satan)”[43] This has its modern manifestation thru the idea that god and evil are just halves of the same thing. There is a symbol that is used in regards to this with a circle and an “S” down the middle. One half is black and one half is white. There is a white dot on the black side and a black dot on the white side. The basic idea is that good and evil is really brothers. It is suggested by dualists that god and Satan are just battling it out, but they are really not opposites. The Bible teaches on the other hand that God is an extra mundane supernatural being and Satan is just a created being. God Himself created Satan and then Satan rebelled. Satan is kept on a long leash by God.
There are many Pantheistic theories as to how to view the world and give it meaning. Many philosophers believe that there is one common beginning. They view this cause as being inside of the world. [44] This is a philosophical by-pass for the scriptures. Monism only use the scriptures as it fits with there view of a basic substance or principle. Under the broad topic of “monistic world views” there are many pantheistic approaches.[45] All of these are rejected are rejected based they all result in a denial of human free agency, they destroy any basis for morality, they make any kind of “rational religion impossible”, denial of any human immortality, deification of man and no real physical “reality”[46]
Monotheism on the other hand “teaches that there is but one God”. Christianity and Judaism both believe that there is but one God that He operates outside of the human world. Monotheism is opposed to these other world views, in that it does hold that God is knowable and that he does indeed exist. Monotheism does not believe that “existence has some common cause” that is outside of our existence.[47]
[1] Genesis 1:1
[2] Schaeffer, 3
[3] Schaeffer, 2
[4] Hodge, 22
[5] Hodge, 22
[6] Hodge, 23
[7] Francis Schaefer, 62
[8] Hodge, 23
[9] Hodge, 23
[10] Hodge, 205
[11]Hodge
[12] Hodge, 204
[13] Hodge, 204
[14] Hodge, 204
[15] Hodge, 204
[16] Hodge, 205
[17] Hodge, 206
[18] Hodge
[19] Hodge
[20] Random House Dictionary
[21] Shedd
[22] Shedd
[23] Chafer
[24] Boyce
[25] Boyce
[26] Boyce
[27] Shedd
[28] Chafer
[29] Hodge
[30] Boyce
[31] Boyce
[32] Hodge
[33] Dabney
[34] Dabney
[35] Dabney
[36] Dabney
[37] Bancroft
[38] Bancroft
[39] Romans 1:25
[40] Shedd
[41] Shedd
[42] Shedd
[43] Thiessen, 73
[44] Random House Dictionary
[45] Thiessen, 70
[46] Thiessen, 71
[47] Thiessen, 69
