Either God is antecedent to possibility or possibility is
antecedent to God. In the former case, God cannot not exist, while in the
latter, it is possible that God does not exist. My experience in the area of
apologetics is admittedly limited. However, I have had formal training in both
classical and presuppositional apologetics. Norman Geisler was my teacher in
the classical method while my work in presuppositional apologetics began with
interactions with reformed friends and then I took it up as part of my Th.D.
work at Tyndale Theological Seminary under Paul Henebury. On the basis of the
experience I do have, it is my guess that many if not most apologists engaged
in apologetics would not think my opening disjunctive to be anything profound.
After all, classical apologetics, with its approach, is very satisfied and even
confident that it can show, through rational argumentation and historical evidence
that God probably exists. In other words, it is probably the case that the
statement “God exists” is probably true. I believe this way of thinking
contradicts sound doctrine and compromises the integrity of the gospel message.
My objective for writing this post is to urge you to turn
your interest to a very specific question about the approach of Christian
apologetics known as the classical method. And that question is simply this:
Does the Bible reveal to us God as the kind of God that could not exist? Is the
God as described in the Bible the sort of being that as such a being, it is
possible for Him not to exist? I intend to demonstrate that the revelation of
the characteristics and attributes of God expressed in Holy Scripture are
entirely and wholly contradictory to any apologetic method that concludes
anything other than the necessary existence of the self-contained triune God of
Christian theism. In other words, any system of thought that concludes only
that God probably exists, regardless of the degree of that probability, not
only fails as an apologetic method, but also betrays the clear teachings of
Scripture regarding the nature and attributes of the God who is there. In
short, the classical method does not do justice to Christian theism as revealed
in divine revelation.
The view that, on the one hand affirms that the revelation
of God to man is so objectively clear that it is not rational for men to reject
Christian theism, and on the other hand embraces the position that the
evidences for the Christian faith are such that Christian theism is only
probably true is a glaring contradiction. If it is possible for Christian
theism to be false, then it is not irrational to conclude that it is false. The
concept of probability in such arguments is the difficulty one encounters when
they try to quantify the degree of probability. What does the formula look like
when we place the evidence for Christian theism into the algorithm? How can we
tell that the calculation gives us at least 50.1%? I have even heard some
classical men throw out 90% or 95%. But surely such numbers are arbitrary and
without ground. In addition, it is unquestionably incongruent with the
revelation of God in Scripture to claim that God’s perfect self-disclosure, His
revealed truth, lacks sufficiency of evidence. Regardless of how one slices it,
probability, regardless of its degree, falls short of certainty.
Presuppositionalism holds that the non-Christian worldview
is at its foundation, irrational. Man is not only cursed spiritually and
ethically, but he is also cursed epistemologically. Not only is the natural man
ethically and spiritually depraved, his reasoning is depraved. Presuppositional
apologetics, consistently derived from a reformed understanding of Scripture
leads to the transcendental necessity and epistemic certainty of Christian
theism. [Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 600]
Is the existence of God only possible?
The biblical version of Christian theism affirms the
transcendental necessity and epistemic certainty of the self-contained triune
God. God cannot but exist. Any view to the contrary is unequivocally
incongruent with biblical theology and therefore sound Christian philosophy. What
I have just given you is a statement about the one true God revealed in
Scripture. What does an argument for this sort of claim look like? What is
available to me as a Christian from the beginning, for me to make this claim,
and second, to prove, or defend it. Many, if not most Christian apologists rely on human philosophy to grapple with this question. Moreover, many academic men spread their reliance on philosophy through the academy like
a disease. Notice that I said they rely on human philosophy. The
starting point for this premise cannot be anything other than Holy Scripture. A
Christian epistemology has its epistemic authority anchored in Scripture. Any
epistemology that drops its anchor elsewhere is simply not Christian. I am not
contending against philosophy as a matter of fact. I am arguing that philosophy
is not the primary tool or reference point for Christian truth. That seat can
only be occupied by Scripture alone! All philosophizing must be subservient to
Scripture, and it must recognize the superiority of the fields of biblical
languages, exegesis, and theology. Philosophy must be the product of sound biblical theology.
When we talk about Christian apologetics and concept of God,
we are not speaking in general terms. Classical apologists such as William Lane
Craig and Norman Geisler believe that Christians must establish that existence
of theism in general before they can begin to provide historical evidence and
rational arguments for Christianity. I will avoid the philosophical
complexities of this approach and point out that Christian theism does not rest
upon the idea of theism in general. We are not seeking to prove Aristotle’s
finite unmoved mover. Christian apologetics is not interested in proving that
some god exists. Moreover, Christian theism does not hope to establish that
Christianity is very probably true. Christian apologetics, if it is consistently
Christian, seeks to proclaim and defend that One Triune God of Scripture. Christian
apologetics seeks to show that everything has its source in the God of
Christian theism.
When Moses was ordered by God to go to the Children of
Israel, he wanted to know if they asked him who sent him to them, how he should
answer them. This was God’s answer: God said to Moses, “aI AM WHO I
AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me
to you.’ ” (Ex. 3:14) “Here God gives Moses his mysterious name in three
forms: long (I AM WHO I AM), medium (I AM), and short (Heb. Yahweh,
translated “Lord”). These are all related to the name Yahweh, which in
turn has come relation to the very to be (ehyeh).” [Frame, Systematic
Theology, 15] Essential the name has the sense of the “to be/to cause.” The
idea is that God is the One Who Is and the One Who Causes.
“First, ancient Egyptians believed in a close
relationship between the name of a deity and the deity itself. That is, the
name of a god could reveal part of the essential nature of that god. In
Egyptian texts that refer to different but important names for the same deity,
the names are often associated with particular actions or characteristics, and
the words used tend to sound similar to the names with which they are
associated.”[1]
Scripture nowhere entertains the philosophical concept of probability
as it relates to the existence of God. God is seen as The One Who Is and Who
Causes. In turn, one has to ask, how the concept of probability could even
exist and be understood apart from “The One Who Is and Who Causes.” Probability
requires the laws of mathematics to exist. And the laws of mathematics require
uniformity, and a relationship between the particulars and the general to
exist. Such a relationship can only be possible if Christian theism is true.
Not only is mathematics possible, it is certain. My son will tell you that he
is not probably studying slopes today. He most certainly is studying slopes
today. This is the transcendental argument for God. If probability then God. No
God, therefore no probability. Another way to state it is: If logic, then God.
There is no God. Therefore, no logic. The result is that you cannot argue
against God without presupposing God’s existence. In order for the concept of probability to
exist, God must exist. In other words, God is the necessary precondition of
probability. And if God is antecedent to probability, then probability cannot
be applied to God without being reduced to absurdity. It follows exegetically,
theologically, logically, and even philosophically, that God cannot not exist.
Is it irrational to refuse to acknowledge God?
The apostle Paul tells us in Romans 1:20 that the
non-Christian worldview is without any rational defense. He writes, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους, or, “so that they
are without a defense.” This word means the state of being without excuse in a
legal sense. [NIDNTT, Vol. II, 139] The requirement for a man to stand in the
court and be without any defense whatsoever is that the evidence before the
court must be entirely irrefutable and impeccable and this state involves the
wholesale culpability of the man that has been charged. If one takes Paul’s
entire discourse in Romans 1-3 in context and seriously, it is difficult to see how they could read
him differently than driving the point of culpability and guilt home to the Roman Church. Any
degree of possibility that God may not actually exist would destroy the force of
Paul’s argument. Paul has not said that men do not have good reason for
refusing to acknowledge of God. He has not said that their arguments are not
very strong for rejecting God.
The point I want to make is this: if it is possible
that God does not exist and it is only probable that Christian theism is true,
then there is always a reason and a defense, even if it is not a very strong
one, for rejecting the Christian claims that God exists. However, this
hypothesis is a direct contradiction of Paul in Romans 1. Philosophy runs
head-on into theology and as we say in Jiu Jitsu, it end up getting submitted.
God’s existence is transcendentally necessary. And if God’s
existence is transcendentally necessary, then it is indeed the epitome of
irrationalism to refuse to acknowledge Him. When Paul says that man is without
excuse, he has no defense for his refusal to acknowledge God, he is saying
that God has already given man all the evidence that he could ever need to
reach the right conclusion. Notice that God is the one that has already given
men the evidence. Secondly, notice that men are in possession and of that
evidence. They see it, the hear it, and they know it. “There is within the
human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we
take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the
pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain
understanding of his divine majesty.” [Calvin, Institutes, Vol. I, 43]
“Modern philosophy in practically all its schools admits
that all its speculations end in mystery. Speaking generally, modern philosophy
(and science) is phenomenalistic. It admits that ultimate reality is unknowable
to man.” [Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 127]
If there is human predication, then God exists. There is no
God. Therefore, there is no human predication. Presuppositional apologetics
uses this form of argument known as Modus Tollens to demonstrate that
God is the necessary precondition even to argue against God. From this we see
that it is exegetically, theologically, logically, and philosophically
irrational to refuse to acknowledge God in all that we do.
I made two arguments in this post. I argued that it is biblically
immoral and logically fallacious for a Christian apologist to affirm that God
only probably exists and that Christian theism is only probably true. In
addition, I posited that it is highly irrational for anyone to refuse to acknowledge
God in all that they do. My reference point for this argument, the ultimate
authority to which I referred was Moses’ encounter with Yahweh in Ex.
3:14 and Paul’s argument to the Roman Church contained in Romans 1-3. From that
ultimate authority I employed exegesis, theology, and logic to arrive at my
conclusion. It is my conviction that Christian apologetics has an ethical duty
to Christ to follow this kind of model for defending Christian theism.
[1] John H
Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible
Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 175.
excellent posts on presupp! Do you have any plans to start an apologetics podcast or engage in debates?
ReplyDeleteWe could sure use a new presupp debating champion!
I have entertained the possibility of debate. I do have plans to start a podcast by year end. I will provide details on my blog when the launch nears. I am contemplating a debate with a Classical Apologist on Ratio Christi, perhaps Howe from SES. Too early to say at this point. I will keep you posted.
ReplyDeleteAwesome, I can't wait! I am glad to see presuppositional apologetics becoming more popular.
ReplyDeleteWhy defending Christian Theism rather than the Word of God or Logos? Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, and Sihk are spiritual-self. These are supposed to be inwardly and NOT outwardly. When they are outwardly, they cause sectarian riots such as in India and Middle-East. The physical self is of tribe. You are of Dingess tribe (son of Man) and son of God by His grace.
ReplyDeleteChristian theism is inseparable from God's Word and God's Word is inseparable from Christian theism. I prefer modern vernacular whenever it is practical. Tribe is really a foreign concept in my culture.
ReplyDelete