The Great Debate: Does God Exist? 7, 8 and 9

The Great Debate: Does God Exist? 4,5 and 6

The Wicked themselves are an Example...

New at Polemos
Some Good Quotes
Apologetics
Atheism And Unbelief
John Calvin

“…in the present day not a few are found, who deny the being of a God, yet, whether they will or not, they occasionally feel the truth which they are desirous not to know. We do not read of any man who broke out into more unbridled and audacious contempt of the Deity than C. Caligula, and yet none showed greater dread when any indication of divine wrath was manifested. Thus, however unwilling, he shook with terror before the God whom he professedly studied to condemn. You may every day see the same thing happening to his modern imitators. The most audacious despiser of God is most easily disturbed, trembling at the sound of a falling leaf. How so, unless in vindication of the divine majesty, which smites their consciences the more strongly the more they endeavour to flee from it. They all, indeed, look out for hiding-places where they may conceal themselves from the presence of the Lord, and again efface it from their mind; but after all their efforts they remain caught within the net. Though the conviction may occasionally seem to vanish for a moment, it immediately returns, and rushes in with new impetuosity, so that any interval of relief from the gnawing of conscience is not unlike the slumber of the intoxicated or the insane, who have no quiet rest in sleep, but are continually haunted with dire horrific dreams. Even the wicked themselves, therefore, are an example of the fact that some idea of God always exists in every human mind.”

-John Calvin in Institutes of the Christian Religion

The Knowledge of God and of Ourselves

This coming July 10th will be the 500th anniversary of the Birth of John Calvin. In light of this Ive been re-reading some of his Institutes as I always find a great deal of Gods grace and instruction flowing through his words.

For those of you who have never read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion I couldn't recommend them highly enough. Here's the opening of the first book dealing with the knowledge of God and it's relationship to mans knowledge of himself. The first chapter is nothing less than an apologetical masterpiece!

Chapter 1, Section 1. "Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upwards; not only that while hungry and famishing we may thence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our naked shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties every man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption, reminds us, (see Calvin on John 4: 10,) that in the Lord, and none but He, dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our own evil things to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself? Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him."

Institutes of the Christian Religion By John Calvin / Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. CBD says: "Theologian par excellence, Calvin is best known for his Institutes of the Christian Religion, a theological introduction to the Bible and vindication of Reformation principles. Beveridge's 1845 translation of Calvin's magnum opus is now available in a one-volume format that retains the pagination of the original two volumes. 1310 pages, softcover from Eerdmans."

Sharper Than Any Two-edged Sword

While reading Romans 2:1 during the course of devotions with my children the other night I was once again reminded of the amazing power of the Word of God to expose the sinful workings of the human heart. (1 Corinthians 14: 24, 25; Hebrews 4:12, 13)

In the context Paul, speaking in the power of the Spirit of God, is showing that all men are guilty before God. Even those that have never even seen the written Word of God and know nothing about what it says are blameworthy, guilty and completely inexcusable before Him. Romans chapter 1 and 2 show that Joe Blow the bushman deep in the heart of Africa, who has never heard of the Bible or Jesus Christ, is guilty before his Maker. And if it shows us that Joe Blow the bushman is consciously guilty before his Maker, how much more does it expose the “new atheists” and liberals who constantly rail against the Word of God.

In Romans 2:1 Paul says: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

In other words, any man who judges another’s actions to be wrong exhibits the fact that he knows that there is a standard outside of us and above us. And any admission to a standard that is above us all, that men should be held accountable to, is an admission that there is a God who makes standards. And when someone who has broken Gods standards condemns someone else for breaking those same standards, what is that person doing but condemning himself for breaking the very same set of standards? Isn’t Gods Word awesome!

Consider your garden variety average liberal atheist who is angry with religious people and condemns their practice of religion. What is he saying when he condemns religious people for their practice of religion? He’s saying this: “There are standards to be held to people! And I’m condemning you for breaking one of them!” Or consider the average unbeliever who says that there are no fixed standards and that we should never judge anyone for how they live or what they believe, it’s not real hard to expose their hypocrisy, just tell them their wrong and they’ll judge you for judging them. Or maybe barrow their car without asking and they will quickly accuse you of stealing. How can they accuse you of stealing? Because they know that there is a standard of right and wrong and they’re going to hold you to it when it serves their purpose.

So all you atheists out there, be honest for a moment, you know that there is a God and you know that there are standards of right and wrong; you’ve held people to them. “And do you think this , O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?” (Romans 2:3)

Reasons we should NOT attempt to prove God exists #.5

A Post, Post Preface

After listening to a great many Christians trying to prove that God exists to the “new atheists” crowd I started writing a series of articles on why we do not need to prove that God exists. But I should have prefaced these articles with a few clarifying thoughts on my part. So this is my post, post preface I guess.

I don’t want to be misconstrued as saying that there is no place for “proofs” of Gods existence. There are many “proofs” of Gods existence and we ought to be familiar with them. They are a good way to strengthen the faith of Gods children and we ought to be able to explain them to those who are sincerely seeking some answers to the many questions raised by the unbelievers around us. If we can take some stumbling blocks out the unbeliever’s way then by all means let’s do it. But, we should never do so out of the context of the fact that all men do know that God exists deep down in their hearts and that this is at the very root of their sinfulness; in the light of this knowledge they have chosen to avoid that God and be a law to themselves. If we do not make this fact clear somewhere along the way then we are simply inviting men to sit in judgment of God and that is always unacceptable.

This fact especially needs to be brought to the fore when dealing with those of a haughty, arrogant attitude who are merely out to mock and ridicule Christianity and could care less about facts. They know that they are wrong. Offering a thousand “proofs” to such people will not change anything, there is always someway to get around these facts to someone who is pre-committed to any amount of foolishness in order to avoid them. But what they can not avoid is the condemning voice of their conscience when we expose the fact that deep down in their hearts they know that what they are saying is not true and that they are rebels living in rebellion against this God. And while this will almost always make them very angry, this is exactly what they need to hear most. Their anger is simply a further proof of Gods veracity; men hate the light because their deeds are evil (John 3:19,20).

So when I say that we do not need to prove Gods existence, what I mean is that “proving” should never be our objective, men already know it. Their problem is not an intellectual problem, it is a moral problem and they look for “intellectual” problems to hide behind. Whenever we start arguing for the evidence of Gods existence apart from the fact that men know Him, know His Law and are living in rebellion against Him we have completely missed the gospel message which calls on mankind to repent of their rebellion and submit their minds to His revealed Word at the very outset and foundations of their thinking concerning everything.

Reasons we should NOT attempt to prove God exists #1

1) God never does it and does not ask us to do it.

God never stoops to presenting Himself as an object of the judgment and scrutiny of puny little fallen man. God simply presents His existence as a matter of fact. “In the begging God….” Genesis 1:1

God tells us that we must believe (Hebrews 11:6). God tells us that men do believe but try to suppress their belief (Romans 1:18). God tells us that those who try to convince themselves that He does not exist are fools (Psalm 14:1). He tells us that unbelief is a sin and proceeds from an evil heart (Hebrews 3:12). He invites us to reason with Him (Isaiah 1:18). He commands us to repent (Acts 17:30). And He tells us repeatedly that man will be scrutinized and judged by Him (Hebrews 4:12, 13) but he never invites man to interpret the facts of the universe with his autonomous reasoning in order to determine whether or not He exists.

Man must be the one judged and never the judge. Any attempt to “prove” the existence of God creates the grossest form of role reversal and falsely implies that man does have some legitimate measure of autonomy.

We who profess the name of Christ are to call men to submit to God, to surrender to God, to seek Gods forgiveness, to entrust themselves too Him and throw themselves on the mercy He extends to us in Christ but we are never ever told to call them to preside as the judge in the matter of whether or not God exists. Man must be put in his place, not Gods place!

God does not need mans ascent, approval or even his belief. God stands in need of nothing. It is man who stands in need; he needs everything from God!

Attempting to “prove” the existence of God to fallen man puts fallen man in the unbiblical position of sitting in judgment upon God. It causes confusion at the very core of the gospel message which proclaims that man is fallen, feeble and unable to know, judge or think rightly without the revelation of God and His regenerating grace.

The very nature of God Himself and the nature of man’s sin demand that we do not try to prove the existence of God to the Christ rejecting, unbelieving world around us but rather that we should humbly and yet boldly press upon them the unerring message of their Creator and Judge.

How Do We Know God Is Real & The Bible Is True

New at Polemos
Atheism
Apologetics
Audio Links

Are you an epistemologically self-conscious individual? If a little voice inside your head just said "huh?" then the answer is probably "no." But there is good news! Its not too late , with a little work you too can become epistemologically self-conscious. Just listen to this must-hear message by William Einwechter on the subject of how do we know God exists and that the Bible is His self authenticating word.

Mr. Einwechter also gives us the much needed reminder that apologetics is not meant to open minds and hearts but to shut mouths.

• How Do We Know God Is Real & The Bible Is True
  William O. Einwechter

Proposition 8: Missing the opportunity?

I must say that I have found the whole Proposition 8 thing sadly amusing. I recently got a e-mail from the American Center for Law and Justice warning me that my "fundamental rights, as a citizen in this democracy, are at risk in a new way today." Why? Because "…the California Supreme Court has agreed to consider overriding the will of the People - ignoring the votes of millions!"

While we should all truly despise tyrannical Government officials who arrogantly over step their jurisdictional boundaries in total contempt of Law, I think that we Christians are missing the real problem here and perhaps throwing away an awesome apologetic opportunity!

Proposition 8 deals with the issue of definition. Those in favor of Proposition 8 want to "define marriage along traditional one man/one woman lines." Those opposed to Prop. 8 want to re-define marriage to include whatever.

While I completely agree that marriage is only possible between one man and one woman I have to ask why we keep going back to "tradition" to defend this definition? What authority does “tradition” have? What do we hope to gain by appealing to "tradition"?

Personally I've seen many "traditions" that were worthless, meaningless and in some cases even harmful to people but those who practiced them held on to them with an almost bitter and mean spirit simply because those things were a "tradition." If I were on the other side of the Proposition I imagine I would probably view the folks who were trying to defend the "traditional" view of marriage as bitter religious bigots who can’t let go of an old tradition.

Why are we professing Christians engaging anyone in a discussion of moral issues and appealing to tradition? Tradition has no authority at all! The real subject of importance in Proposition 8 is that of "Definition." Here we Christians have a golden opportunity to address an issue of true importance and everlasting consequences; that of definition and human autonomy.

The real issue is this: We human beings are not free to go around defining something like marriage. Marriage was created by God, it was instituted among us by God and God defines. The real problem with those who want to redefine marriage is that they are assuming that they free to make such definitions and this is where we ought to be challenging them. Man is to be rethinking Gods thoughts. Man depends on God to know. Man has no independence from his creator, any such assumed independence is a sin. We call it autonomy or self law; doing what is right in our own eyes.

Autonomy is simply the creature attempting to function independently of the creator, man trying to stand alone, something only the eternal God can do. Autonomy, as seen in man trying to define something like marriage on his own terms, is the act of the creature trying to usurp the authority and thereby the throne of the almighty Creator, it is the ultimate act of cosmic treason. The ultimate act of ingratitude and mutiny against our maker. It is It is the creature trying to get rid of its creator, the attempted murder God; the definer of all creation.

Why don’t we appeal to the word of God as the only authority by which we can define marriage? Why don’t we appeal to the word of God as the only possible source of authority? Why don’t we show them that those who reject Scripture have no sure grounds whatsoever for any authority at all? Why don’t we show them the foolishness and untenability of their presupposition that they can even know anything at all for certain without an all-knowing God revealing truth to us?

And then why don’t we call on them to repent of their sinful autonomy and flee to the only One who can rescue them from their foolish path to destruction; Jesus Christ, the One whom they have offended and desired to be rid of, the One who took on human flesh in order to die and provide a way of salvation for the very rebels who put Him to death and the One who will judge the human race on the last Day by His Law; His definition of right and wrong.

More of The Myth of Neutrality

New at Polemos
Apologetics

Video

• Greg Bahnsen - The Myth of Neutrality (part 3)

• Greg Bahnsen - The Myth of Neutrality (part 4)

The Myth of Neutrality

New at Polemos
Apologetics

Video

• Greg Bahnsen - The Myth of Neutrality (part 1)

• Greg Bahnsen - The Myth of Neutrality (part 2)

Some Food for Apologetical Thought

“God is thus the principle of definition, of law, and of all things. He is the premise of all thinking, and the necessary presupposition for every sphere of thought. It is blasphemy therefore to attempt to "prove" God; God is the necessary presupposition of all proof. To ground any sphere of thought, life, or action, or any sphere of being, on anything other than the triune God is thus blasphemy. Education without God as its premise, law which does not presuppose God and rest on His law, a civil order which does not derive all authority from God, or a family whose foundation is not God's word, is blasphemous.”

-R.J. Rushdoony from The Institutes of Biblical Law

Guerilla Apologetics

New at Polemos
Evangelism

While I must confess that I don't really appreciate some of Ray Comfort's evangelism tactics, you gotta love anyone with such a heart for evangelism!

My children and I just finished watching the "Guerrilla Apologetics for the Glory of God" DVD put out by Vision Forum and it was awesome! A must hear message for anyone who longs to lead others to Christ, something that is certainly true of any true Christian.

Guerilla Apologetics for the Glory of God DVD
By Ray Comfort / The Vision Forum, Inc

" Evangelism today uses modern techniques that are often contrary to Scripture. While such outreach may lead to many "decisions", true conversions don't always follow in the same numbers. Ray Comfort has seen the power of evangelizing as Jesus did-by emphasizing that all believers have broken God's laws, are enemies of God, that God's judgment is directly tied to lawbreaking, and as sinners, they're desperately in need of repentance. Discover what Guerilla Apologetics are really all about! 1 DVD, 1 hr. 20 minutes."

Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman

New at Pol'-e-store
Biographical

Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman
By John Muether / P & R Publishing

This work contributes to an understanding of Van Til and his apologetic insights by placing him within the context of twentieth century developments in North American Reformed theology, including the formation of Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the rise of neo-evangelicalism, and American reception of Karl Barth.

Applying the Doctrine of Scripture

A good word on the application of the Doctrine of Scripture from Cornelius Van Til:

"In conclusion it should be pointed out that the doctrine of Scrip­ture set forth above sets before men the face of God. God requires of men that they love and obey him. He made them perfect in his image. They rebelled against him. Now he is, in grace, calling them to repentance through his Son. He tells them about this call to repentance and love in the Bible. So Christ, the Redeemer, the Son of God, speaks directly to us in the words of Scripture.

It follows that those who take the Bible to be what it says it is, must present this Bible as conveying a challenge of Christ to men. They must use it always as a means with which to send forth a clarion call of surrender to those who are rebels against God. To be sure, it is the grace of God that is offered to men. Just as Jesus wept over Jerusalem and her children, desiring that they might re­pent, so those who are believers must be filled with deep concern and love for the lost. But in their love for the lost they must, none the less, not lower the claims of God revealed in Christ who calls upon "all men everywhere" to repent (Acts 17:30). This call to repentance has application for the whole of human life and for all the activities of men. "The authority of Scripture extends itself over the whole man and over the whole of humanity. It stands above mind and will, above heart and conscience; it cannot be compared to any other authority."

Men must therefore be asked to repent for the way they have carried on their scientific enterprises, no less than for the way they have worshiped idols. Scripture is the Word, the living Word of God who is the Creator and Redeemer of men and of mankind. It pre­supposes that he to whom it comes is ". . . corrupted in his religious attitude and therefore in need of redemption. It would therefore be to deny itself if it recognized the natural man as its competent judge. If Christianity is in the full sense of the term a religion of redemption and therefore wants to redeem man from the error of his intellect as well as from the impurity of his heart, if it wants to save man from the death of his soul as well as from that of his body, then it can in the nature of the case not subject itself to the criticism of man, but must subject man to the criticism of itself." "The revelation of God in Christ does not seek support or justifica­tion from men. It posits and maintains itself in high majesty. Its authority is not only normative but also causative. It fights for its own triumph. It conquers for itself the hearts of men. It makes itself irresistible."

A quote from The Christian Theory of Knowledge which as far as I can tell has been out of print for awhile.

Some John Calvin on Apologetics

Here is a good quote on the subject of apologetics by John Calvin. His point is this: Our faith in the veracity of Scripture must ultimately lie in the Testimony of the Scriptures themselves alone. If we appeal to facts and truths outside of the Scriptures as proof of the veracity of Scripture, we have then devised an authority or standard higher than that of God himself and to do such a thing is a sin. If we can't appeal to and trust the Scriptures in matters of what they say about themselves, why should we trust and appeal to them in any other matters?

While anyone listening will immediately accuse such a person of “circular reasoning” for defending the reliability of the Scripture from the Scripture, this is the nature of Christianity and such circular reasoning is entirely Biblical. The unbeliever must be confronted with the authority of the word of God and his sin in not submitting to it. God’s Word must be the final and ultimate authority in everything.

"The nature of faith is acceptance on the basis of testimony, and the ground of faith is therefore testimony or evidence. In this matter it is the evidence God has provided, and God provides the evidence in his Word, the Bible. This means simply that the basis of faith in the Bible is the witness the Bible itself bears to the fact that it is God's Word, and our faith that it is infallible must rest upon no other basis than the witness the Bible bears to this fact. If the Bible does not witness to its own infallibility, then we have no right to believe that it is infallible. If it does bear witness to its infallibility then our faith in it must rest upon that witness, however much difficulty may be en­tertained with this belief. If this position with respect to the ground of faith in Scripture is abandoned, then appeal to the Bible for the ground of faith in any other doctrine must also be abandoned."

-John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion

Cornelius Van Til on Apologetics

"The Romanist-evangelical method of defending Christianity … has to compromise Christianity while defending it. If the demands of "reason" as the non-Christian thinks of it are assumed to be legitimate, then Christianity will be able to prove itself true only by destroying itself. As it cannot clearly show the difference be­tween the Christian and the non-Christian view of things, so it cannot present any clear-cut reason why the non-Christian should forsake his position.

The Reformed method of apologetics seeks to escape this neme­sis. It begins frankly "from above." It would "presuppose" God. But in presupposing God it cannot place itself at any point on a neutral basis with the non-Christian. Before seeking to prove that Chris­tianity is in accord with reason and in accord with fact, it would ask what is meant by "reason" and what is meant by "fact." It would argue that unless reason and fact are themselves interpreted in terms of God they are unintelligible. If God is not presupposed, reason is a pure abstraction that has no contact with fact, and fact is a pure abstraction that has no contact with reason. Reason and fact cannot be brought into fruitful union with one another except upon the pre­supposition of the existence of God and his control over the universe.

Since on the Reformed basis there is no area of neutrality be­tween the believer and the unbeliever, the argument between them must be indirect. Christians cannot allow the legitimacy of the as­sumptions that underlie the non-Christian methodology. But they can place themselves upon the position of those whom they are seek­ing to win to a belief in Christianity for the sake of the argument. And the non-Christian, though not granting the presuppositions from which the Christian works, can nevertheless place himself upon the position of the Christian for the sake of the argument.

The Christian knows the truth about the non-Christian. He knows this because he is himself what he is by grace alone. He has been saved from the blindness of mind and the hardness of heart that marks the "natural man." The Christian has the "doctor's book." The Scriptures tell him of the origin and of the nature of sin. Man is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). He hates God. His inability to see the facts as they are and to reason about them as he ought to reason about them is, at bottom, a matter of sin. He has the God-created ability of reasoning within him. He is made in the image of God. God's revelation is before him and within him. He is in his own constitution a manifestation of the revelation and therefore of the requirement of God. God made a covenant with him through Adam (Rom. 5:12). He is therefore now, in Adam, a cove­nant-breaker. He is also against God and therefore against the rev­elation of God (Rom. 8:6-8). This revelation of God constantly and inescapably reminds him of his creatural responsibility. As a sinner he has, in Adam, declared himself autonomous.

Thus, intellectual argument will not, as such, convince and con­vert the non-Christian. It takes the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit to do that. But as in the case of preaching, so in the case of apologetical reasoning, the Holy Spirit may use a mediate approach to the minds and hearts of men. The natural man is quite able intellectually to follow the argument that the Christian offers for the truth of his position. He can therefore see that the wisdom of this world has been made foolishness by God. Christianity can be shown to be, not "just as good as" or even "better than" the non-Chris­tian position, but the only position that does not make nonsense of human experience."

A snippet from A Christian Theory of Knowledge

Striking the Root

I love apologetics! Personally I find it one of the most fascinating and important subjects of the Christian faith as it is concerned with evangelism and bringing everything under the lordship of Jesus Christ. Sadly though, we often seem to carry it out in an unchristian manner that undercuts its own objective.

By failing to challenge the non-Christians presupposition of autonomy we end up letting them of the hook and often fall short of the whole objective of our mission; their conversion.

Both the Christian and the non-Christian approach the subjects dealt with by apologetics with presuppositions. The Christian presupposition must be that God and His word are our ultimate authority and point of reference. The non-Christian presupposition is that man is the judge and man is the ultimate point of reference.

The fact of the matter is that God created everything and God must define it all. God depends on no one outside himself for knowledge and understanding; rather He is the source of it all. Man on the other hand is entirely dependent upon God and His revelation for proper knowledge and understanding. God alone is independent while man is dependent.

The non-Christian assumes independence in thought to begin with and this is a sin. He starts from the wrong starting point and must necessarily go wrong from there. The non-Christian has committed the same sin as our first parents; they have refused to submit themselves to the revelation of their maker. We can not meet the non-Christian on “common ground” and “go wherever the facts might lead us,” doing so is to take up their presupposition that man is the judge of the facts and the ultimate point of reference. Doing such a thing denies the fact that we are dependent creatures who desperately need the revelation of our maker in order to know properly. In taking such a position to defend Christianity we actually end up denying one of the foremost truths of Christianity. As Cornelius Van Til so frequently points out, we end up destroying the foundations of Christianity in our attempt to defend it. How can we expect the Spirit of God to really bless such an endeavor?

Brethren, maybe we would do better to expose the faulty foundations of the sinful thinking of our fellow man and pray for the Spirits work in convicting and converting them from their autonomous way of life. Perhaps if we strike at the roots of their sin, the rest of the sinful tree will fall on it’s own.

The Death of Law in America

The computer is still down, so I can't do much with the web site but if I could I would definitely add this audio message by Gary DeMar. A must hear message about the death of Law in America.

• Censoring America's Christian Heritage
  Gary DeMar

Starting with the Lordship of Christ

One thing I’ve noticed in all my years of sharing the Gospel is that when someone who loves their sin is first exposed to the Gospel and first feels the sting of the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, they will often respond by attacking the veracity of the Word of God. It’s like trying to wake someone up and they keep pulling the covers back over their head in order to hide in the darkness.

I found myself listening to an apologist on a Christian radio station recently when a man called in questioning the reliability of the Word of God. The host did an admirable job defending the Word of God and trying to prove its reliability, but no matter how hard he tried the caller wouldn’t listen to reason.

It seems that we frequently forget that mans problem with God is not a simply a matter of evidence and proof, but rather it is a moral problem; man loves sin and hates God. Unless the Holy Spirit is at work no amount of evidence or proof is going to shake the unbeliever from his unbelief.

I’ve frequently suggested that we do not need to prove the existence of God; all men know deep in their hearts that God exists and we shouldn’t indulge the in their sinful desire to sit in judgment upon God, but what about the Word of God? Shouldn’t we prove that the Word of God is really the word of God before we should expect people to trust it?

Again, there’s a place for proofs and evidence, but in many cases they are not what’s really needed. If mankind recognizes the fingerprints of their Creator in the general revelation of creation, how much more so will they recognize the voice of their Creator in the special revelation of Scripture? While we must certainly defend the faith, we must do it in a biblical manner; we do not start with man as the judge and Gods Word as the defendant. Such a practice turns things entirely on their head! We have to start with the Lordship of Christ and the Word of God as the Judge; that is the way it ought to be.

Perhaps we could make a little more headway by exposing peoples questioning of the Word of God as the moral rejection of the truth that it is rather than letting them hide behind the mask of needing evidence in order to believe.

Undermining the Gospel

It was excruciating to listen to; a godly older gentleman patiently offering “proofs” of the existence of God to a younger fellow. The younger man had the same answer for everything: “That doesn’t necessarily prove that.” I don’t think anything was ever agreed upon.

The elderly gentleman seemed to have the best of intentions, but with all due respect, we really don’t need to prove the existence of God to anybody. Scripture tells us rather plainly that deep down in their hearts all men know that God exists; they may not admit it, but they already know it. While proofs may have their place, we must not start with them.

The Christian message to the world is NOT “Come and put our God on trial, sit as judge over Him and decide if He exists.” The Christian message to the lost world is exactly the opposite: “God has put you on trial and condemned you, humble yourself before Him, agree with Him and seek His forgiveness through Jesus Christ.”

The unbeliever’s opposition to the gospel is not intellectual but moral. Sin has warped our affections, it has perverted our will, it has bent our desires and it has corrupted our thinking process. In the very essence of sin is the desire to function apart from God, without God, separate from God and above God. This is where the gospel message crashes in to the unbelieving world head-on; it tells them that they are in every way dependent upon God and in need of Him to even begin to think properly.

If we start our defense of the gospel by putting sinners in the place of the morally neutral, intellectually sound and autonomously able judges of God, we have indulged them in their sinful desires and undermined the very gospel message itself, haven't we?