We must start with God to end with God (Apologetics part 4)

In my last post, a hypothetical person (Mr. Believer) tries to reason with another hypothetical person (Mr. Skeptic). He tried to use human logic to prove God's existence, but human logic was turned against him.

Mr. Believer starts reading Van Til and is encouraged that even though he is not as smart as Richard Dawkins, He has something more powerful than human reason. God Himself has revealed His truth. Van Til teaches him that there are only two options: we start with man or we start with God.

STARTING WITH MAN
If you start with human logic, the best you can get is some “god” made up by the human mind. This is idolatry and not the God of the Bible. In the skeptical mind, god is rejected.

The Trinity is an example. Christians believe that God is 3 persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three 3 persons are fully God. What does the unbeliever logically conclude? The answer is that Christians believe in 3 Gods. But, Scripture teaches that there is only One God. If human logic is in the final judge of what is true, then the Trinity must be rejected. Thomas Jefferson said, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra…” (Dawkins, 34)

STARTING WITH GOD
If human logic cannot lead us to God, the right starting point must be the Bible. If God is infinite and beyond our complete understanding, then we only know Him if He reveals Himself to us. Going on human logic is like 5 blind men feeling an elephant and coming up with 5 different conclusions on what it is. One thinks that the elephant is a tail, or a trunk, etc…

In Scripture, God speaks to us with complete truthfulness and authority. We can trust His revelation, even if our finite minds can’t completely understand certain things (e.g. the Trinity, the creation of the universe out of nothing, etc…)

GOD DOES NOT ANSWER TO MAN
Mr. Believer sees that human beings choose to follow one authority over another. The two options are God or man. For the Christian, the Scriptures are the final authority. God’s Word doesn’t answer to human logic, reason, or opinion.

Why must this be the case? Why does Scripture have to be accepted on its own authority?

The other option is to prove the Bible with our limited knowledge. For example, let’s say that I have 5 things that prove that the Bible is true:

1. The Virgin Birth of Christ.
2. The Raising of Lazarus from the dead.
   
3. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
4. The Testimony of the Disciples (11 out of the 12 died as martyrs for their beliefs).
5. My own spiritual experience (Jesus has changed my life).
   

We assume that modern archeologists and historians prove the first 3. The last 2 are personal testimonies.

These seem to work well. But what happens if archeologists find some counter evidence that destroys two of these? Now, we’re down to 3…does that mean that the Bible is now 60% as reliable as before? Archeology could find some other evidence to bring our total back up to 5, but, the next day, some of it could be rejected. I think you get the point. Human understanding is limited, error-prone, and is corrupted by sin. History and science are constantly being updated.

The best case is that the skeptic accepts all of these pieces of evidence. That doesn’t necessarily lead to believing in the Bible.

Van Til says that even if you prove the existence of the virgin birth, the raising of Lazarus, or the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that cannot convince skeptics that God exists. The skeptic’s reply is, “So what? You’ve shown us that strange and awesome things can happen in this world. Just because we don’t have an explanation for it doesn’t mean you can say a miracle has happened. That cannot be proven until you have exhausted all other possible explanations” (this is the argument presented by Dr. William Adams in God at Work, New York, 1933).

Van Til also says that even if you prove that God has made you into a different person, that cannot convince skeptics that God exists. Your religious experience could be from God, from drugs, or even something else. The skeptic’s reply is, “I can’t argue with your experience, just like I can’t argue with you if you feel hot or cold. If you are cold, the reason could be that you left your window open. If you say that Jesus has changed your life, you have given me a reason that your life is different. The reason could be right or it could be wrong” (argument presented by James Leuba in God or Man, New York, 1933).

So even in the best case, human understanding cannot be our final authority. God expects us to accept His authority and not our own. He is the Creator and we are the creation.

As we look through the Bible, we see countless reminders of this. "Thus says the Lord" is used 400 times in the Bible. Jesus says, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

Peter says that God's Word is more reliable and certain than what can be seen with the eyes and heard with the ears. Peter, James, and John had the opportunity to see the glory of Jesus Christ at the Transfiguration. Peter claims that God's Word is more reliable than what he saw and heard. The reason is that Scripture comes from God, not man.

"And we have something more sure [than what we can see and hear], the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet 1:19-21)

In future posts, I’ll go into detail on what the Bible actually says about unbelief and how to reason with skeptics.