This is a paper I had to write for my summer philosophy class. It is supposed to be a script for a class I would teach at a youth camp on apologetics. I basically used a presuppositional apologetic, and focused upon some of Francis Schaeffer’s methods.
Being a Witness to the God Who is There
There is a particular reason why I have titled this presentation the way that I have. Several decades ago a Christian apologist known as Francis Schaeffer wrote a book entitled “The God Who is There”. In his context, he was speaking to a rising theology known as neo-orthodoxy, which is not entirely different from today’s emergent church movement. The neo-orthodox theologians taught that man cannot rationally or reasonably know God, and that the Bible does indeed have errors, while simultaneously being the authoritative word of God. Such theologies lead to an irrational mysticism that divorces God from the operations and phenomena of this world. This sort of thinking did not just exist in Schaeffer’s day, but continues in our day in Christian and non-Christian circles. Like Schaeffer, today I am going to argue that not only is there a God, but there couldn’t possibly be a world without God, and in particular, the Christian God.
First of all we must recognize that the Bible states in many places that God has revealed himself to all people, but they refuse to accept his revelation. This can be found particularly in Romans Chapter 1 which states:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.[1]
Here we find that all mankind knows God, but due to their moral rebellion, they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. This is due to the quest for moral autonomy that led to mankind’s fall[2] which leaves Him dead in transgressions and sins today[3] being unresponsive to God’s revelation. An example of this text in daily life can be observed in the homosexual rights movement of today. In fact, Romans 1 will continue on to show how mans rejection of God’s revelation due to his depravity leads to such acts has homosexuality along with all other immorality[4]. An argument that is often advanced by gay rights activists is that animals are frequently observed engaging in homosexual activities; therefore, such acts are natural and healthy. Just as Paul writes in verse 25 they exchange the truth about God for a lie, and elevate the creation above the creator, therefore they are left without any moral bearings and end up sliding into depravity as nature becomes their model. But some may say, “What of it? I believe that man is just an animal and should act as such, therefore the analogy from nature does give credibility to the homosexual lifestyle”. If this is the case then why am I not aloud to kill when someone makes me angry, or when I have a desire for more food, territory, or women? Aside from the fact that most animals engage in homosexual acts to achieve dominance, posing such an extreme to an opponent of the Christian faith is useful in apologetic arguments. Francis Schaeffer called this tactic “taking the roof off”. Concerning what it reveals, he stated, “The more logical a man who holds a non-Christian position is to his own presuppositions, the further he is from the real world; and the nearer he is to the real world, the more illogical he is to his presuppositions”[5]. That is precisely what we did with the example of the homosexual rights activist. Most definitely such an individual is against the act of beating or even killing a homosexual simply because someone disagrees with him, however, his very own presuppositions about human nature will tend to a conclusion that such behavior is ok! In every single argument with a non-Christian you must show them the tension which their worldview places them in. We can then demonstrate that the opposite pull in their experience of reality comes from the Christian worldview, because it is that God which is revealing Himself to them, and whom they are rebelling against with their opposing presuppositions, thus demonstrating the truth of Romans 1 before their very eyes. We are then in a position to demonstrate that this is God’s universe in which they are living, as Francis Schaeffer said, “[h]ence, the person before you is not a vacuum. He knows something of the external world, and he knows something of himself”[6]. Which brings me to three simple evidences which you can give to your non-Christian friends to demonstrate the truth of God’s existence. These are the moral argument, the epistemological argument, and finally the argument from revelation.
First we must examine the moral argument. The moral argument has been advanced by almost all Christian apologists, and was made popular by author C.S. Lewis. However, much of its development can be traced back to the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Essentially he argued that the concept of human justice can only be justified if there is ultimate justice behind it. In other words, unless we have a metaphysical basis for the universal human attempt to achieve justice, all of it is an illusion, unnatural, and futile. Kant then argued that if there is a moral code of ethics, there must be an ultimate judge, because laws may as well not exist if they are not enforced. However, this judge must be omniscience because if he does not know everything then there is a possibility that he might be ignorant of certain violations of the moral law, again rendering the law as essentially non-existent. Finally, he must be omnipotent because the execution of sentence against law breakers must come to pass and be complete in order for justice to truly exist. Therefore, Kant argues, if we simply reason from morality being “real” we find the existence of God to be necessary. Kant, however, only argued that a world without morality would be horrible, and argued that we should live “as if there is a God”[7]. Kant’s arguments are useful to use in certain apologetic discussions, however I wouldn’t recommend throwing all the weight of your argument onto them. They may be useful after you have established that a moral law does exist to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is necessary for such an entity to exist.
Essentially what you want to do at first is look for the motions within your non-Christians friend’s soul towards morality or justice. This may appear in their desire alleviate world hunger, tyranny, oppression, or even within issues such as animal rights, gay rights, or women’s rights. It may seem strange to seek common ground within the later three examples, but we are seeking after some motion within them that is moving them towards love, justice, or morality. As we saw in Romans 1, mankind suppresses the truth about God wherever he finds it, and therefore they become darkened in their reasoning. This often comes out as inconsistent forms of morality or justice, as was exampled earlier with the gay-rights argument, but they still are striving after justice. Many times animal rights, gay rights, and feminist activists must smear their opponents to appear as hate motivated oppressors at best or violent people at worst. The reason why they do this is because such actions are wrong, and everyone knows it, which makes such propaganda so effective for their cause. Jesus said that mere hatred is enough to damn one to hell[8], and as Christians our motivation for confronting sin should always be out of love for God first, and people second. So we see that even those who depart from traditional morality, must still appeal to the conscience to sway others to their particular perspectives. We need to then question why such things are wrong. If we are all animals, aren’t we just acting on impulse? If to be human is to follow our desires then shouldn’t I hate when I feel it, and kill when I hate? If I see I woman that I desire to be with, as an animal shouldn’t I just rape her if I can succeed? The first thing your opponent may argue is that while we are animals, we have evolved to reason and communicate, and we should therefore only engage in pleasures which do not harm others. First of all, if these other people are simply highly evolved amoebas who from the beginning of their lives until the end are meaningless, then who cares? Second, even if such a “moral assertion” can be justified, what about the child whom no one wants, is mentally disabled, and whom is drugged up to feel no pain. Would if be ok for a child rapist to have his way with him and then brutally kill him? No one will miss him, he wasn’t conscious of what was happening, and didn’t feel a thing. However, the rapist was able to fulfill all of his desires. Was this a good action? We must show our opponents where their presuppositions lead them, and very often you will find them thinking twice about their worldview. Very rarely will you find an individual stubborn enough to say that such an example would be ok. When we do, we must rest confident in that fact that the law is written on their hearts[9], and it is up to God to convert them as they will not see the Kingdom until they are born again[10]. From here we can demonstrate that the happiness an action produces is not the ultimate gauge of morality, as certain methods of attaining high feelings of “happiness” are simply immoral. Therefore, something transcending happiness must be the standard. The same goes for the argument that societies create morality, as that would prevent us from being able to transcend a given society and pass moral judgment upon its actions. In the end morality is related to what is done with the will, which reveals one’s character. Therefore, if morality is ultimate and transcends material impulses, happiness, and society, it must have its roots in an ultimate being that has volition and character. That would be God as he has revealed himself throughout the Bible, and in the character of Jesus Christ.
The next evidence for God’s existence is the existence of logic and intelligibility within the universe. This is where you can begin arguing from the high ground, because the non-Christian, especially the atheist, is going to have trouble accounting for such entities. Logic, plainly put, are laws of thought dealing with cognition. A basic example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction which holds that the antithesis of an observation cannot be simultaneously true with its counterpart at the same time and in the same way. Such a law is self-verifiable without even demonstrating an example from nature. The laws of logic impose themselves upon our minds, and upon reality and determine what is and isn’t possible within the physical universe. Furthermore, these entities are abstract, universal, and unchanging. If any of these attributes are missing, it renders the laws of logic as not absolute, and therefore not binding. This would render truth, even the “truth” that there is no truth, impossible to discover. Even if we did discover that the laws of logic were incorrect, that would only be discovered through the use of a higher law which would have to accounted for. In a materialist worldview, where consciousness and thought are simply illusions of matter in the brain, how is it possible for such entities which place thought as ultimate exist without an ultimate thinker?
Some atheists may claim that the laws of logic are simply convention of men, created due to the inherent order observed in nature. First of all, it should be noted that the laws of logic are abstract entities which are articulated by man in their common languages, they are not created by them. Secondly, without a prior internal framework through which man may make observations and come to conclusions, how would he be able to deduce any facts concerning the physical universe? And even if such knowledge could simply be absorbed into the mind as a blank slate, it still begs the question as to how invisible “laws” governing nature can exist in a pure materialist universe. Saying that logic is derived from the order of nature is to place the cart before the horse.
Finally, how can facts exist in an atheistic universe, or a universe not controlled by God? Ephesians 1:11 tells us that God works all things “according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will”[11]. Therefore, we may have assurance that there are facts to be revealed to us within the physical universe for the mind to perceive. This is because God’s mind is behind the universe and its history, therefore imposing His thoughts and plans upon it. The supposed chaotic universe which the atheist believes he lives in can still be described and have intelligible events occurring within it, giving him the ability to demonstrate evidence for his beliefs. However, all he is really doing is setting up a straw man by saying, “if there was a God is would be this kind of order, but in reality there is this kind of order, therefore, there is no God”. Therefore, any ordered universe with abstract laws governing its behavior giving it intelligibility, can only be possible with God behind it.
Lastly we will examine the evidence from revelation. In any discussion with a non-Christian you want to make God’s revealed word central to your discussion. Do not think that you must present your arguments in the particular order in which I have presented them. God’s word must come first, because ultimately you will be hoping that God uses you to bring your opponent to repentance. Romans 10:17: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ”[12]. You will want to demonstrate to those whom you witness to that the only possible explanation behind their human experience is the God who is revealed in scripture. Many people today believe that the concept of revelation is primitive, or simply childish. However, if you demonstrate that morality, logic, and knowledge only has a basis in reality if they are objectively revealed not created by man, then the doctrine of special revelation does not seem so ridiculous. You can demonstrate how the Bible explains general revelation, or nature, in such an authoritative way by opening up texts such as Psalm 19 or Romans 1 to demonstrate that the Bible confirms nature is an inescapable revelation from God which gives man the ability to think, reason, and have concepts of morality. This places the Bible as the hand inside the glove of creation, thereby giving it authority over it. It will also be necessary to familiarize yourself with the Bible, and its theology, because most attacks against the Bible will be from a mischaracterization of its message. You will want to use the Bible to demonstrate the historical reality of the person, work, and message of Jesus Christ through the apostle’s writings and the Old Testament prophets foretelling of Him. You will also want to familiarize yourselves with the Bible’s historical and textual credibility, as these often are placed under attack as a last ditch attempt to hide from powerful message of the Bible.
Finally, you will want to remember that you are not arguing people into the kingdom but merely following what Peter says in 1 Peter 3:15, “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect”[13]. We simply are acting in obedience to be used as instruments by the Holy Spirit, as it is His internal work to bring them to salvation. Our efforts, and the most cutting edge arguments will never produce spiritual life in someone as all who are saved are born “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God”[14].
[1] Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001.) Rom. 1:18-25
[2] Gen 3
[3] Eph 2.1-3
[4] Rom 1:24-32
[5] Schaeffer, Francis A. The God Who Is There. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.) Pg. 152
[6] Ibid. Pg. 151
[7] Geisler, Norman L., and Paul D. Feinberg. Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1980.) Pg. 259
[8] Mt. 5:22
[9] Rom. 2:15
[10] Jn. 3:1-8
[11] Ibid. Eph. 1:11
[12] Ibid. Rom. 10:17
[13] Ibid. 1 Pt. 3:15
[14] Ibid. 1 Jn 1:13
