Index To Section One.. Why Christianity?

Also See Sections On Pluralism and  Relativism

CONTENTS

Introduction

1. Can All Views Be True?

2. Presuppositions and Worldviews

3. Faith and Reason

4. Christian Presuppositions

5. Pseudo-Christianity

6. Knowing Biblical Christianity Is True

7. Do Christians Reason In A Circle?

8. God and Evil

9. Atheism and Agnosticism

10. Creation or Evolution?

11. Thoughts on World Religion

Conclusion

Endnotes

INTRODUCTION

This is a book about world views. Everybody has one, but most individuals never really pay much attention to their own personal philosophy of life. This is a tragedy because there is no state of awareness so fundamental to living life. Since there are many world views out there this book was written to help individuals understand why biblical Christianity is so important, not only in our understanding of God, but ourselves and the world around us as well. [Also See Section on World Views]

Every subject we think about is filtered through our worldview. The picture of reality we hold in our minds is what we use at the most basic level to answer every question in life. This is especially true of big questions, like those pertaining to man’s origin, ethics, life’s meaning and ultimate destiny. This makes faith central to every aspect of our live sand being. The bigger question, of course, is whether or not the picture of reality we have is actually true. Several 20th century Christian philosophers were very influential in bringing attention to the subject of world views.

Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, and Francis Schaeffer are considerable influences upon the thinking of many Christians, including myself. Most of what is contained in these pages is simply a re-statement of fundamental truths they addressed. Yet there were several reasons why I wanted to offer a collection of thoughts based upon their philosophical work.

First, this book attempts to quickly get to the heart of the matter. Presuppositions are the heart of everyone’s view of reality. I wanted to offer people, especially young adults, a concise summary of some very important concepts. A few hours spent reading the material here will sharpen the thinking of believers and challenge those who think that “science” or “reason” actually serves as the foundation for true knowledge. Next, I wanted to focus on some of the fundamental topics that repeatedly come up in conversations between Christians and non-Christians. For this reason each chapter is really an individual essay that focuses on a particular subject.

Finally, I wanted to present the philosophy of Christianity in relatively simple language and style. This book is geared for a popular audience. Most people are not professional philosophers and do not care to be. But almost any mature person can and should recognize that they are constantly being confronted with truth-claims from various world views. Everyone has a faith and the world needs to know what sets apart the Bible’s truth-claims from others. Many people only pretend to seek truth in order to justify their preconceived notions of reality. Others are genuinely searching for what is often called ultimate truth. I wanted to share with such individuals that it is possible to know that God does not just offer real answers to our questions, He’s the one who created us to ask meaningful questions in the first place.
 

Can All Views Be True?

Is it possible for Christians to claim that their belief system is true? Is the very claim itself an example of religious intolerance? Most public discussion of religion in contemporary culture is overshadowed by the notion that anyone may hold religious views as long as they do not say others are inferior. All belief systems make truth-claims. Truth-claims by their very nature imply that contrary assertions are false. It is impossible for two genuinely opposite truth-claims to be simultaneously true. Although the law of contradiction may not be popular when applied to religious beliefs, it is still undeniable “that two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. X cannot be non-X. A thing cannot be and not be simultaneously. And nothing that is true can be self-contradictory or inconsistent with any other truth. All logic depends on this simple principle. Rational thought and meaningful discourse demand it.” [1]

This runs counter to the relativistic thinking that is so popular with many in our culture today. Large numbers of people tend to think that all belief systems, especially “religious” ones, must be viewed as equal. [See Section on Relativism]

In the worldview of religious diversity, all religions are equal even if they’re contradictory. No one religion is any more true than any other religion. While this makes for happy harmony on paper, in the real world it just doesn’t work. Try asserting diversity in the following areas:

“It just doesn’t matter what you believe about mathematics, as long as you’re sincere in your beliefs.”

“It doesn’t matter what you believe about electromagnetism, as long as you’re sincere in your beliefs.”

“It doesn’t matter what you believe about Nazism, as long as you’re sincere in your beliefs.”

“It doesn’t matter what you believe about slavery, as long as you’re sincere in your beliefs.”

Few people would tolerate such nonsense, but many are very comfortable with the notion that all religions are valid even when they are contradictory. [2] All beliefs are not equal. The theory of Evolution and biblical Creationism may be studied as two separate views about origins, but both of them cannot be true. It is irrational to declare the equality of all truth-claims, especially those made by rival religions. The history of religion is filled with countless movements involving believers who either desired to correct older views or establish new ones. Tension between differing religious ideas has existed all throughout human history. But the need to exercise true tolerance towards others’ beliefs does not mean that one has to champion the irrational idea that all views are equally true. Christianity, like all belief systems, is exclusive in the sense that it asserts its claims are true. [See Section Religious Pluralism]

There is nothing wrong with believing that some things are true and others false. “Although many accuse absolutists of intolerance, these accusers most likely have an unclear and distorted notion of what tolerance really is. They are often unaware that the concept of tolerance implies a close relationship to truth. Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means ‘putting up with error’ - not ‘being accepting of all views’… It is because real differences exist between people that tolerance becomes necessary and virtuous.” [3] Christianity’s adherents include both converted Jews and Gentiles. The Christian faith crosses racial, ethnic, social, lingual, and national boundaries. It includes all people groups, from every nation, tribe, kindred, and tongue. (Rev 7:9) Its membership is inclusive and diverse, but its belief system is exclusive and dogmatic.

Biblical Christianity rejects the falsehood that all beliefs are equal. As a belief system it claims to present truth about God, man, and the world. While the Bible directs Christians to be sensitive towards others’ feelings it nonetheless admonishes those same believers to “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16) To reject this Christian view, or any other worldview, means that one prefers another view of reality. World views are ultimate. They govern our entire outlook on life. We make judgments about everything, especially other views, with our current worldview. Those who challenge the integrity of the Bible as God’s Word do so because they have adopted another worldview. No one may legitimately say, “I don’t know what view is right, but I know that you’re wrong.” The reason why anyone thinks another view is wrong is because they believe their view (whatever it may be) is correct. [Also See Worldviews]

It is not possible, of course, for any human being to provide an exhaustive explanation of the nature of reality. But the fact that we cannot know everything about reality should not be used as an excuse to believe anything we want to. It is only rational to assume that the metaphysical beliefs posited by any given belief system should not conflict with each another. And those same beliefs should also collectively reveal a metaphysical framework that can genuinely account for reality, including man’s origin and place within it.

No worldview provides comprehensive answers. It is impossible to have every single one of our questions exhaustively answered. Yet skeptics often single out Christianity for failing to answer every conceivable question they may have about God or the Bible. Why demand something from Christianity without requiring the same from their worldview? Yet such double standards are common among Christianity’s critics. Comprehensive answers are not possible for creatures with finite minds. There are many things that will remain a mystery to us in this life. (1Cor 13:12) But lack of comprehensive information does not mean one cannot have confidence in the Bible’s truth-claims.

The main question each of us need to ask ourselves is this, “Why do I think my current belief system is true?”

Rejecting one view in favor of another should be accompanied by more than just a superficial nod at the big questions of life, and intellectual honesty demands more than casually ignoring the truth-claims of orthodox Christianity without really investigating them. All of us to some degree harbor certain biases for believing what we do. Christians certainly want the Bible to be authentic in its revelation of God, but that is not a valid reason for believing its truth-claims. Christian believers, however, are not the only ones with biases. There are those, for example, who self-consciously construct their worldview so that it does not include God:

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions… in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper – namely, the fear of religion itself…. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. [4]

This professing atheist recognized that world views have implications. Beliefs shape the way we look at the world and determine how we will interpret the particular facts of the world all around us. This is no small issue. “To commit one’s life, habits, thoughts, goals, priorities – everything – to a certain world-view with no questions asked is, from the antagonist’s point of view, to build one’s life upon a very questionable foundation.” [5] This makes it all the more necessary to seriously consider what is implied by ultimate truth-claims. All of the world’s religions and philosophies hold certain views regarding “God, man, and the Cosmos.” [6] The world contains many differing conceptions of reality. [7]

It is the evangelical Christian’s contention that “anti- Christianity in all its forms is arbitrary. We see it to be held together by will power, energy of assertion, and the turning of a blind eye to awkward facts rather than by force of evidence or cogency of argument.” 8 These are serious charges. But the apologists for any belief system must attempt to show why their view is truer than other ones.

This is a part of the journey of discovering faith with reason.
 

PRESUPPOSITIONS AND WORLDVIEWS

Each of us is an individual creature in a vast universe. We are finite beings with limits to our knowledge.

We cannot and do not know everything there is to know. This means that in order to reason about anything at all we must first assume certain things about reality. At the heart of every philosophy of life are certain basic assumptions about what is real and true. Everyone has these assumptions or presuppositions about what they perceive reality to be. Day to day thinking involves the use of premises from which we draw conclusions. But these premises are themselves based upon certain assumptions about reality. When baking a loaf of leavened bread, for example, experienced bakers know that proper ingredients in right proportions, along with a consistent yeast temperature, are all required. But their premises are based on a very general assumption that the bread-making process requires the same ingredients and procedures today as in the past. It is assumed that the present will be like the past. Bakers, in this case, are presupposing that nature is uniform.

The assumption that nature is uniform is a primary assumption we use everyday. In fact, it is a prerequisite for scientific methodology. But this assumption is not proven by science. Scientists assume that uniformity in nature is true so that experiments can be performed. The fact that scientists observe uniformity within their limited experiences does not prove its universality nor does it guarantee that uniformity will still hold true tomorrow.

Science operates upon a belief in the uniformity of nature even though it does not account for it.

Presuppositions of science, logic or morality are not natural objects of the universe. They are merely held by individuals to be true. They are presupposed. They are assumed – by faith.

In order to reason about any subject each of us must presuppose the existence of certain pre-conditions in order to form the premises from which we’ll draw our conclusions. Since presuppositions lie at the heart of our beliefs about reality they should be identified. Yet how many of us ever stop to think about what they are? Have we ever considered the role they play in ultimately shaping our worldview or their influence upon how we think and reason?

The following presuppositions are assumed in various belief systems:

A personal God has revealed Himself to man as recorded in the Bible (Christianity)

There is no personal deity (Atheism)

Universal economic laws are the driving force behind history (Marxism)

Rational thought is the best way to arrive at ultimate truth (Rationalism)

The universe is essentially made up of matter and energy (Materialism)

The material world is not real, it’s only an illusion (Hinduism)

Freedom is a human property each of us possesses that must be exercised through individual choices for which each person alone is responsible (Existentialism)
 

Presuppositions are at the heart of worldviews.

What exactly is a worldview? The English word for worldview comes from “the German weltanschaaung. It literally means a life perspective or way of seeing. It is simply the way we look at the world. You have a worldview. I have a worldview. Everyone does. It is our perspective. It is our frame of reference. It is the means by which we interpret the situations and circumstances around us. It is what enables us to integrate all the different aspects of our faith, and life, and experience... A worldview is simply a way of viewing the world.” [9 ]

Our worldview is our life view wherein we try to integrate the sum and substance of life together in a way that makes sense to us. It represents our personal metaphysical outlook on life.

Our most basic assumptions or presuppositions about reality collectively form the foundation of our worldview. Presuppositions are interconnected. They work together to form a web of basic beliefs. These presuppositions shape our worldview grid. This becomes the screen through which we interpret our whole universe. The beliefs which people hold are always connected to other beliefs by relations pertaining to linguistic meaning, logical order, evidential dependence, causal explanation, indexical and self conceptions,  etc. To assert “ I see a ladybug on the rose” is to affirm and assume a number of things simultaneously-some rather obvious (e.g., about the usage of English words, one’s personal identity, a perceptual event, categories of bugs and flowers, physical relations), others more subtle (e.g., about one’s linguistic, entomological, and botanical competence, the normalcy of one’s eyes and brain-stem, theories of light refraction, shared grammar and semantics, the reality of the external world, laws of logic, etc.). [10]

Since presuppositions, such as the uniformity of nature, are simply taken for granted, our worldview is ultimately a faith-view. Every view of life, expressly religious or supposedly non-religious, is a belief system that begins with assumptions held by faith. Even world views that are not officially based upon a canon of scripture, a declared creed, or some other formal religious system are filled with faith nonetheless.

The essence of every worldview is rooted in its transcendent, metaphysical, governing assumptions about the nature of reality. It is never really a question of which of us exercises faith and which one doesn’t. Faith is something within all of us. “All men presuppose, whatever the name they use for it, a synoptic view of reality as a whole. We continue to call it metaphysics.” [11]

Many people seek to construct their own worldview themselves. They try to come up with answers about ultimate reality on their own when they do this. They are essentially saying, “I think that reality consists of such and such… etc.” But those who adhere to a biblical worldview do not rely upon their own arbitrary assumptions  as a tool to construct their own explanations for what exists. They begin by assuming what the Bible reveals  about reality is true.

Christians and non-Christians begin thinking about every subject from their own worldview perspective. They have different world views. World views play a central role in discussions about God, man and the cosmos. They touch the very core of what we believe about reality. It should not be surprising then that worldview clashes occur. Every one of us will disagree with world views that are different from our own.

Christians regard the Bible as ultimate authority within their worldview because it is assumed to be the true Word of God. Those who wish to adhere to a biblical worldview consciously attempt to think about every area of life from a biblical perspective. Every biblical truth is taken as a Christian presupposition that will be held in faith as part of their whole biblical outlook on life. Bible-believing Christians assume that God has spoken with authority and also presuppose, in accordance with scripture, that what God has revealed in the Bible is true.

The bottom line is that everyone reasons through a view of reality that is rooted in faith-based assumptions about the reality they perceive to be true. Everyone has a faith-based worldview which means there are no neutral areas of life. Every aspect of being and activity is interpreted through our worldview grid.
 

FAITH AND REASON

Both secularism [12] and relativism [13] heavily influence Western society. Secularism is currently applied in government, academia, and public education. Its familiar mantra is “separation of church and state.” While its goal supposedly is to promote religious “neutrality” in state funded institutions it is clearly anti-religious. The so-called “separation” principal is almost always used to keep religious beliefs from influencing any arena that receives “public” monies. Religion is only encouraged to take place within a personal-private sphere. The result is that many public institutions limit religious activity in an effort to keep it out of the public square

Why is Secularism so opposed to religion? Many secularists argue that all types of religious dogmatism (especially the kind contained in creeds and professions of faith) should be restricted in the interest of keeping people’s personal religious beliefs from negatively affecting others who have different beliefs. This means public institutions must attempt to be religiously neutral. The perception that faith-beliefs should no longer be permitted to influence public institutions or policy in the interest of fairness to everyone is now widely regarded as a prerequisite for civil liberty.

Also See Secularism..  The Most Evil Philosophy Known To Human Government

Behind this secularist view of religion often lies a conviction that faith-views are really beyond empirical verification or rational proof. Secular intellectuals frequently treat contemporary religious belief as little more than superstition. Many advocates of secularism contend that it was not God who created man but rather man who has created the idea of God. In their view civilization can advance only as it moves beyond such ancient religious “myths” in favor of enlightened reason and modern science. True knowledge, they contend, is found through rational or empirical means.  

Western popular culture promotes relativism. Relativism’s major premise is that no absolute truth exists except that there is no absolute truth. The attempt to discard a belief in absolute truth then leads people to affirm that everyone is entitled to hold certain personal beliefs no one else has the right to question or judge. Supposedly religious beliefs cannot be tested for truth and therefore everyone’s beliefs must be regarded as equal. Everyone is entitled to religious beliefs free from rational scrutiny and may choose whatever faith-views they want to. Both secularism and relativism have come about largely as a result of a misunderstanding of the faith-reason relationship. Faith and reason are usually defined in such a way as to mean that religious ideas have no connection with logic. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains the relationship between faith and reason in the following way:

Reason generally is understood as the principles for a methodological inquiry… Some kind of algorithmic demonstrability is ordinarily presupposed. Once demonstrated, a proposition or claim is ordinarily understood to be justified as true or authoritative. Faith, on the other hand, involves a stance toward some claim that is not…demonstrable by reason. Thus faith is a kind of attitude of trust or assent. [14]

The preceding definition portrays faith as a subjective attitude towards some belief one wishes to affirm.

Some secular skeptics have gone even further and defined faith-beliefs as superstitious notions that thrive only in the absence of reason or science. They see faith in terms of something one believes in that is either lacking in or entirely contrary to reason. These views of faith and reason are mistaken because all reason is ultimately based upon certain presuppositions within our worldview. Faith and reason are firmly connected.

See Faith And Facts

Every belief system is a faith system because its presuppositions are ultimately faith commitments. Secular beliefs have their own particular set of faith based presuppositions. Reason is not separated from faith; reason is based upon faith. 

If all reasoning is based upon certain basic assumptions about reality then faith and reason are always linked together. This is exactly the opposite of how most people see the relationship between them. They do not understand that faith actually precedes reason. Reason is not opposed to faith in itself. Faith is not something we “leap” [15] to after leaving reason behind. Faith is not a leap but rather a foundation.

Faith is present prior to our thinking about any subject. We all reason from the perspective of an established worldview. We begin with faith presuppositions and then use them to reason. Our faith assumptions are the foundation for all our reasoning. There is not one subject area where conclusions do not involve primary assumptions held by faith. The fact that we all view the world according to some set of assumptions about reality means that we all have a faith-view. Presuppositions are at the heart of every worldview regardless of whether that worldview is religious or secular.

Trying to say that logic does not apply to religious beliefs is also self-contradictory. To reason about faith in such a way as to argue that reason is not applied in matters of faith is disingenuous. All thoughts, including religious ones, rest upon certain presuppositions. These assumptions about reality should not only be identified, they should also be justified. Questioning our underlying assumptions about reality to see if they can account for the reality of the world in which we live is not unreasonable.

The U.S. Supreme Court has even recognized the faith element that lies at the heart of all belief systems, whether secular or religious. In 1961 the High Court wrote,

“Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief  in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” [16]

A few years later, in United States v. Seeger, the Court reassessed its approach to religious terminology by saying it would now “construe the words ‘Supreme Being’ to include the cosmos.” [17] “Thus, according to the justices in Seeger, religion includes atheism and agnosticism.” [18] For the Supreme Court to recognize the faith-based nature of all world views while simultaneously affirming the idea that public institutions must somehow remain free from “religious” influences is clearly a contradiction.

Presuppositions lie at the very foundation of reason. Reasoning necessarily presupposes certain laws of logic that govern right from wrong thinking. Such laws would have to be immaterial, universally binding, and unchanging. Some philosophers have tried to argue that there really are no “laws” of logic per se. Instead, they suggest logic is merely a descriptive term for a set of rules established by either language or social constructs. But this explanation hardly provides a foundation for what we call logic. For “without logical laws even simple everyday conversation would be impossible… even at the level of word usage, we already presuppose basic logical distinctions. That is, logic is necessary for language even to get off the ground.” [19] The confusion over faith’s proper relationship to reason has led many people to think that  religious beliefs should not be scrutinized. Attempting to judge another’s faith-beliefs, participate in religious debate, or engage in any type of evangelistic activity now often conveys a perception of bigotry or intolerance. While it certainly may be legitimate to criticize the manner in which some of these activities take place there should never be a question as to whether or not beliefs and ideas (especially religious ones) may be truth tested or debated.

When it comes to questions of personal faith-beliefs we need to understand that while we may enjoy the political freedom to hold irrational views we do not have an intellectual right to believe whatever we want. An analogy would be the belief in Santa Claus. Many of us once thought Santa Claus was real. It is acceptable for children to believe in Santa Claus. But if we continued to believe in Santa Claus as teenagers our parents would have been understandably concerned. As we grow older we are expected to correspond our beliefs with rational thinking. Yet when it comes to certain religious or secular beliefs this rule is often abandoned.

Many people tend to view their faith-beliefs as “sacred cows” that cannot be touched. The theory of Evolution is a prime example. Evolutionists have figured out that the best way to insulate this doctrine from scrutiny is to prevent a debate from ever beginning in the first place. Intellectual criticisms of evolution’s dogmas are vehemently  resisted on the grounds that “religious” views must not mix with “science.” Reasoned challenges to evolution are simply dismissed as Creationism (religious attacks) in disguise. Secular and religious views both have their own unique faith-beliefs. Darwinism believes that uncreated, random matter and energy interacted within an undirected and unsupervised process to create what now exists in the universe, including man. Materialistic atheism begins with the assumption that there is no God because only matter and energy can be known to exist. Orthodox Hinduism conceives that this physical world does not really exist because physical matter is only an illusion.

Everyone has a particular view of reality they believe is true. Belief systems posit truth-claims that are implied to be objective in nature because they offer an explanation for reality. Life is built upon the perception that objective truth exists with regard to this reality. Truth then cannot be dependent upon personal preferences. Relativism’s ultimate assumption that absolute truth does not exist is false because it is self-contradictory. Relativism asserts that there is no such thing as absolute truth even as it posits this belief to be absolutely true. For relativists to be consistent with their own position they would have to admit that the supposed truth of relativism itself is relative, which completely undermines it.

Since all world views contain beliefs that their adherents consider to be true, the important question then becomes, “How is it possible to know if these beliefs are true or not?” Christians maintain that one can have knowledge that the things written in the Bible are true. “The conflict between believers and unbelievers is ultimately over the differing world views – networks of pre-suppositions in terms of which experience is interpreted and reasoning is guided.” [20]

Faith-beliefs are at the heart of every worldview. Theistic and non-theistic world views alike compete for both attention and supremacy in the mind of every human being. The ideas contained in them produce consequences for both individuals and cultures. Because of this a proper understanding of how faith and reason interact is one of the most important concepts anyone can ever comprehend.
 

CHRISTIAN PRESUPPOSITIONS

I believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Sprit, born of the Virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hades; the third day He arose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. AMEN.

The Apostle’s Creed

The historic creeds of Christendom, especially the Apostle’s Creed, have long been used to express certain fundamental doctrines within the Christian faith. In one sense, any meaningful exposition of scripture is a type of creed. Creeds are seen “in the biblical record of apostolic Christianity itself... perhaps the most familiar of these rudimentary creeds is the recurrent one embedded in such texts as Acts 10:36; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; and Philippians 2:11 - Jesus is Lord.” [21] Statements of belief that resemble formal creeds are also seen in 1Corinthians 15:4 and 1 Timothy 3:16. [Also See The Problem With Creeds]

The creeds are examples of carefully constructed statements of faith meant to “define the content of belief.” [22] Creed comes from the Latin credo, meaning, “I believe.” “If anyone believes anything he has a creed. And since it is not possible for a person to live his life without believing something, then everyone has a creed.” [23]

At present, many of the largest ecclesiastical organizations once doctrinally conformed to the historic creedal affirmations no longer firmly hold to them. The question is why? Are today’s liberal theologians somehow wiser than the ancient Church fathers? An attempt to redefine historic Christianity took place in many churches during the 19^th and 20^th centuries. But efforts to replace or confuse Christian doctrines with non-biblical teachings are not just part of the recent past, they are recorded all through Church history.

The Christian Church was established upon the firm presupposition that God revealed Himself to man in history and that this revelation was recorded in the divinely  inspired writings of the Bible. If this is true then “Christian” beliefs cannot just be concocted out of thin air. If God has spoken truthfully and with authority, as claimed by the writers of Christian scripture, then how would it be possible to justify truth-claims that contradict the scripture? The Bible clearly teaches God as the highest authority, and depicts His Word as being self-attesting.

Those who claim to be Christians should presuppose the whole Bible is God’s Word upon its own authority. There can be no competing sources of authority from which professing Christians can legitimately draw their conceptions of God, man, or the cosmos. [See Section A Remarkable Book]

Only a Biblically based Christian theology can serve as an authoritative foundation for Christian beliefs because it is upon the authority of the Christian scripture as God’s Word that the church was founded. [24] The Church’s orthodox beliefs are rooted in the Bible’s many distinctive truth-claims. In biblical Christianity God is not a thing, power, or influence. God is not some kind of impersonal force or mind. The God of the Bible is a personal being, meaning that He is self-conscious, intelligent, and possesses self-determination. (Ex 3:14, 20:2; Jn 14:9)

Historic Christianity has taught that there is one God. This oneness refers to His unity. His “divine nature is undivided and indivisible.” [25] (Deut 4: 35-39, 6:4; 1 Ki 8:60; Jn 17:3) Yet this unity does not mean “singleness. The unity of God allows for the existence of three personal distinctions in the divine nature, while at the same time recognizing that the divine nature is numerically and eternally one.” [26] The three personal distinctions are consubstantial, co-dependent and co-eternal persons. God is Triune. (Gen 1:26; 3:22; Matt 3:16; 2 Cor 13:14) [Also See The Trinity]

The Bible reveals that God is absolute. This means, “He is sufficient unto Himself.” [27] God is not “dependent upon anything outside of his being.” [28] (Ex 3:14; Jn 5:26) God is the sovereign and Supreme Being. There is no higher or more authoritative being. (Ps 103:19) He is all powerful, meaning that He can do anything that does not contradict His divine nature. (Gen 18:14; Job 42:2; Matt 19:26) God owns everything in the universe (Gen 14:19; 1Chr 29:11), including all people. (Ps 24:1)

God is all-knowing. He knows everything intuitively and He cannot add to his knowledge because all facts in creation are what they are because of Him. (Ps 136:5; Ps 147:4-5; Prov 3:19-20; Heb 4:13) God is eternal. He is without beginning and without end. He has always existed. (Deut 33:27; Job 36:26; Ps 93:2) He does not change. (Mal 3:6) God is free from sin and moral imperfection. He is holy. (Isa 6:3-5) God is the creator. He created the material universe and everything in it. He created it ex nihlo (out if nothing) and ex materia (without using any pre-existing materials). The Bible does not explain how God did this, only that He did do it. (Gen 1:1; Ex 20:11; Neh 9:6; Heb 11:3) God is not anything in the creation nor is anything in the creation God. God’s essence is not physical. The creation itself is not God. He is distinct from His creation. His essence is incorporeal and immaterial. He does not have a physical body. God is Spirit. (Jn 4:24)

God is omnipresent, meaning that he is not subject to the limitations of space. “God is neither included in space  nor absent from it. God is above all space and yet present in every part of it. (1 Ki 8:27; Acts 17:27)” [29] Christian scripture reveals that God is transcendent. This does not mean that God is far away in a spatial sense, but rather that He is not bound or restrained by the created order in any way. In other words, God transcends creation. He is Lord over it. Because of this transcendence God can invade His creation at will. Scripture also portrays God’s immanence when it depicts Him as being near and intimately involved with His creation. (Ps 139:3-11; Jer 23:23-24)

God upholds and sustains all things by the word of His power. (Heb 1:3) Nothing in creation operates upon its own independent power or ability. God providentially controls all things. There is no such thing as Fate, Chance, Fortune, Luck, Mother Nature or Natural Law (impersonal laws of nature) - there is only the Providence of God. The order and arrangement of the universe are subject to and governed by His eternal decree.

All of reality reflects God’s divine will and sovereign purposes. This would include “that work of God by which He cooperates with all His creatures and causes them to act precisely as they do. It implies that there are real secondary causes in the world, such as the powers of nature and the will of man, and asserts that these do not work independently of God.” [30] (Deut 8:18; 1Sam 2:6-8; Ps 104:20-30; Isa 46:4-10; Amos 3:6; Matt 5:45, 10:29; Acts 14:17; Ephesians 1:11; Phil 2:13; Col 1:16- 17) Man is revealed to be a finite creature. Man has been created. God created man in His image, meaning that certain godly attributes were communicated to man within the limitations of his finite creaturehood. God’s relationship to the creation is determined by His being. God did not communicate all of His attributes to man. Man is not God.

Man was created as a spiritual, personal, moral, and rational being. Man’s being and knowledge are completely derived from and dependent upon God who is his source. (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7, 5:1; 1Corinthians 15:47-49; Col 3:10; James 3:9) By virtue of his being created in the image of God, man is an ethical creature. But ethical judgments were not to be made apart from the revelation given him by His Creator. “Man was to gather up in his consciousness all the meaning that God had deposited in the universe and be the reflector of it all. The revelation of God was deposited in the whole creation, but it was in the mind of man alone that this revelation was to come to self-conscious reinterpretation. Man was to be God’s re-interpreter, that is, God’s prophet on earth.” [31]

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” (Matt 4:3) It is not within the scope of man’s creaturehood to construct ethical standards himself. Yet this is exactly what man did as Adam and Eve in the fall – and continues to do. God’s prohibition to man not to partake of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in the garden was not a directive against man seeking knowledge per se, it was a prohibition against man autonomously deciding for himself the difference between good and evil. “This, then, is the essence of sin; man’s rebellion against recognizing his dependence on God in everything and the assumption of his ability to be independent of God.” [32] [See Section on Sin]

Man’s autonomy means that as a creature he wants to rule himself apart from God’s sovereign authority. This same attitude is manifested whenever anyone thinks or acts in accordance with what is “right in his own eyes.” (Judg 17:6) The Bible refers to this as sin or lawlessness. (1Jn 3:4) In his fallen state man does not want God to rule over him. He wants to be a law unto himself. Man’s sin severed his fellowship with God. This caused man to “die” spiritually, (the word “die” here implies separation, not cessation) and later physically. (Gen 2:17, 3:19) While some world views see man as basically good, the Bible portrays  man as sinful. This means “Man is by nature totally depraved. This does not mean that every man is as bad as he can be, but that sin has corrupted every part of his nature and rendered him unable to do any spiritual good.

He may still do many praiseworthy things in relation to his fellow-beings, but even his best works are radically defective, because they are not prompted by love to God nor done in obedience to God.” [33] Thus, man himself cannot remedy the sinful condition. “Your virtues can never cancel your vices.” [34] Man cannot save himself. (Jer 17:9; Jn 5:42; 6:44; Romans 7:18, 23-24; 1Cor 2:14; Eph 2:1-3; 2Tim 3:2-4; Heb 11:6)

God, in His mercy, provides a remedy for the sinful condition through Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross. [See Meaning of the Cross]

This is the central theme of the Bible. It is the story about God’s redemption of fallen man by pardoning man’s sin in Christ. (Romans 5:19; Romans 8:30; Heb 9:14; Eph 1:10-11) In essence, the guiltless party pays the price for the guilty party. This is recognized as a beautiful story of God’s love and mercy by Christians but to those who reject the Bible’s gospel message it is a story of foolishness. (1 Cor 1:18) [See Salvation]

The New Testament emphasizes Christ’s atoning work, where he “fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given unto Him.” [35] When a believer confesses Christ as “Lord” (Romans 10:9) they find forgiveness for their sins, including their autonomous reasoning against God. (Mk 10:45; Jn 1:29; 1Pet 2:24; 1Jn 2:2)

Given the corruption of man’s nature it is easy for  the believer to see why the Bible’s revelation of both God and man offends people. Scripture’s emphasis upon the reality of sin and its consequences are truths that challenge the autonomy everyone seeks to exercise in their life. But since human beings were made in the image of God, the Bible says each of us intuitively know these truths but suppress them in our inner consciousness. (Romans 1:18) Because man is finite, his mind cannot be regarded as either the beginning or final reference point for truth. In contrast to autonomous thinking, the Christian is admonished to have the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16), and set aside “all thoughts that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God.” (2 Cor 10:5) Instead of entertaining notions about God, humanity or the cosmos that contradict the Bible, all men are called to presuppose God’s Word as the foundational “rock” of truth for understanding all things. (Matt 7:24-25) All knowledge, truth and wisdom are found in Christ. (1 Cor 1:24,30)

If this biblical picture of reality is true then all opposing views are false. (Deut 4:39) For example, monistic views, which teach that reality consists of one great universal whole without distinctions, are mistaken. Pantheistic views that essentially teach “god is all and all is god” cannot possibly be correct. Polytheistic views portraying the existence of many gods are wrong. Deists who believe that some type of god created the universe only to step back from it and set natural laws in motion to control and sustain it are in error. (Jer 10:10) Professing agnostics who claim that God cannot really be known to exist are inaccurate.

Atheists who insist that God does not exist are incorrect. (Ps 14:1) This is not being mean spirited. It is simply logical to state that multitudinous views espousing opposite truth claims cannot all be true.

Those who hold non-Christian views will reject the Bible’s truth-claims. This is because they are presupposing another metaphysical view of reality. Philosophical neutrality does not exist. Everyone favors one particular view of reality over another. Although most people may never self consciously identify or categorize their metaphysical views they still have them nonetheless. And they will use them as a standard to judge the truth-claims recorded in the Bible.
 

PSEUDO-CHRISTIANITY

There is a tremendous amount of controversy among academics over how much of the archeological evidence actually reflects the Bible’s accuracy  as an historical source. A few scholars would say that, “Archeology has not produced anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible.” [36] Others would likely side with another scholar who said, “We find a great deal in the Bible, it’s just that we don’t find the Bible to be a historical record.” [37] [See Section on Archaeology]

Still others would position themselves somewhere in the middle.

How is it possible for such highly educated people to arrive at such different conclusions regarding the Bible’s historical record? Perhaps their archeological data isn’t the same, but what is almost certain is that each one is interpreting the evidence differently. Debates over how the Bible’s truth-claims should be approached basically come down to one essential difference between orthodox Christianity and modern Christian liberalism. Liberal interpreters are unwilling to presuppose that God has authoritatively and infallibly revealed Himself through the various types of genre recorded in the Bible as the scripture itself declares.

[Also See How to Talk to a Theological Liberal (If You Must ]
 

The modern branch of biblical scholarship known as Higher Criticism, for example, rejects the idea of studying the Bible according to the claims of its writers. Historically, most biblical scholars had believed that “hermeneutics must always adapt itself to the class of literature to which it is applied.” [38] But these liberal theologians present the Bible “as a disjointed collection of misleading documents, deliberately revised and rewritten by ‘redactors’ and editors years or even centuries later than the texts initially appear to have been written.” [39] [See Academia’s Asinine Assault on the Bible]

Higher critics “interpret the Bible from within the presuppositions of the contemporary scientific worldview. Such a worldview assumes that all historical events are capable of being explained by other known historical events. In other words, what we call the supernatural is not the immediate activity of the living God; for it belongs to the area of legend and myth and not to the area of historical reality.” [40] Their worldview leads them to an anti-orthodox bias before they study biblical texts. This “modern attitude can be attributed to a predisposed denial of revelation and supernaturalism, or to personal dislike for many of the concepts of Scripture.”[41]

Many individuals often accept the notion that the Bible may contain some truths or facts from  history but they will not accept all of the Bible’s claims based upon its own authority. “The authority of scripture comes from God Himself – it is a self-attesting authority”. [42] From an interpreter’s perspective there is no higher authority to which the Bible appeals in order to validate its claims. “The Bible, skeptics insist, is at best a human book about God, and, as such, may be criticized like other human books. The evangelical too, believes that the Bible is a human book, but that it is also, and more fundamentally, a divine book and is to be so treated. The two approaches therefore end up poles apart.” [43]

Those who penned the books of the Bible presented their works as both divinely inspired and true accounts of God and His dealings with man. This includes the supra-natural events described within biblical literature. Bible-believers assume that while God chose to involve man in the process, there was “special divine influence on the minds of the writers of the Bible, in virtue of which their productions, apart from errors in transcription, and when rightly interpreted, together constitute an infallible rule of faith and practice.” [44] This belief is at the heart of Christianity’s affirmation that the sixty-six books of the Bible are the Word of God.

The Bible appeals to no authority other than itself and claims to be the very Word of God. Either it is or it is not. If it is then it must be taken on its own authority and accepted as God’s revelation to man. The Apostles claimed that all scripture is completely inspired of God, (2 Tim 3:16) authoritative, (Matt 5:17-19) and true in what it records. (1Thess 2:13) This includes its entire picture of reality, including propositions about God, man and the cosmos. Christian scholarship has produced large amounts of historical, scientific and archeological data over the years that show much of the biblical record may be corroborated with extra-biblical sources of information. Such scholarship is perfectly legitimate. But the people, places and events recorded in the Bible cannot be separated from its underlying metaphysical view of reality. “For every critic – the liberal just as much as the evangelical – establishing limits is a matter of faith, either in one’s own internal competence, or in another’s (Christ’s) external authority.” [45] It is impossible to use isolated or independent facts to conclude the Bible is what it claims to be.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone who claims to be a Christian. If special revelation was communicated to man by God then it is reasonable to assume there might be things within it that may not appear to be logical (to man’s finite reason), scientific (given man’s limited understanding of the natural world), or historically verifiable (due to man’s incomplete knowledge of the past). It would also mean that whatever might appear to be contradictions in the Bible must be just that - apparent but not actual. Scripture contends that God does not contradict himself. (2 Cor 1:18) In the Christian view, all apparent discrepancies could, in fact, be resolved if finite man could gather enough information regarding the details in question. However, the metaphysical limitations of man’s finite being prevent this possibility.

As a finite creature it is impossible for man to gather the comprehensive knowledge that would be necessary in order to accept some of what the Bible teaches about God while rejecting other truths set forth in that same Bible. Man’s reason is finite and therefore limited. Finite creatures cannot know universal truths apart from a source of universal knowledge. Contriving so-called “Christian” doctrines with personally pre-conceived or supplemented ideas about the God of Christianity is theologically illegitimate. Such ideas are the basis for heterodox Christian truth-claims. Yet how can such claims be asserted by professing Christians in light of the Bible’s claims of divine inspiration and inerrancy? If God has in fact spoken to man in the Bible then what has been revealed must be taken on its own authority without adding to it or subtracting from it. (Rev 22:18-19)

Theologians and philosophers of Christian liberalism have ended up creating their own interpretive obstacles by their abandonment of historic Christianity in favor of manmade pseudo-Christianity.

“What higher critics want us to believe in is the world according to Immanuel Kant, a dialectical realm composed of two utterly separate worlds: the phenomenal world of historical facts – meaningless historical facts apart from man’s interpretations of them – and the trans-historical noumenal world of human meaning utterly timeless, non-cognitive meaning – that is completely distinct from the phenomenal world of cause and effect”. [46]

Liberal scholars have tried to “demythologize” [47] many of the Bible’s claims only to later “adopt the language of praise, telling readers that, while mythical, the Bible is nevertheless a majestic document that deserves an important place in the varied and complex history of man’s religions.

In short, as hoaxes go, the Bible is a good one, as good or better than all the other hoaxes in man’s religious history.” [48] If this liberal view of scripture were correct then non-Christians would be fully justified to ask whether or not the Bible really has any type of divine inspiration or meaning to it at all. [See Academia’s Asinine Assault on the Bible]

It is nonsense to argue that the Bible is spiritually relevant to man while simultaneously professing that it contains many factual errors whenever any of its details touch history or science. If human beings simply conjured up Christianity’s origin then it is really nothing more than an existential leap of faith. Honesty would demand of Christians to admit they are embracing an unverifiable hope that is disconnected from the reality of the natural world. The difference between Christian orthodoxy and liberalism is perhaps best demonstrated in how each group approaches the book of Genesis. Evangelicals view this book as an historical record of literal events. Modern liberals present it as either a collection of allegorical stories mixed with some verifiable ancient history or as a largely mythological tale. This reflects the liberals’ “widespread tendency …to treat historiography as another genre of fiction.” [49]

The problem with this, of course, is that to read Genesis as anything other than literal time-space history completely calls into question whether or not any Christian scripture contains truth.  It is impossible to take any parts of the Bible seriously, including the New Testament, if the historical accounts in the Old Testament are not true. “It is safe to say that in no recorded utterance of Jesus and in no written or spoken statement of his apostles is there any suggestion of scientific or historical inaccuracy in any Old Testament record.” [50] Christianity itself stands upon what is written in the Old Testament. “Christ himself believed in the infallibility of scripture, and, if he was wrong in that belief, by what means can we know he was right in any other?” [51] [See Evidence For a Young World]

If the historicity and verity of Genesis cannot be relied upon then many New Testament passages, such as the following ones are not just brought into question, they become completely unintelligible. Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection are presented by the Apostle Paul as the remedy for the problem of a human sinful condition originating in the person of Adam. (Rom 5:14; 1Cor 15:22,45)

The serpent’s deception of Eve in the garden is referenced as an example of the same kind of spiritual warfare faced by all believers. (2 Cor 11:3) The institution of marriage has its beginnings in the historical relationship of Adam and Eve, (1Tim 2:13-14) which also serves as a type of Christ’s relationship to His church. (Ephes 5:23) Jesus was born a human being with traceable Jewish genealogical lineage extending back to  Adam. (Luke 3:23-38) Cain and Abel are Adam’s literal offspring, with Cain depicted as killing his brother Abel. (Matt 23:35; Luke 11:51; Heb 11:4; Jude 11) The faith of Noah is set apart by his obedience to God in preparing an ark to save his family from a literal flood. (Heb 11:7; 1Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5)

The destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are cited as factual examples of God’s wrath against sin. (Jude 7; Matt 11:23 –24; Luke 17:29; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12; 2Pet 2:6) Enoch is recorded to be a prophet in the seventh generation from Adam. (Jude 14)   Christians are identified as heirs of Abraham’s covenant with God because believers in Christ are considered to be Abraham’s spiritual offspring. (Romans 9; Gal 3:29)

If these events did not actually happen as they are recorded in Genesis then readers are left with many unanswerable questions. If man’s fall into sin through the person of Adam is not an historical event then does sin really exist? If so, then how did it enter the human race? Did Jesus himself know that many of the stories in Genesis were only allegorical or mythological? Was the Apostle Paul mistaken (or deceptive) by proclaiming that Jesus Christ personally appeared to him and revealed that he was God who came in the flesh to remedy Adam’s sin? Why does Paul refer to Christ as the second Adam? Was the resurrection of Christ a literal time-space event as the apostles claimed? If not, then what significance could it possibly have with the real world?

The continuity of the Bible’s message depends upon the collective context of all scriptural writings. A plenary approach to biblical scripture is required to arrive at any logical interpretation at all because scripture constantly references the truth-claims in other portions of scripture.

One cannot take the parts of the Bible they like and discard what does not personally appeal to them. The Bible is not a summary of eclectic spiritual thoughts. Christianity is not a smorgasbord type of belief system where individuals can take “a little of this or a little of that”. The Bible must be taken as a whole. It’s all or nothing. Disregarding certain portions of scripture in favor of others cannot be done unless the Bible is not what it claims to be – the revealed Word of God. [Also See Esotericism and Biblical Interpretation]

Christian liberalism also seems to ignore the fact that  moral claims need to be based upon some kind of authority. The Bible’s moral claims are based upon the historical contention that God actually spoke to man. The Ten Commandments are based upon the authority from which they are derived. If they were merely conjured up by man then they really are not universally binding moral principles. They are just one set of opinions among many. Thinking skeptics will gladly point this out. It is amazing how many so-called “scholars” will lecture about the meaningfulness of scripture after they have worked so hard to deconstruct its language in an effort to “debunk” its historical claims. But this kind of approach does not hold objective truth for anyone – especially liberals. Liberals want us to believe that the Bible’s own historical framework, grammar and syntax cannot be trusted to convey objective meaning yet liberals are somehow able to know the  real meaning behind the words using their own finite human reason.

If the Bible is what it claims to be then man must conform his views to those of God, his Creator. We are instructed to think God’s thoughts after Him. (Isa 55:9) This requires a presuppositional approach to scripture. Believers must begin their reasoning with the truths revealed in the Bible because they take it on its own authority to be God’s Word.

The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. And it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or indirectly. It tells us not only of Christ and his work but it also tells us who God is and whence the universe has come. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the Word of God that you can separate its so-called religious and moral instruction from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe. [52]

Jesus is portrayed in many unbiblical ways today. These portrayals of him convey a skewered picture of who Jesus really was. The liberals’ rejection of the doctrines of divine inspiration and biblical inerrancy opens the door for them to try and remake the Christology reflected within Christendom’s ancient creeds. But re-defining the person of Christ apart from what the scriptures actually teach about Him is nothing more than positing metaphysical Christian truth absent of any legitimate authority. Many liberals have simply fabricated the kind of Jesus they want to believe in. This construction of new biblical doctrine, especially within once mainline denominations, is nothing less than old-fashioned heresy. [See Section on Jesus]

The Bible itself records that there were false teachings about Christ being spread during Christianity’s early days in the ancient world. The apostles dealt squarely with these false doctrines in their epistles to the church. They used both the Old Testament and their eyewitness testimonies as God’s spokesman to authoritatively establish doctrinal truth. The apostle Paul warned Galatian believers about those who came proclaiming a gospel of Christ different from the one he had preached to them. (Gal 1:6-9) There was only one genuine gospel of Jesus Christ, not many. The Bible is an Eastern book recorded against the background of ancient history. Because of this we can understand why its readers often have sincere questions regarding the meaning of particular passages. But it is one thing for someone to question the meaning of scriptures that are revealing truth and another thing entirely to look for meaning in the Bible even though many things it records are not true.

A Christianity where God has not revealed both Himself and His inerrant truth to man via the special revelation of scripture can be neither rationally defined nor defended. The design-your-own-god-and-lifestyle type of Christianity popular among many today does not have any basis in the scriptures. It may emphasize “good works” (however one chooses to define “good”) or encourage benevolent activities, but it is not biblical Christianity, and it should not be referred to as “Christian”.
 

KNOWING BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE

The evidence required to prove something exists must correspond to its nature. For example, the evidence offered as proof for the existence of gravity is not the same kind that is used to prove a mathematical theory. In the same way, proof for God’s existence corresponds to what the Bible reveals about the nature of His Being. Since the Bible reveals that God is not a part of the physical universe then He cannot be seen with the physical eye nor can his existence be verified through scientific investigation. Those holding a materialistic view of the universe will object to this, of course, because they presuppose that reality is composed essentially of matter and energy. Thus materialism in and of itself amounts to an a priori [53] rejection of the God of the Bible.

Since non-Christian world views contain presuppositions that differ from those in the Christian worldview, the disagreements about whether or not Christianity is true involve much more than dispute over certain facts. Questions involving God’s existence as well as what kind of God He is will always involve a worldview conflict between the Christian and non-Christian. Can such a dispute be resolved to any satisfactory conclusion? The answer is yes.

The history of philosophy represents man’s efforts to explain the most significant questions in life by beginning with his own finite mind as a reference point for truth. The Greek philosopher Protagoras expressed this method of defining absolutes using autonomous human reason by saying that, “man is the measure of all things.” “For most modern people, the conscious or unconscious starting point is their own existence and their own reason… People thus start from themselves, and assume that only their own human reason can decide whether something is true.” [54] This approach to finding truth is inadequate because man is not big enough to do the measuring. From the beginning, man has forgotten that he is finite, limited, and weak. Pride prompts in us, as it did Adam and Eve, the desire to be like God, to function as God.

Pride also leads us to imagine that we have enough strength and wisdom actually to play the divine role, controlling all around us with perfect mastery and glorying in the thought that there is nothing we cannot do. [55]

Since man naturally assumes his autonomous human reason “to be the final reference point in predication” [56] he is faced with an ever-present philosophical dilemma. It is simply taken for granted that “man, beginning totally independently and autonomously, can build a bridge towards ultimate truth – as if attempting to build a cantilever bridge out from himself across an infinite gorge. This is not possible, because man is finite and, as such, he has nothing toward which he can point with certainty. He has no way, beginning from himself, to set up sufficient universals.” [57] Because man is an individual, finite, and limited creature, certainty of knowledge using this approach would require a person to know everything before they could truly know anything. But infinite knowledge is not possible for finite beings. It is impossible, epistemologically speaking, for man to use himself as a reference point for truth. Man’s limited mind cannot be used as an ultimate standard.

Recognizing that “man cannot generate final answers from himself” [58] should help one to comprehend that this knowledge problem is solved if absolute truth has come to mankind from God. The Bible comes to man as just such a revelation of truth from the infinite God to His finite creature, presenting its truth-claims from within this context.

Christians believe that God has spoken truthfully, although not exhaustively, in scripture. They take the Bible at face value with respect to what it teaches about God’s work in the universe and His historical dealings with man. It must be acknowledged that human knowledge is always relative to the knower, and is always based on that human being’s experience and presuppositions, but (there is an important distinction between knowing an absolute truth and knowing a truth absolutely). Humans can know an absolute, transcendent truth if that truth is known by an absolute Person whose knowledge does not depend on experience and if that absolute Person shares His knowledge with humans. It is a conviction, indeed a basic assumption, of the biblical writers that such a Person indeed is there and that He has communicated truth in Scripture. Scripture writers assume God is there and that He has spoken. Thus we may know absolute truth, albeit not absolutely; we may know it truly, even though only partially and imperfectly. The atheist or agnostic may cry “presupposition” at us, but we may point out that they are presupposing that God has not spoken. [59]

In a Christian worldview the exercise of human reason in pursuit of knowledge first assumes that man’s logic is a reflection of the mind of God. As a creature created in God’s image, man was also endowed with the ability to reason logically. This ability, although finite, points back to man’s Creator. Logic did not originate within an abstract mind floating around somewhere in the universe. God is the source of all reasoning and in order for man to reason properly his finite logic must rely upon God’s infallible revelation as an ultimate reference point for truth.

The Christian… affirms the validity of human reason, but maintains that it can only have a proper ground if we acknowledge first that God the Creator exists, that He has communicated with humanity, and that He constituted our “reason” as an effective tool  for comprehension of language and all else in the created world. This Christian starting point is not a groundless assumption.

According to Romans 1:19-21, all human beings are constituted such that they know the essential attributes of God, because the creation screams at them that it, and they themselves, have been made by God. [60]

Genesis tells us that even in the Garden of Eden God talked with man and gave him revelation through His spoken Word prior to the fall. (Gen 2:16-17) In the  Christian view “all the thinker’s in the world will never conceive independently the secrets of life, origins, and destiny… they only come by revelation.” [61] At the very heart of a Christian’s profession of faith is a renouncement of the intellectual autonomy that was at the center of man’s fall into sin. The change of mind whereby a Christian renounces his intellectual self-sufficiency in favor of presupposing truths found in scripture is known as repentance. Man’s sin during the Fall was illustrated in his putting God’s Word to the test. As a finite creature man is forbidden to test God’s Word. (Luke 4:12) Instead God calls man to believe Him. Man is to take God at His Word and not reason against it.

What most people want to do is judge the Bible according to their finite reason. They want the Bible to appeal to their own “logic.” An example of this is when skeptics demand to fully know how the existence of a supposedly good God comports with the existence of evil. Others refuse to accept eternal justice allowing for the existence of an eternal hell. But what these self-appointed “judges” of scripture neglect to confront themselves with are questions of ultimacy such as, “What type of reality must exist in order for logic, evil, or justice to exist in the first place?”

The Bible connects man’s ability to obtain true knowledge with the reality of God’s existence. (Prov 1:7,

9:10) Scripture references knowledge with respect to God because it teaches that God’s Being is a prerequisite for man’s ability to reason and achieve knowledge. “God’s understanding of Himself and the creation is independent  but man’s knowledge is dependent. The Psalmist put it this way: In thy light we see light (Ps. 36:9)…Men do actually think, yet, true knowledge is dependent on and derived from God’s knowledge as it has been revealed to man.” [62] God’s Word is presented as the “light” that opens up our understanding. This light is the necessary prerequisite no matter what area of life we are attempting to discover or understand.

The Bible never separates so-called “spiritual” truths from “secular” ones. On the contrary, the Apostle Paul emphasized that “all wisdom and knowledge” is contained in the revelation of Christ, who is God in the flesh. (Col 2:3) The Bible contends that “all wisdom and knowledge is deposited in the person of Christ - whether it be about the  war of 1812, water’s chemical composition, the literature of Shakespeare, or the laws of logic. Every academic pursuit and every thought must be related to Jesus Christ, for Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. (Jn 14:6)”63 How is this so? The many world views found in this earth reflect very diverse conceptions of  reality. “Presuppositions form the basis of the ‘interpretive framework’ by which we understand things.” [64] Each belief system portrays ideas about God, man and the world in very different ways. Every belief system shows so-called facts in a different “light” of understanding than another one does. Facts are not viewed the same by those who hold differing world views. Our worldview not only provides us with a picture of what is real, it also dictates how we think we know that it is real. To put it another way, our epistemology (how we think we know what we know) is directly tied to our metaphysic (what we conceive to be real).

Scripture teaches that in order to obtain knowledge about man, science, ethics, the cosmos or to interpret any aspect of human experience the truths God has revealed to man in both creation and scripture must be presupposed. The Christian presuppositions discussed in chapter four are not merely abstract theological beliefs. The Bible teaches they are collectively essential to man’s interpretation of reality. In principle, they are required assumptions that must be relied upon if one is to have any type of knowledge at all. Biblical truths must be presupposed because they alone provide “the preconditions of intelligibility for man’s reasoning, experience and dignity.” [65] Christianity is proven true by the “impossibility of the contrary.” [66] Only a Christian worldview rooted in the Bible, taken as God’s Word, provides a sure basis for knowing (epistemology). Christianity demands our intellectual commitment because only the biblical worldview can account for true knowledge.

In the course of religious discussion between Christians and non-Christians both sides should be put into the position of justifying their beliefs. To reason against Christianity one must do more than simply deny it. Adherents of other belief systems must also justify their own faith-based presuppositions about reality. This is the heart of the matter. Christians can justifiably claim that absolute certain proof of Christianity is possible because only the Christian belief system offers the foundational premises necessary for rational thought and discourse. According to scripture all people have a genuine knowledge of God that comes from His self-revelation in creation. (Rom 1: 18-21; Acts 17:27-28) Although most people may deny having this knowledge, scripture teaches that man not only has it, but also seeks to suppress it. As God’s image bearer, man cannot logically reflect upon himself, the human condition or any fact without revealing that he does in fact possess such knowledge. Those who do not hold to a biblical view of reality must inevitably “borrow” from the biblical worldview even though they reject biblical theology. “Those who do not know God only ‘know’ on borrowed capital; they really do know things, but only because they are made in God’s image. They have no justification for their knowledge.” [67] While they deny the Christian metaphysic in principal they operate upon it in the real world out of necessity.     

Though man works to suppress his knowledge of God with other worldviews only the Christian worldview provides human beings with a basis for realities such as the laws of logic, dignity of man, regularities of nature and ethical absolutes. These things do not independently exist apart from any meaningful cause. Their existence is contingent upon the existence of the God of the Bible and His sovereign arrangement of the universe as revealed in scripture. Non-Christian worldviews cannot account for the human freedom, science, morality or tools of reason exercised in productive life and meaningful human experience. The Bible makes its own case by providing the only possible unifying principle for all areas of knowledge – the Triune God Himself.

…therefore the claim must be made that Christianity alone is reasonable for men to hold. And it is utterly reasonable. It is wholly irrational to hold to any other position than that of Christianity. Christianity alone does not crucify reason itself. Without it reason would operate in a total vacuum… with Augustine it must be maintained that God’s revelation is the sun from which all other light derives. The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself. [68] Knowledge of science, ethics and man is rooted in a Christian view of reality. Non-Christian views, however, will “oppose themselves.” (2 Tim 2:25) Their fundamental beliefs will fail to properly integrate with one other. Their systems will be either inherently contradictory or their presuppositions will fail to account for man’s knowledge and experience. By relying upon the Bible’s truth-claims as a necessary foundation for epistemology Christians may demonstrate that non-Christian systems are proven false at their foundational level. The metaphysical reality revealed in the Bible must be held as true because only such a reality can account for man truly “knowing” anything at all.
 

FAITH WITH REASON

DO CHRISTIANS REASON IN A CIRCLE?

Skeptics often accuse Christians of adopting the Bible’s faith-view so they can escape from the “fact” that man is on his own in a random, chance universe. They see Christianity as a pie-in-the-sky outlook often embraced by those who are not bold enough to shape their own lives and world into something better. Could it be there is even something about the human condition, perhaps the fear of death, which motivates certain people into wanting Christianity to be true?

What must be pointed out is that such thinking can be applied to the skeptic as easily as the Christian. Isn’t it equally valid for the believer to ask why someone may not want Christianity to be true? Changing world views involves changing the way we look at every aspect of life and reality. How much personal pride or selfish desire may be intermingled within a life-view we may have spent years constructing for ourselves? For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom… I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know.

It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. [69] In the preceding quote, atheist Aldous Huxley admitted that non-Christians might have certain underlying motives for embracing their particular worldview. Everyone should acknowledge that subjective preferences, emotions or personal biases are not valid reasons for determining whether or not something is true. Most people have certain beliefs they hold to very sincerely. But sincerity does not replace the need for one’s faith to correspond with facts and reason. It is possible to be sincerely wrong about what we believe. World views need to be truth-tested. Yet this immediately raises a question. What is the proper standard we must use in order to truth-test world views?

Once again, we are faced with the undeniable fact that our worldview is rooted in faith. Each one of us assumes the ultimate metaphysical yardstick by which we measure any claims made about reality. Both the Christian and Non- Christian have their presuppositions. Every person’s worldview is built upon some set of non-negotiable assumptions. There are no neutral presuppositions. The criterion we use to judge whether or not another view is true is contained within our present worldview. Those who hold non-Christian presuppositions will embrace an authority other than the Bible by faith.

Many people insist that there is a logical problem with Christian believers operating upon the basic assumptions that God does in fact exist and that the Bible is His authoritative Word. After all they ask, do not these assumptions beg the very questions under consideration?

Do Christians reason in a circle if they assume Christianity is true in order to prove Christianity is true?

There is no question that Christianity does, in fact, presuppose God’s existence as described within the Bible to try and make a case for the truth-claims found within those very same scriptures. But one must not forget that this is true of all other world views as well. It is no more illegitimate for the Christian to presuppose God’s existence than it is for the non-Christian to assume his non-existence.

Everyone accepts certain starting points in their thinking. Our presuppositions establish the boundaries of what we consider to be possible. They set the limits of what we will accept as evidence for proof or reject as non evidence.

Christians presuppose biblical truth as the ultimate standard by which they test other views. This is simply being consistent with the Christian belief system, since the Bible claims to be the authoritative Word of God.

Man is not permitted to test God’s Word with his finite reasoning. (Deut. 6:16) Since God’s Word is ultimate authority then scripture can only be tested with other scripture. Obedience to scripture’s mandate requires Christians to exercise faithfulness in their reasoning. We must assume that God exists as revealed in the Bible, and then measure its claims against its own authority.

This circumstance is not unique to Christianity.

Everyone claims to know whether something is true or not by measuring it against some kind of assumed standard within their existing belief system. For example, empiricists believe that knowledge is derived from experience, whether of the physical senses or mind. This is why the empiricist will accept scientific investigation as a valid method to prove that something is real. Rationalists, on the other hand, assume that human reason alone serves as the ultimate standard for knowledge. The rationalist will point to knowledge of logic, mathematics, and ethics to show that knowledge can be obtained apart from experience. In each case the individual’s worldview determines the standard used to truth-test other views. Everyone is in the position of assuming an ultimate standard in order to prove that self-same standard.

Ultimate standards are self-attesting. Ultimate standards for truth must be permitted to stand (or fall) on their own. There is no logical problem with Christians accepting the authority of the Bible upon its own testimony as God’s Word. If the Bible is God’s very own Word then His Word would be the ultimate standard for truth and there could not possibly be any other authority used to test it.

Lesser authorities cannot be used to test greater authorities. Whether one’s theory of knowledge is grounded in demonstrative reasoning, common sense, or something else, this, and not scripture becomes the ultimate authority of the one who adheres to it. It becomes more sure than the sure Word of God. The scripture teaches us that scripture itself is to be our authority (2 Pet 1:19,21; 2 Tim 3:16,17; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess 2:13). If scripture is the final authority, and if one proves the authority of scripture on the basis of something else other than scripture, then one proves the scripture is not the final authority. In other words, to prove the authority of scripture on something other than scripture is to disprove scripture. [70]

If it is wrong for Christians to presuppose what the Bible claims to be then it is just as wrong for those who hold contrary views to arbitrarily adopt standards they assume are self-validating. World views are not neutral and everyone