This six part apologetics series by Craig Biehl takes a look at how presuppositions affect one's thinking. It is adapted from Craig’s book, The Box: Answering the Faith of Unbelief (Amazon).
“The floodwaters of secular thought and liberal theology overwhelmed the Church because the leaders did not understand the importance of combating a false set of presuppositions.” —Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There
Faithful Christians face opposition from some of the greatest minds in history, from experts in their field of study with advanced degrees to clever armchair pundits. For the average believer trained in Sunday school it can be a bit intimidating. Moreover, how does the busy Christian begin to grasp the abundance and variety of arguments for and against Christianity? And while God needs no help (His will and purpose will be accomplished), He has called us to the privilege of declaring and defending the faith. How, then, can we adequately defend faith in Christ in the face of widespread and sophisticated opposition?
Fortunately, as varied and complex as the claims against Christ and the Bible may be, they all stand on the same assumptions (presuppositions). And like beautiful buildings, arguments are only as good as their foundations. Therefore, if the starting assumptions of an argument against the God of Scripture are worthless, the conclusion will be worthless, regardless of the argument’s brilliance. Interestingly, claims against Christ and the Bible can be quite logical if their conclusions follow starting assumptions. But, like an otherwise perfect mathematical equation rendered false by a single wrong number at the start, the soundest logical assertions are false when built on faulty presuppositions. Thus, disputing such claims while leaving their false foundation unchallenged is futile and gives the impression that logic supports unbelief. Yet, any logical assertion will be undone when its starting point is exposed as false. Therefore, if the atheist’s presuppositions can easily be identified and displayed as untrue, the ability to refute the most sophisticated arguments can be made available to all Christians.1
Briefly, all people interpret what they see, hear, taste, touch, smell, and ponder according to an ultimate authority or standard of truth. We all reason by trust (faith) in this authority for the ultimate meaning of things. In this sense, all people are “people of faith.” The idea that Christian belief stands on faith and unbelief stands on reason and science is a myth. For instance, Christian and atheist scientists may agree on the observed laws of physics, yet one views them as the result of time and chance, the other as the work of God. Viewing the same facts, they trust in a different standard of truth or authority to interpret them. God’s Word (Scripture) forms the ultimate authority and object of faith for the believing scientist, while unbelievers trust their personal opinion and ability to interpret God and all things from their limited vantage point without the explanation of the God who created and sustains it.
Again, like a beautiful building on a faulty foundation, if the assumed authority on which atheists base their claims is unreasonable and untrustworthy, their arguments will be unreasonable and untrustworthy, even when the conclusion rightly follows the premise.
Therefore, who’s ultimate authority and object of faith can be trusted as the final standard of truth and explanation of God, man, reality, truth, knowledge, authority, and ethics? Here lies the more fundamental issue than differences of opinion concerning particular facts. One’s object of faith determines the validity of the beliefs built on it. The God of Scripture stands as the reasonable and obvious source and explanation of all things, apart from whom we could not discuss such things. And if the object of faith on which claims against biblical truth are built can be shown to be unreasonable and untrustworthy, and the belief derived from it exposed as unscientific and contrary to the nature of reality, we effectively defend our faith in Christ and boost our assurance of the trustworthiness of Christ and Scripture. It helps our faith to know that the alternative is groundless, unreasonable, and untrustworthy.
Of course, no one believes apart from God changing the unbelieving heart and opening spiritual eyes, but we need not be intimidated or moved to compromise truth by arguments based on the opinions of limited and fallen people. From love and a concern for the eternal destiny of unbelievers, we do best to expose the unreasonable nature of unbelief and its false object of faith, then point to the infinite excellence and sufficiency of Christ and the need of repentance—and pray.
--Adapted from Craig’s book, The Box: Answering the Faith of Unbelief--
1 This is not to deny the usefulness of the excellent, technical work of believing scientists and apologists, but to affirm the importance of addressing underlying assumptions or presuppositions of unbelief, and that all believers, regardless of sophistication, can be equipped to do so.
At first glance, the atheist’s claim that “God does not exist” appears to be little more than a simple statement about the reality of God. But, it is much more. To deny God’s existence makes significant claims about every aspect of reality.
First, to say God does not exist implies many things about the nature of people and everything else in the universe, as well as God. For instance, it says that everything is uncreated and responsible for its own beginning, order, and ongoing existence. To say that God does not exist says the laws of physics and biology are not created, ordered, and sustained by God, but operate with precise order and set patterns by themselves. To say that God does not exist says that all the love, thought, and physical attributes of people exist by themselves, apart from God’s wisdom and power. To say that God does not exist says that anything and everything has a beginning, existence, and purpose apart from God.
However the atheist attempts to explain the source, order, and magnificence of the universe—evolution or otherwise—it has nothing to do with “God.” In an ultimate sense, everything came from nothing. Thus, to say that “God does not exist” claims far more than appears at first sight because it concerns the nature of everything that exists, has existed, or will ever exist. To say that God does not exist says what can and cannot be true of the ultimate origin, purpose, and meaning of everything. And while the atheist may humbly admit ignorance of many things, this he knows for certain: The universe and everything in it is not created, ordered, and sustained by God, for God does not exist.
Second, similar sweeping claims are implied concerning the nature of knowledge, truth, and ultimate authority. As atheists claim to exist independently of God, so they believe they can observe, interpret, and make true statements about the nature of the universe apart from God. In other words, true knowledge, absolute truth, and ultimate authority to know and speak truth exist without God. God’s explanation of the source and nature of reality is unnecessary because everything can be observed and interpreted from the limited perspective of people. And while the atheist may admit the possibility of holding false opinions, in denying God’s existence he declares his own opinion or interpretation of reality as true and authoritative. In other words, to assert that all life exists without God creating and sustaining it presume one’s own ability to accurately and authoritatively explain life’s origin, purpose, and meaning.
Of course, few would dare call themselves the ultimate authority and determiner of truth, and their own interpretation of reality as absolute truth. Yet, atheists do exactly that. When they deny God’s existence and explanation of the universe, they presume their own limited perspective to be the ultimate place of authority. And again, while atheists properly admit their ignorance about many things, they remain certain that their limited vantage point is sufficient to make such authoritative statements of “truth.” Thus, the wide scope of the atheist’s claims concerning God, man, and everything in the universe also applies to the nature of knowledge, truth, and ultimate authority. To assert one’s own personal explanation of the source and ultimate nature of reality as true makes oneself the ultimate authority and determiner of truth, assuming the place of the God they deny.
Third, it naturally follows that the ultimate judge of the nature of God, mankind, reality, knowledge, truth, and ultimate authority will be the ultimate judge of right and wrong. To assume no accountability to God assumes human opinion to be the highest moral authority, and the human will as free to do as it pleases (subject to man-made constraints). When people assume that God does not exist, they claim the right to make their own rules. This does not say that all atheists live immoral lives relative to monotheists or that they do not have their own reasons for living a “moral” life. It does say, however, that a denial of God’s existence claims independence from God’s law and justice. “No God” infers no ultimate standard of right and wrong, no ultimate accountability, and no ultimate judgment. Thus, the claims of the atheist are comprehensive in their ethics, extending to the moral government of the universe, the ultimate destination of people after death, and whether or not people will be held accountable in the hereafter for bad behavior here and now. To say that God does not exist says a great deal.
In Part Three we’ll answer the question: Is the claim that God does not exist reasonable?
--Adapted from Craig’s book, The Box: Answering the Faith of Unbelief--
The simple question, “How do you know what you claim to know?” easily reveals unreasonable, blind-faith assumptions behind sophisticated arguments of atheism. Gracious use of this question provides the surest way to expose atheism as unreasonable and unscientific. Consider the following dialogue between Mr. C and Mr. A1 and notice how atheists presume a measure of knowledge only possessed by the God they deny.
Mr. C: Can I ask you a question, Mr. A?
Mr. A: Of course, Mr. C, no doubt you will be at me again for my atheism.
Mr. C: You are my friend, Mr. A, and I would like that friendship to extend into eternity.
Mr. A: I do appreciate your attitude.
Mr. C: I have on my desk a beautiful antique box with a rustic brown finish. Can you tell me the contents of the box, Mr. A?
Mr. A: I have not seen the box, and I have not opened the box—how could I know what is in the box?
Mr. C: Your answer is quite reasonable, Mr. A. You readily and humbly admit your human limitations. Tell me, have you traveled through outer space recently, or left your physical body to roam around another dimension?
Mr. A: Do I look like Dr. Who, Mr. C?
Mr. C: You agree, then, that you are currently limited to three, maybe four dimensions of existence?
Mr. A: Of course I am limited, and I am limited in my ability to understand your choice of questions, Mr. C.
Mr. C: Do more than three or four dimensions exist? More than ten, a hundred?
Mr. A: You tell me, Mr. C, you are asking me questions that I cannot possibly answer.
Mr. C: Mr. A, does God exist?
Mr. A: Of course not, I am an atheist.
Mr. C: I know you are an atheist, and until now you have been reasonable in admitting your limitations. Why have you gone from being reasonable to utterly irrational?
Mr. A: What do you mean, ‘utterly irrational’?
Mr. C: You admit your human limitations with respect to my brown box and the dimensions of your existence. Why, then, do you claim to know about everything in the universe?
Mr. A: I claimed no such thing, Mr. C. What have you been smoking? I know you were a hippie in the sixties, were you not, Mr. C?
Mr. C: Well, I… don’t change the subject. But tell me, what would you need to know to say with certainty that God does not exist?
Mr. A: I am not sure.
Mr. C: You would need to know about everything in the universe and beyond, including every possible dimension. In saying God does not exist, you claim omniscience.
Mr. A: I am doing no such thing.
Mr. C: I know you would never overtly claim to have infinite knowledge. Nonetheless, one would still need knowledge of everything in the universe and beyond to say God does not exist—an attribute of the God you deny. And while you are reasonable to admit that you cannot possibly know the contents of my wooden box without looking inside it, you also make a claim that requires a knowledge and ability infinitely greater than required to know the contents of my wooden box. You seem to have gone from a rational position, admitting your human limitations, to an irrational one that speaks as if you know all things, which you admit you do not.
Mr. A: I look at the universe and I do not see the evidence for God, so there is no God.
Mr. C: Are you telling me that what you cannot see or know cannot exist? Are you claiming that your limited understanding determines what can and cannot exist in the universe? Is that reasonable?
Mr. A: I know that you just want me to go to heaven, but my human limitations require me to eat.
Mr. C: God has so created us, Mr. A. I look forward to our next talk.
Mr. A: I look forward to it as well, Mr. C.
This simple illustration reveals the basic flaw of the atheist’s claim. On the one hand, Mr. A is reasonable to confess his limited knowledge by admitting ignorance of the contents of Mr. C’s wooden box. On the other hand, he is unreasonable to claim that God does not exist, for he would need to know everything about the universe and beyond to legitimately make such a claim. He would have to be God to deny God, who he says does not exist. And while he acknowledges his limited ability to know many aspects of the universe (including the contents of the box), he knows for sure it is all uncreated, self-existing, self-ordering, and unrelated to God, for God does not exist.
The assumed ability to make “authoritative” assertions about things that cannot be known apart from knowledge of everything or a direct revelation from God forms the blind-faith assumption on which all atheistic arguments are built. In short, atheists trust their opinion as the ultimate authority or standard of truth. But, does this constitute a trustworthy and reasonable foundation for their claims? As we have seen, if the foundation is faulty, so are the conclusions built on it. Here lies the misplaced and blind faith of unbelief.
In Part Four we’ll further illustrate this principle by showing why the miracles in Scripture are both reasonable and logical.
--Adapted from Craig’s book, The Box: Answering the Faith of Unbelief--
1 The use of dialogues was a favorite technique used by Cornelius Van Til in his writings.
Along with the denial of God’s existence goes the denial of the reality of the miracles and extraordinary events in Scripture. Such “stories” are little better than fairy tales to many. But how are we to view these accounts? Can the modern Christian reasonably hold these events to be historical in the face of harsh criticism and intellectual disdain? Let’s see by returning to the friendly discussion between Mr. A and Mr. C.
Mr. A: Hello, Mr. C. I have been doing some reading; could I ask you some questions?
Mr. C: Please do, Mr. A. I am interested in your discoveries.
Mr. A: Do you believe the Bible is true?
Mr. C: Yes.
Mr. A: Do you believe that Jonah was actually in a fish for three days and spit up onto a beach in good health?
Mr. C: Yes, of course.
Mr. A: [Smiling] Very funny, Mr. C.
Mr. C: I actually believe the event took place exactly as written.
Mr. A: My dear Mr. C, surely you jest. Might I also propose that reindeer fly? I can hardly, I can’t, I’m…
Mr. C: Do you need to sit down, Mr. A? Not only do I believe it, every miracle in the Bible is reasonable and logical.
Mr. A: What? I can understand that, contrary to reason, you must believe miracles by faith—but how can you possibly say they are ‘reasonable and logical’? [With a lowering of his voice and raising of an eyebrow]: You don’t reeeally take the Bible literally, do you, Mr. C?
Mr. C: You sound like my daughter’s college professor. Miracles should not be accepted by faith that contradicts reason or evidence. True faith is reasonable, it depends on your starting point. God created all things, including all laws of ‘nature,’ and cannot be subject to their limitations. A God of infinite power and control over the universe could put Jonah in a fish for three hundred years, if He so desired.
Mr. A: So, do you believe the story of Noah and the Ark, that he saved humanity and the animals? How did Noah feed everyone and clean up the consequences of so many animals? Did he have additional arks to carry enough food to feed such a zoo? This is so beyond the pale that I cannot believe I am discussing it.
Mr. C: You forgot how he managed to gather two of every kind of animal and have them freely and in good order enter into the ark to take their place in their respective stalls. The event involves more difficulties than you have stated, Mr. A.
Mr. A: And you still believe it is reasonable and logical to believe it?
Mr. C: Yes.
Mr. A: Are you serious? Do you really, I mean, how can you, I… I…
Mr. C: I really wish you would sit down, Mr. A. I know CPR but might think twice about the mouth-to-mouth part. Of course, you would no longer be an atheist.
Mr. A: Too funny, Mr. C., do explain your point.
Mr. C: Alright. Just as with Jonah, a God of infinite power who created and upholds everything can do anything. The ark is child’s play. We create problems when we try to explain it according to ‘natural’ principles, according to our own limitations, without God. Noah built the ark, but it took God’s infinite power to fill it, maintain it, and repopulate the earth. The God who spoke and made the universe from nothing can easily work with Noah to gather and preserve the animals.
Mr. A: Do you also believe that Christ was born of a virgin?
Mr. C: Absolutely. Scripture clearly teaches that God the Son took on Himself a human soul and flesh to act as our substitute, to pay the penalty for our sin in our place. Again, as God created and upholds all things, including procreation; He is not subject to their limitations. As with all miracles, God remains above the physical laws He created and upholds. Nothing is impossible with God.
Mr. A: But God does not exist, Mr. C, so biblical miracles are impossible.
Mr. C: Then we are back to square one of our first talk. In order for you to prove that miracles are impossible you must first prove that God does not exist. But, that requires you to know everything about every aspect of the universe and beyond. The same omniscience required for you to deny God’s existence is required to deny biblical miracles.
Mr. A: Okay, then why do some who call themselves Christians say the stories of Jonah, Noah and the ark, or the flood are not historical facts, but stories used to make a theological point?
Mr. C: Good question. If God, as revealed in Scripture, formed their starting point in interpreting Scripture, they would not resort to such things. Perhaps they need to learn some proper theology and apologetics, Mr. A.
Mr. A: Well, I must say they are not helpful to your cause, for they do seem to confirm my views. You would think if they believed God to be the source of all things and infinitely powerful and in control of the universe, as you believe, they would know they are in no position to question what God can or cannot do, and would have no problem with Jonah in a fish, Noah and the ark, or any other biblical miracle as history.
Mr. C: I confess, Mr. A, you are quite correct.
Mr. A: Anyway, I am thankful for them, for they do encourage my unbelief.
Mr. C: Perhaps you could speak with them and convince them to be more consistent with the theology they claim to embrace.
Mr. A: No thanks, Mr. C, that’s your job. We’ll talk again!
The denial of the biblical miracles as history rests on the same unreasonable blind-faith assumptions as the denial of God’s existence. Until atheists can prove that God does not exist, they cannot prove that Jonah could not have been in a fish for three days, or that lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) could not accompany Noah on the ark to repopulate the earth. God can speak and make a universe from nothing, what’s the problem with Jonah in a fish?
In Part Five we will examine how appeals to “the problem of evil” to deny the existence of God presume limited human understanding to be the final authority or standard of truth, the first sin ever committed and the heart of every sin since.
--Adapted from Craig’s book, The Box: Answering the Faith of Unbelief--
In previous articles, we have seen that denials of God’s existence and biblical miracles rest on unreasonable, blind-faith assumptions or presuppositions. But, what about claims of contradictions in Scripture, the foundation of our faith? Do they rest on the same unjustified assumptions? Let’s see as we listen to Mr. A and Mr. C discuss “the problem of evil.”
Mr. A: The Bible teaches that God is perfectly good and always does good, correct?
Mr. C: Yes, that is true.
Mr. A: And God is all-powerful and can do anything He wants?
Mr. C: Yes, that is also true.
Mr. A: If He were all-powerful, He could prevent evil. If He were perfectly good, He would certainly prevent evil. But, evil exists, so God cannot be perfectly good and infinitely powerful. The God of Scripture cannot exist.
Mr. C: Mr. A, you have well stated ‘the problem of evil,’ a most difficult question. (Note, the following discussion here concerns moral evil, not natural calamities that are a result of the curse.)
Mr. A: Yes, the argument is logically valid because the conclusion follows the premises.
Mr. C: You are correct. But, that does not make the conclusion true, the premises might not be true. For instance, how do you know a good God will always prevent evil?
Mr. A: Because you say God is perfect.
Mr. C: Yes, but God’s ways are infinitely above us. Your premise excludes the possibility that God allowed evil for reasons beyond our understanding. Isaiah 55:8-9 says, “‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.’” Can God know things we cannot know?
Mr. A: Sure.
Mr. C: Am I fair saying you deny God’s existence because you cannot reconcile evil existing in a world created by an infinitely good and omnipotent God?
Mr. A: Correct.
Mr. C: I confess that I do not fully understand the origin of evil, though we know it began in the will of a created angel. Many explanations for its origin appear inadequate, or seem to make God dependent on evil to accomplish His purposes, contrary to God’s independence and holiness. But, as with miracles, human limitations prevent our understanding everything about an infinite God and His world. We can only know what He has chosen to reveal to us.
Mr. A: Isn’t that a copout, Mr. C?
Mr. C: No, it’s accepting our limitations and dependence on God, including His explanation of Himself and reality in Scripture. If I could unravel all mysteries, I would be God. Consider God’s rebuke of Job, ‘Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?’ (Job 38:42).
Mr. A: Okay, we may not know everything, but someday we will. Still, if I cannot logically reconcile God with evil in the world, then God does not exist, because I know evil exists.
Mr. C: Mr. A, are you again saying something cannot be true if you cannot understand it, making your understanding the ultimate standard of what can exist or be true?
Mr. A: I don’t believe illogical things.
Mr. C: Could the answer be beyond our understanding? Is every possibility covered by your logical statement of the problem? Could God know something we do not?
Mr. A: Yes, if He exists.
Mr. C: You admitted limited knowledge concerning the contents of my antique box, but implied you know everything about the universe and beyond by denying God’s existence. And like your denial of biblical miracles, you make your understanding the ultimate judge of what can be true by denying the possibility of mystery concerning evil. You have again assumed the place of God, who alone solves every mystery. Mr. A, the Bible tells us this was mankind’s first sin—presuming our own understanding and will as ultimate.
Mr. A: Okay, Mr. C, what’s the answer to the ‘problem of evil’?
Mr. C: Only God knows, ultimately. But He has displayed His character in Christ, in His infinite love for sinners, in His hatred of sin, in paying the infinite penalty for our sin on the cross that we might be freed from condemnation. We know that moral evil began and only exists in the will of created beings. We know the world is cursed and that all suffering ultimately traces back to sin and its consequences. And, we know that God has remedied evil at infinite expense and suffering to Himself.
Mr. A: Too many people suffer for someone else’s evil. It is painful to see.
Mr. C: I would be careless to treat suffering lightly. Yet, I take great comfort in God’s perfect character revealed in Christ, in His promise that righteousness and perfect justice will ultimately prevail, that all unjust suffering will be more than fully recompensed, and all evil sufficiently punished.
Mr. A: I confess that I long for ultimate justice for people like Hitler or Stalin, but still find your answers unsatisfying.
Mr. C: Yes, mystery remains, but we accept our limitations and trust Him who has all the answers. He will explain more in heaven. Until then, He has clearly revealed His goodness and omnipotence. And, for reasons beyond our immediate grasp, He has allowed evil to exist. We know that the way God deals with evil shows His excellent character. And, while God can bring good from evil, He never does moral evil that good may result—He is holy. We also know freedom does not require evil, we will be most free in heaven where evil will not be an option. And we know the guilt of moral evil lies with those who commit it.
Mr. A: Let me know when you get a complete answer.
Mr. C: I pray that we’ll ask God together.
Scripture confronts our limited understanding with many difficult questions, such as the nature of the Trinity or God’s sovereignty and human responsibility—divine mysteries that logic in the hands of limited people cannot fully explain (though perfectly logical to God). Suffering reaches the depths of our soul and challenges us profoundly. Yet, we have great comfort in the perfect character of God as displayed in the person and saving work of Christ in defeating death and evil, and in God’s ultimate righteous reign over the universe when He makes all things right. Scripture reveals God’s perfect goodness and power, even as His ways are infinitely above our ways.
Of course, this brief treatment fails to address many issues concerning “the problem of evil,” including the various attempts to answer it. Yet, the core of the problem demonstrates that we are not God—a difficult truth for sinful humanity to embrace. To say God does not exist because I cannot understand a mystery makes my limited understanding the final authority or standard of truth, presuming the place of God Himself, the first sin ever committed and the heart of every sin since. The atheist may choose to repeat Lucifer’s error, but the Christian need not be intimidated by it, for unbelievers appealing to the “problem of evil” to deny God merely validate what Scripture says about sin, unbelief, and the fallen and our unwillingness to accept.
--Adapted from Craig’s book, The Box: Answering the Faith of Unbelief--
Following our discussion of the mystery involved in “the problem of evil,” we turn to a brief examination of the doctrine of the Trinity, and a Christian response to those who would appeal to mystery involved with the doctrine to deny the existence of God. Let’s turn again to the friendly banter of Mr. A and Mr. C.
Mr. A: Mr. C, is God three or one?
Mr. C: Both.
Mr. A: If I understand the Christian view correctly, you don’t believe in three Gods, and you don’t believe in one God who merely manifests Himself three different ways at different times, correct?
Mr. C: That is correct.
Mr. A: So, refuting the existence of your God merely requires basic arithmetic?
Mr. C: To some it would seem so, but that is far too simplistic. Scripture teaches that God is one personal being who eternally exists as three persons. Yet, He is not three Gods, but one.
Mr. A: Gee, that clears things up. How can I possibly accept something that sounds so irrational?
Mr. C: Remember, what appears to be irrational to you, given your limitations, is not irrational in God. God is perfect. He is not subject to the laws He created to order the universe, He transcends them.
Mr. A: So we come to another copout: Just claim God is too high and the argument is over.
Mr. C: Are you saying because you cannot understand how God can be both three and one, He cannot exist? Or that because you cannot grasp or understand something, it cannot be true? Is your limited understanding really the ultimate determiner of truth?
Mr. A: I cannot see how God can be one and three persons at the same time. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds seem like complete nonsense to me.
Mr. C: God as a Trinity involves mystery to us, but not to God, as He is not constrained by our understanding or the created limitations of His universe. As He is infinitely higher than us, we cannot know Him unless He condescends to reveal Himself to us, and He has revealed Himself to us in Scripture as one personal God, eternally subsisting as three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Mr. A: Are you asking me to forsake reason?
Mr. C: No, only to admit your limitations as a finite, created being, who cannot exhaust the knowledge of our infinite God. The Trinity is God, and if we could fully understand Him, He would not be much of a God. Unfortunately, many who claim to be Christians agree with your approach, rejecting doctrines because they cannot fully understand or explain them.
Mr. A: I must admit that they do help my cause.
Mr. C: And please understand, I am not denying the use of logic or reason. God gave us minds, and He gave us logic to order our thinking. But He never gave them to us to deny His transcendence. This would be an irreverent use of logic, one that refuses to acknowledge God as infinitely greater than we are. We must submit to the authority of God in what He has told us about Himself. As much as we dislike admitting our weaknesses and limitations, we need to learn how to think in a manner that fully honors God and His infinite supremacy over us.
Mr. A: Interesting. A Christian once told me that the law of non-contradiction forms the final determiner of truth, convincing me that I could explain God away because the Trinity and other theological mysteries appear to violate that law.
Mr. C: It is a helpful and valid law of logic, and in God are no contradictions. But, when used by limited people it must bow to God’s transcendence. Truth is what God says it is, and we know God by what He has chosen to reveal to us.
Mr. A: I must admit, when my arguments concerning miracles or apparent contradictions in Scripture are viewed according to the infinite greatness of God as revealed in Scripture, it does take the wind out of my sails. But, I still have a hard time accepting the idea that I take the place of God in my argumentation when I reject something because I don’t understand it, but I will give it more thought.
Mr. C: Thank you, Mr. A, I look forward to our next talk!
As with the “problem of evil,” the triune nature of God as revealed in Scripture involves mystery beyond the limits of human understanding. In the Trinity we meet the God who exists infinitely above and beyond all things; yet, has, condescended to clearly and personally reveal Himself in time and space to His creatures. By what authority, then, can anyone deny what God has revealed to us about Himself? Who can legitimately claim that God cannot be beyond our understanding, or above what we can know and observe in the universe? Can our finite perspective really form the ultimate standard of truth concerning a transcendent God?
In refusing to accept His testimony about Himself, atheists make dogmatic statements about God and His universe, even while their limitations prevent them from knowing the content of their neighbor’s antique box or garage. They declare what God can or cannot be from the vantage point of five senses, three or four dimensions, and seventy or so years on the earth, when knowledge of every aspect of the universe and beyond is required to justify their claim. They reason by unjustified faith in their ability to know what cannot be known apart from God’s revelation. God alone can reveal to us with authority what He is like. Therefore, in dealing with a God of infinite glory, we should expect to be confronted with great mysteries, while a proper and reasonable faith accepts our human limitations. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9).
--Adapted from Craig’s book, The Box: Answering the Faith of Unbelief--