Definition

“God always chooses the best goals and the best means to those goals.”¹ Or, “That perfection of God whereby He applies His knowledge to the attainment of His ends in a way which glorifies Him most.”²

God’s wisdom is the application of His knowledge to achieve His best purpose.

Daniel 2:20-22: “Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might. He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding; he reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him.”

Psalm 104:24: “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.”

Romans 11:33: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!”

Colossians 2:2b-3: “Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”³

Implications For Apologetics

Human Wisdom Is Acquired And Dependent Upon God’s Wisdom

Discussion of the apologetic implications of God’s wisdom will be brief, as the implications of God’s wisdom for apologetics mirror those of God’s knowledge. As with knowledge, God is the source of all wisdom, or the proper understanding of how knowledge is applied. God is the “only wise God” (Romans 16:27), perfect in knowledge and perfect in the application of knowledge. Thus, as truth is that which conforms to God’s revealed truth, so true wisdom is that which conforms to God’s revealed wisdom. No higher standard for wisdom exists than God’s wisdom.

God’s Wisdom In Scripture Provides The Only Sure Basis For A Proper Apologetic Method And Message

The essential nature of unbelief, God’s justice and the requirement for eternal life, and the application of the saving benefits of Christ’s redeeming work are the same in any age or culture. Therefore, God’s perfect wisdom is always right and best in any circumstance or culture. God always uses the best means to accomplish the best end, and has appointed us to use the best means to accomplish the best end. Again, different contexts in which we present the Gospel require sensitivity to culture and other issues.⁴ We must be careful to not create unnecessary barriers to our ability to bring the Gospel to people of a different background and experience by making non-essentials of our own culture into essentials within another culture.

Yet, our tendency to dilute or alter the Gospel and God’s revealed means of proclaiming it poses a greater problem. In perfect wisdom God has ordained both the message and the means of redeeming people from their sin. The unredeemed world, however, views the message and messengers as foolish. Unbelievers cannot discern the excellence of Christ, the Gospel, and the things of the Spirit of God, for they are “spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:6-8).

The clearer the Gospel message, the stronger will be opposition to it and our temptation to make it more acceptable to unbelief. For example, as our culture views the exclusivity of the cross as narrow and bigoted, so we are tempted to broaden the grace of salvation to include those who have not placed saving faith in Christ alone. We are tempted to deny the ultimate authority of Scripture by reducing inerrancy to concepts only, while transforming extraordinary biblical events into mere metaphors or theological illustrations, devoid of historicity. We can downplay, ignore, or redefine the true nature of sin and the need of repentance, or ignore or redefine its consequences. Opposition to God and the Gospel of Christ tempts us to substitute our finite wisdom for God’s perfect wisdom.

But, true wisdom is wisdom from God. We depend upon God for all knowledge and wisdom. God knows best. When we ignore God’s wisdom in Scripture, we depend on our own finite and corrupted opinion and imitate a world that views the wisdom of God in the Gospel of Christ as “foolish.”⁵ Should we be driven by a culture that views the best as worst, the wise as foolish, and the supremely excellent as worthy of death by crucifixion? Unbelieving opposition to Christ should not guide the apologetic method and message. The Gospel “commands our respect; whoever slights it, it is as much as if he slighted Jesus Christ himself.”⁶ Here again, to substitute our wisdom for God’s wisdom is to foolishly and irreverently exalt our authority over the authority of God.

Created, Finite, Dependent, And Sinful Creatures Are Not Qualified To Question The Wisdom Of God’s Commands And Providence

We Are Not Qualified To Question God’s Wisdom In Our Personal Circumstances

God’s wisdom and providence in our circumstances are often discerned best in hindsight. We lack exhaustive understanding of how our circumstances fit in the greater tapestry of God’s ordering of every detail of the universe according to His purposes. We know that “all things work together for our good” and that God brings trials and troubles to refine our faith and increase our hope. We know He is sovereign over the affairs of our life. Nonetheless, our perspective and objectivity are usually greater looking back than when we are struggling in the pain and confusion of a trial.

For example, Joseph did not immediately understand the ultimate purpose of God in the actions of his brothers when he was sold into slavery and taken to Egypt, or when he was thrown into prison on the false charges of Potiphar’s wife. Joseph did not immediately understand God’s wisdom in sending him to Egypt until he became the ruler of Egypt and the savior of Jacob and the twelve tribes of Israel. We now know that God used him to save the family line through which the Messiah would come. Moses did not immediately understand the value of tending wandering sheep in the wilderness for forty years until he led a wandering people in the wilderness for forty years. Few of the mourners lining the road to Golgotha understood that the suffering of Christ was the greatest display of God’s glory and the means of their own salvation and exaltation.

God has given us all we need to trust His perfect wisdom, but as created, finite, dependent, and corrupted people, we are unqualified to question God’s wisdom in our personal circumstances.

We Are Not Qualified To Question God’s Wisdom In The History Of The World

Atheists will often deny the existence of God by pointing to the moral evil and natural disasters in the world. They ask, how could a good God exist when there is so much suffering in the world? Yet, as we cannot fully understand the infinite wisdom of God in the affairs of our own circumstances, so we are incapable of fully understanding God’s wisdom in history. Created, finite, and dependent people cannot justifiably deny God’s existence by claiming to not see God’s wisdom in the world. Great mystery will always confront created, finite, and dependent people. We can only know what God has chosen to reveal to us regarding His reign and rule of the universe. God’s sovereign rule over all the affairs of the universe is infinitely wise, whether we understand it or not.

Nonetheless, God’s wisdom in creation and providence is clearly revealed in the universe. As noted with respect to God as the creator of all things, the fingerprints of God’s power and genius are on all things, including the stars in the sky, the food on our table, and the law of God written on every heart. Sinners suppress and reject this clear, comprehensive, and convincing knowledge of God.⁷ Mystery, in this case, is self-inflicted.

Also, Scripture plainly teaches that humanity is responsible for the moral corruptions of the world, not God. Interestingly, those most bent on affirming the free and sovereign will of people are often the most adamant in denying responsibility for the evil it produces. Atheists, for instance, claim that a sovereign and good God cannot exist in a world where free agents are responsible for their own sin. While they freely admit responsibility for their choices, they deny accountability for them before God. Yet, even while denying His existence, many still find reason to curse God for the free actions of people. It can all be a bit confusing. In any event, “When a man’s folly brings his way to ruin, his heart rages against the LORD” (Proverbs 19:3).

Of course, unbelievers are incapable of knowing that the God of Scripture cannot exist because evil exists. Such claims exalt personal opinion over the revelation of God, the very sin of Adam and Eve that brought about the calamities in the world in the first place. The refusal to admit to mystery with respect to God’s providence is merely a refusal to accept one’s own finite and dependent status before an infinite God.

We cannot always understand the perfect wisdom of God in His providence by viewing the circumstances of this profoundly wicked world. But our limitations do not justify drawing conclusions beyond our limited human capabilities. We will not understand many things until we are in heaven and see the wisdom of God’s providence more clearly. Such is the reality of a finite creature in a world created and sustained by an infinite, transcendent God. In the meantime, we trust that “God is the best judge of the seasons of distributing his own mercies, and darting out his own glory,”⁸ while accepting the fact that responsibility for moral evil lies with those who commit it.

“Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.”

---

¹ Grudem, Systematic Theology, 193.

² Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 69. See also Charnock, Existence and Attributes, 270-1.

³ See also 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16.

⁴ Again, this is not to deny contextualization, but to place limits upon it.

⁵ J. B. Phillips translates Romans 12:2 as follows: “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within, so that you may prove in practice that the plan of God for you is good, meets all his demands and moves towards the goal of true maturity.” J. B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English, First American Edition (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1965).

⁶ Charnock, Existence and Attributes, 264.

⁷ See Romans 1:18ff.

⁸ Charnock, Existence and Attributes, 64.

Definition

Separate and exalted above all of creation in transcendent majesty; and separate from all evil in pure moral uprightness according to His nature.

“The holiness of God in the more extensive sense of the word, and the sense in which the word is commonly, if not universally, used concerning God in Scripture, is the same with the moral excellency of the divine nature, or His purity and beauty as a moral agent, comprehending all His moral perfections, His righteousness, faithfulness, and goodness. As in holy men, their charity, Christian kindness, and mercy, belong to His holiness.”¹

“Holiness is in a peculiar manner the beauty of the divine nature. Hence we often read of the beauty of holiness, Psal. 29:2, 96:9, and 110:3. This renders all His other attributes glorious and lovely. It is the glory of God’s wisdom that it is a holy wisdom, and not a wicked subtlety and craftiness. This makes His majesty lovely, and not merely dreadful and horrible, that it is a holy majesty. It is the glory of God’s immutability that it is a holy immutability, and not an inflexible obstinacy in wickedness.”²

Exodus 15:11: “Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?”

Psalm 77:13: “Your way, O God, is holy. What god is great like our God?”

Isaiah 6:3: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

1 Peter 1:15: “But as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct.”

Revelation 15:4: “Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”

Implications For Apologetics

All God’s Attributes And Actions Are Perfectly Holy

In Religious Affections, Edwards argues that the beauty of God consists in His holiness, the chief object of the saints’ love for God.

A true love to God must begin with a delight in His holiness, and not with a delight in any other attribute; for no other attribute is truly lovely without this, and no otherwise than as…it derives its loveliness from this; and therefore it is impossible that other attributes should appear lovely, in their true loveliness, until this is seen; and it is impossible that any perfection of the divine nature should be loved with true love until this is loved.³

In distinguishing between God’s “natural” and “moral” attributes, Edwards argues that the beauty of God’s natural attributes is their holiness. For instance, God’s power is a beautiful power because it is holy, whereas the power of Satan and demons is an ugly power because it is unholy.

Holiness is in a peculiar manner the beauty of the divine nature. Hence we often read of the beauty of holiness, Psal. 24:2, 96:9, and 110:3. This renders all His other attributes glorious and lovely. It is the glory of God’s wisdom that it is a holy wisdom, and not a wicked subtlety and craftiness. This makes His majesty lovely, and not merely dreadful and horrible, that it is a holy majesty. It is the glory of God’s immutability that it is a holy immutability, and not an inflexible obstinacy in wickedness.⁴

The beauty of all things related to God is their holiness. “Herein consists the beauty and brightness of the angels of heaven, that they are holy angels and so not devils.”⁵ The beauty of “saints or holy ones” is “the moral image of God in them,” or their holiness.⁶ “The beauty of His divine nature, of which the beauty of His human nature is the image and reflection, also primarily consists in His holiness.”⁷ “It is a holy gospel, and so bright an emanation of the holy beauty of God and Jesus Christ. Herein consists the spiritual beauty of its doctrines, that they are holy doctrines or doctrines according to godliness. And herein consists the spiritual beauty of the way of salvation by Jesus Christ, that it is so holy a way.”⁸ “Herein chiefly consists the glory of heaven, that it is the holy city, the holy Jerusalem, the habitation of God’s holiness and so of His glory.”⁹

God Is Not And Cannot Be The Author Of Sin

All of God’s acts are holy acts, including His foreordination of all things. God’s sovereign rule over all things is a holy rule. Apart from holiness, God’s sovereign rule would be no better than that of a wicked despot. All moral evil in the universe is fully attributable to the will of the creature and not to God.

As we noted above, God does not do evil that good may result. Any proposed “solution” to the “problem of evil” that either states or implies that God authored evil to bring about a greater good is inconsistent with God’s character as holy. In the same way, any theological framework that makes or implies God to be the author of evil or sin to bring about God’s ultimate purpose in Christ to redeem the elect is inconsistent with God as holy.¹⁰

All attempts to reconcile God’s sovereign and omniscient creation and ordination of all things with the free agency of mankind, including the entrance of sin through the free agency of created beings (first Lucifer, then Adam and Eve) must consider that no “solution” is valid that, in any way, compromises God as infinitely holy. God is not and cannot be the author of that which is contrary to His holy character. Here, as elsewhere, we must acknowledge our limited understanding as created, finite, and dependent beings in the face of an infinite God. Reason simply cannot reconcile God’s sovereignty and human free agency. As all of God’s actions are holy, so His sovereign ordination and control over all things is a holy ordination and control.

And as the beauty of God and the beauty of things related to God consist in their holiness, it is inconceivable that those loving and rejoicing in the infinite holiness of God could take comfort and delight in God as directly or indirectly the author of evil. We certainly take no comfort in a universe where evil is beyond God’s sovereign control. We take comfort in God’s sovereign control over all things, and in the fact that evil only exists as subject to God’s sovereign control. Yet, as the very beauty of God and His sovereign rule is their holiness, we also take no comfort in God as sullied by the responsibility for sin in the world. The responsibility for sin lies in the will of the creature. Beyond this, the origin of evil in the universe is inexplicable. How an evil inclination arose in one created by God as holy is beyond our capacity to understand. We do know that Lucifer, Adam, and Eve freely chose evil, but we leave the responsibility and explanation there. Attempts to reconcile the apparent contradiction between God’s sovereign rule and the free agency of the creature in bringing evil into the universe will only result in the loss of God as holy or sovereign, neither of which is possible. Thus, we rest in God’s unfailing and perfect character, accepting our human limitations in the face of an infinite God. Beyond this, we simply cannot go.

Apologetic Methods And Content Must Always Honor God As Holy

As we have seen, to compromise God as holy is to compromise that which is the beauty of His attributes. The compromise of a single attribute of God compromises all of God’s attributes. We proclaim a different God than the God of Scripture if we compromise a single attribute of God.

Also, to posit God as possibly or probably existing treats God as unholy. Given the universe as it is, it is impossible that God could not exist. God is the creator and sustainer of all things, apart from whom nothing can possibly exist. To argue for the mere probability of God’s existence debases God and partially justifies unbelief.

Additionally, God is treated as unholy when sinful clay is granted legitimacy in sitting as judge of the Potter, or when unbelievers are given the place of God as the ultimate determiner of truth (like Adam and Eve in the garden). God is treated as unholy when the Gospel is amended to make it more amenable to an unbelieving culture. God knows best and we depend upon Him to know what is best. Christ is Lord over our apologetic method and message.

Sinners Have No Claims On A Holy God

As will be discussed further under God’s righteousness below, God is of such purity that He despises sin. That He personally interacts with fallen humanity (believers and unbelievers) and angels, is by virtue of Christ’s satisfaction of the penalty required by God’s justice for sin.¹¹ Not only do we have no claims upon God and owe Him all things as created by Him, we owe Him all thanks, love and honor for our salvation in Christ. Apart from Christ we are hopelessly lost and odious in God’s holy eyes. That we can even approach God in light of His holiness required the infinite payment for our sins by Christ. Thus, from our creation to our redemption, we have no claims upon a holy God. Our approach to unbelief and the attacks against God and the Gospel must acknowledge this, denying the legitimacy of complaints and arguments against God while keeping the supremacy and holiness of God in proper perspective.

And the LORD said to Job: ‘Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.’ Then Job answered the LORD and said: ‘Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further’ (Job 40:1-5).

The Brighter The Light Of God’s Holiness Shines The More Those Who Love Darkness Hate It

In our pragmatic age, we are tempted to evaluate ministry success by numbers or the acceptability of our ministry by the world. Yet, opposition to Christ and the Gospel are the greatest when God’s excellence is most clearly seen. Christ came into the world, but the world “loved the darkness rather than the light” (John 3:19). As unbelievers are blind to the beauty of God’s holiness they are blind to the beauty of Christ, the Gospel, the church, and the saints. The more we conform to God’s holiness, the more we will be opposed by a world opposed to God. And the more faithful we are to a God-honoring method and message, the more opposition we will generate. Of course, opposition should always be the result of faithfulness to the message, not a lack of grace, kindness, compassion, patience, and respect on our part. Truth should always be presented with love. But truth should be presented, nonetheless. We are not to be alarmed by opposition, which “is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God” (Philippians 1:28).

Therefore, as the methods and message that least honor God’s holiness will be most acceptable to unbelievers, the apologetic method and message are to be judged according to their faithfulness to God and His word and not their acceptance by unbelievers. Perhaps some churches are small in number because they are the most faithful.

“Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.”

---

¹ Edwards, Religious Affections; BT, 181; Yale, 255-256.

² Ibid.; BT, 183; Yale, 257.

³ Ibid.; BT, 183; Yale, 257-258.

⁴ Ibid.; BT, 183; Yale, 257.

⁵ Ibid.; BT, 184; Yale, 258.

⁶ Ibid.; BT, 184; Yale, 258.

⁷ Ibid.; BT, 184; Yale, 259.

⁸ Ibid.; BT, 184-185; Yale, 259.

⁹ Ibid.; BT, 185; Yale, 259.

¹⁰ For those familiar with the highly technical debate between supralapsarians and infralapsarians (if you are not intimately familiar with the debate, disregard this footnote), it seems to me that Supralapsarianism comes too close to implying that God is the author of sin. While supralapsarians and infralapsarians both believe God has foreordained all things, supralapsarianism prioritizes God’s sovereignty in determining all things over God’s holiness from which all of God’s actions spring and with which all God’s acts are consistent. But, all God’s sovereign acts are necessarily holy acts. God’s holiness cannot be subordinated to God’s sovereignty (and vice versa). Thus, whether or not one believes that logically ordering the decrees of God is a legitimate theological exercise, any such attempt must never call into question God’s holiness.

¹¹ That God forbears judging sin immediately is by virtue of Christ’s future and past propitiation for sin for those who live prior to and after Christ’s saving work, respectively. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:23-26).

Definition

“Sovereignty is not a property of the divine nature, but a prerogative arising out of the perfections of the Supreme Being. If God be a Spirit, and therefore a person, infinite, eternal, and immutable in his being and perfections, the Creator and Preserver of the universe, He is of right its absolute sovereign. Infinite wisdom, goodness, and power, with the right of possession, which belongs to God in all his creatures, are the immutable foundation of his dominion.”¹

As the creator, sustainer, determiner, and owner of all things, God is the sovereign and supreme ruler over all, free and able to do as he pleases.

2 Chronicles 20:6: “O LORD, God of our fathers, are you not God in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. In your hand are power and might, so that none is able to withstand you.”

Psalm 45:6: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness.”

Psalm 47:7-8: “For God is the King of all the earth; sing praises with a psalm! God reigns over the nations; God sits on his holy throne.”

Isaiah 14:27: “For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?”

Daniel 4:35: “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?”

Implications For Apologetics

Believers And Unbelievers Reason By Faith In An Ultimate Authority And Standard Of Truth

While this point is intimately related to the previous discussion of worldview, I have included it here under the implications of God’s sovereignty because it concerns the ultimate object of one’s faith. One’s ultimate object of faith is one’s ultimate authority and determiner of truth.

On the one hand, believers submit to God’s lordship and reason by faith in God’s words and word (Scripture) to properly interpret God, mankind, the universe, and ethics. Assuming Scripture to be the ultimate authority and determiner of truth, believers use God-given reason to interpret, order, and submit to God’s revelation. They accept their status as created and dependent upon God.

On the other hand, unbelievers reject God’s lordship and reason by faith in their own ability to properly interpret God, mankind, the universe, and ethics. Assuming their opinion to be the ultimate authority and determiner of truth, unbelievers use God-given reason to sit in judgment over God and His revelation. They deny their status as created and dependent upon God and assume the authority of God.

Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that unbelievers exercise “reason” while believers exercise “faith” to interpret the world. The “faith versus reason” argument proposed by unbelievers is a false dichotomy. Both believers and unbelievers exercise faith and reason. At issue here is two things: 1) whether or not God-given reason is used in reverent submission to God, and 2) whether or not the ultimate object of faith is true and justified.

The apologist must not see his dispute with the unbeliever as a matter of faith (the Christian perspective) versus reason (the non-Christian perspective). It is rather one worldview (a faith that controls reasoning) versus another worldview (a different faith that controls reasoning).²

Moreover,

All men do their thinking on the basis of a position accepted by faith. If your faith is not one which has God in Christ speaking infallibly in Scripture for its object, then your faith is in man as autonomous [independent of God]. All of one’s reasoning is controlled by either of these presuppositions.³

In other words, either one reasons and interprets reality by faith in God and His revealed word as the ultimate authority and standard of truth, or by faith in oneself and human opinion as the ultimate authority and standard of truth. Unbelievers pose the false dichotomies of “faith versus reason” or “faith versus science” to justify their rejection of the clear and compelling evidence for God’s existence and the trustworthiness of Scripture. These false dichotomies are an attempt to justify unbelief by painting the unbeliever as reasonable and scientific and the believer as unreasonable and unscientific.

Believing Faith Is Reasonable And Justified While Unbelieving Faith Is Unreasonable And Unjustified

Therefore, the critical issue regarding the difference between believers and unbelievers is not faith versus reason, but this: Whose faith is justified? Or, whose object of faith is trustworthy?

Believing faith is reasonable and justified because its object is the sovereign and trustworthy source of all truth and knowledge. God designed, created, sustains, and determines all things. He knows all things perfectly. He is true and truth, and perfectly wise, holy, righteous, and good.

Moreover, believing faith is reasonable and justified because it is not blind faith. All of created reality gives clear and compelling evidence of the power, divinity, wisdom, and providence of God such that all people “know” God and are without excuse for not honoring Him and giving Him thanks. God created us in His image with both the ability to know Him and the knowledge of Him in our hearts (a “sense of divinity”). Scripture bears clear and compelling evidence and testimony of its own divine nature and authority, with accurate correspondence to all of history and reality. No scientific discovery in the history of mankind contradicts Scripture. Human interpreters of reality contradict Scripture continually, but those interpretations are driven by the unbelieving faith assumptions we noted above. God alone interprets all of reality truthfully and objectively.

In contrast, unbelieving faith⁴ is unreasonable and unjustified because its object is finite, sinful, and dependent upon God for truth and knowledge. The personal opinion of a finite, fallen, and dependent person is not trustworthy as the ultimate source of truth and knowledge about God and His universe. People lack the perspective to interpret God and His universe apart from God’s revelation. Constrained by their senses, time, and space, people cannot know what is in their neighbor’s garage without looking inside, let alone what is beyond the universe.⁵ Human opinion cannot be trusted concerning ultimate and eternal matters. We lack the ability and perspective.

Moreover, human opinion as the source of truth results in relativism and the loss of all truth, as all people share the same limitations and no one opinion has greater authority than another. All are equally incapable of properly interpreting God and reality apart from God’s revelation.

As God’s Sovereign Reign Over All Is Clearly Displayed, “Neutrality” Toward God Is Hostility Toward God

The universe cannot be viewed with disinterested neutrality any more than Christ can be viewed with disinterested neutrality. As Christ said, “Whoever is not with me is against me” ( Luke 11:23). The evidence for God in created reality is clear, comprehensive, and convincing. We were created in debt to love, honor, and obey God. We are called to faith and the denial of self-will. The implications of God as our creator and we as His creation involve every aspect of life. To enjoy the rich blessings of God’s world and yet deny His existence, amidst the clear display of His excellence and power always, is supreme ingratitude and contempt toward God. Our life is from God, and every good thing we enjoy is from God. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and coming down from the Father of lights” (James 1:17), “What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Corinthians 4:7). “Neutrality” toward the One to whom we owe all love, honor, obedience, and thanksgiving is contempt.

Because Nothing Makes Sense Apart From God, Atheists Do Not And Cannot Live According To Their Professed Worldview

Precisely because God is the creator and sustainer of all things, apart from whom nothing would exist or make sense, no one can consistently live according to an atheistic worldview. Unbelievers must presume God and borrow Christian truth to function. Life in a random chance universe is impossible. For instance, unbelievers may deny the existence of God but they presume God’s ordering and upholding of the universe in conducting science according to uniform and universal laws. Uniform and universal laws are impossible apart from God. Similarly, unbelievers deny but presume God when reasoning according to uniform and universal laws of logic because reasoning, knowledge, and truth are impossible if all things are unrelated random chance accidents. Reasoning, knowledge, and truth are impossible without God. Moreover, unbelievers deny but presume God in attributing purpose and meaning to life. Products of nothing and random chance in a universe of random chance have no meaning or purpose. Ultimate meaning and purpose are impossible without God. This last point is not to say that atheists do not attribute purpose and meaning to life, but it is to say they have no reasonable basis for them.⁶

Unbelievers borrow and use what conveniently serves self-interest, even while denying anything that challenges their supposed independence or reveals their sin and rebellion against God. But, despite their best efforts, unbelievers cannot completely suppress God’s truth in a world created, ordered, and sustained by God. Confronted with God’s revelation always and everywhere, all unbelievers have a “sense of deity” in their heart. Suppression of the knowledge of God takes willful, relentless effort. In this effort the unbelievers cannot be entirely successful. They exist in God’s world and are surrounded by the evidence of God’s existence and call upon their life, and they cannot live consistently with a worldview that implies that everything is pointless, random chance.

Additionally, God’s common grace prevents the full manifestation of sin and unbelief in the world in order to accomplish His ultimate purpose in saving sinners. All believers and unbelievers possess a God-given conscience that relentlessly confronts them with their sin and accountability before God.⁷ God’s law is written on their heart (Romans 2:14-15), and they know they are worthy of judgment for their sin (Romans 1:32). They sense their obligation to love, honor, and obey God. Thus, despite the best efforts of unbelievers to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, they still “know” God (Romans 1:18-22). And while unbelievers do not know God in the loving, personal way that believers know God, they know Him sufficiently to render them without excuse for not honoring and giving God thanks.

Believers, also, do not live consistently with their worldview. Indwelling sin opposes the Holy Spirit within us, while the baggage of the thoughts and deeds of our former life apart from Christ continue to plague us. Every time we sin we act contrary to our worldview. Perfection awaits us in our life beyond this life.

Thus, while the distinction between the believing and unbelieving worldview remains clear in principle, the distinction appears muddled in practice. Neither believers nor unbelievers live consistently according to their professed worldview. Nonetheless, inconsistency in practice does not deny the opposing worldviews in principle.

Because Nothing Makes Sense Apart From God, Unbelievers Must View God And His World Reasonably And Unreasonably At The Same Time

The combination of the unwillingness of unbelievers to acknowledge their creator and redeemer and their inability to live according to a view of the universe as founded and operating according to random chance, leads to the phenomenon of unbelievers being reasonable and unreasonable at the same time. For instance, unbelievers reasonably admit their limited knowledge while unreasonably making claims about God and the universe that require omniscience, including defining what God can and cannot be, or can and cannot do. While claiming that people cannot know what God is like, they are nonetheless quick to say that He cannot be uncreated and the source and sustainer of all things according to His perfect plan, He cannot be behind the uniform laws of “nature,” He did not and cannot do the miracles of Scripture, He did not speak to us in Scripture, creation could not be as Genesis describes it, and Christ could not be who He claimed to be, etc. While professing the inability to know anything about God they actually claim to know a great deal.

Similarly, unbelievers rightly assume a designer and maker behind every computer, car, house, and cake, but view the far greater sophistication and design of life and the universe as products of random chance. They assume uniform and universal laws in conducting science while assuming the universe is founded on random chance. They view themselves as products of random chance in a universe of random chance while attributing meaning and purpose to life. In each case, they are simultaneously reasonable and unreasonable.

And such will always be the case. The denial of the only possible source and explanation of God, mankind, knowledge, truth, authority, and ethics will always lead to the holding of contradictory principles simultaneously. To claim the world is founded and operating according to random chance while living as if it does not is a contradiction. And as denying God reduces everything to absurdity, and as life cannot be lived in a random chance universe, the most ardent atheist will live by principles contrary to his or her professed worldview. It cannot be avoided. Atheists must borrow Christian principles to live, even as they deny their source.⁸

As God Is Sovereign Over All, Theology Addresses The “Natural,” Visible, Knowable, And Verifiable Realm Of Science

Related to the erroneous idea that unbelievers exercise reason while believers exercise faith is the false notion that theology is limited to the realm of faith and does not address the natural, visible, knowable, and verifiable realm of science. But, because God is the creator, sustainer, and interpreter of all things, Scripture addresses the most fundamental questions of science and philosophy.⁹

As we have already seen, the existence and nature of God is presumed in everything we do, including science. Apart from presuming the power and genius of God in creating, ordering, and sustaining all things, science would be impossible. In fact, all scientific discoveries validate the Christian worldview and contradict the non-Christian worldview, as nothing in the universe is explicable by random chance, the foundation of the atheistic worldview. All scientific discoveries validate God’s ordering and sustaining of the universe, including all uniform and universal laws.

Moreover, as one’s view of God determines one’s worldview, it also determines whether or not the data of the universe will be interpreted correctly. Thus, theology undergirds all of reality, including knowledge, truth, and authority.

As God created, orders, and sustains all things, all the issues of life are essentially theological. To deny this is to deny the nature of reality and ignore the foundation of all of science. This, of course, is exactly what the sin of unbelief does in suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness.

Atheistic Philosophers Reject God’s Sovereignty And Repeat The Sin Of Adam And Eve¹⁰

In the same way that those assuming God is constrained by His creation repeat the sin of Adam and Eve, so also do atheistic philosophers. We noted earlier that Adam and Eve put faith in their supposed ability to interpret God’s world apart from God’s interpretation. Eve trusted her interpretation of the fruit that it was “good for food,” a “delight to the eyes,” and “desirable to make one wise” (Genesis 3:6). Adam trusted Eve’s interpretation of the fruit, while they both disregarded God’s explanation that “the day that you eat from it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). They mutually denied their dependence upon God for knowledge and truth.

Moreover, Adam and Eve granted a created serpent equal authority with God the creator. They elevated the status and authority of the creature, while they lowered and denied the ultimate authority of God as creator, relegating His will to a mere option among others.

Atheistic philosophers repeat the sin of Adam and Eve by disregarding God as sovereign Lord and in assuming authority to interpret reality and determine truth apart from God. They deny God as creator and man as created and dependent upon God for all knowledge at the outset of philosophical inquiry. Like Adam and Eve, they have faith in their supposed ability to interpret God’s world without God, attempting to answer questions that cannot possibly be answered apart from God’s revelation.¹¹ They assume that reality can be objectively interpreted from their limited perspective without consulting God’s interpretation.

And as we noted in the Introduction, philosophical speculation regarding ultimate issues is futile when the only possible source of truth and knowledge is precluded at the outset. Apart from God, no solutions to the big philosophical questions are possible. “The world through its wisdom did not come to know God” (1 Corinthians 1:21b, NASB). And when the opinions of philosophers, as with the opinions of scientists and everyone else, are assumed to be the ultimate standard of truth, “truth” becomes relative and meaningless. The finite perspective and opinion of one is no more authoritative than the finite perspective and opinion of another. And apart from God, no reasonable basis exists for uniform and universal laws of logic, or for truth, purpose, and the meaningfulness of any statement whatsoever. Philosophers are not immune to this problem.

Thus, apart from acknowledging God as the source of all truth and knowledge, all philosophical reasoning vacillates between the false extremes of presumption of omniscience and its opposite, the inability to know anything at all (skepticism). On the one hand, philosophers cannot know that which requires knowledge of the entire universe and beyond, despite their presuming such a capability in positing answers to ultimate questions. On the other hand, skepticism is a false alternative as truth can be known because God has created us with the ability to know the truth He has revealed to us about Himself and His universe. Philosophy, as with all inquiry into the nature of God and the universe, must begin with a reverent acknowledgement and submission to God or be reduced to mere human opinion (see Appendix A for an analysis of problems with atheistic Rationalism and atheistic Empiricism).

Challenging The Assumed Authority And Core Beliefs (Presuppositions) Underlying All Unbelief Is More Important Than Merely Challenging Opinions Based On Them

A Proper Defense Of The Gospel Includes A Challenge To The Faith Assumptions That Underlie All Unbelieving Arguments

To defend Christianity against the attacks of unbelief, the apologist must challenge the validity of the unbelievers’ object of faith and call them to repentance from idolatry to faith in Jesus Christ. And as we have seen, the unbeliever’s ultimate object of faith is worthless as an ultimate authority and standard of truth. Created, finite, and fallen people do not possess the comprehensive knowledge of the universe and beyond to interpret God and reality correctly and answer the ultimate questions of life. And regardless of the sophistication of arguments against Christianity, all are built on the same faulty foundation of human opinion. So, as brilliant and logical as atheistic arguments against Christianity might be, they are only as good as their foundation. And that foundation is the sinking sand of human opinion. Personal and unjustified opinion is no rock upon which to rest one’s eternal destiny.

Thus, by exposing the foundation of the unbeliever’s worldview as mere human opinion, and by exposing human opinion as worthless as the ultimate authority and determiner of truth, all unbelieving arguments can be exposed as worthless. This is a crucial point. While technical apologetic arguments concerning the various fields of philosophy and the sciences are helpful, the most effective apologetic method will expose the false faith assumptions of unbelief that drive all unbelieving interpretations of God’s universe, including all philosophical and scientific arguments. If the foundation upon which unbelieving arguments are built is faulty, then all of the arguments built on them are faulty, regardless of the sophistication of the arguments. And if the false faith in human opinion can easily be exposed and identified, effective apologetic argumentation can be made available to all Christians, regardless of their scientific and philosophical expertise.

True Repentance Is From The False Faith And Assumptions Of The Unbelieving Worldview

The call to repent is more comprehensive than we often realize, as true repentance involves turning from the false assumptions of the unbelieving worldview. For instance, repentance from sin to faith in Christ involves denying our false and self-exalting views of God, self, and all of reality. Repentance involves turning from false assumptions regarding truth, knowledge, and ultimate authority. Repentance is from doing what is right in our own eyes to seeking to do the will of God. The comprehensive nature of repentance can be seen in the following diagram.

Failure To Challenge Unbelievers’ Assumed Authority And Core Beliefs By Which They Interpret God And The World Affirms Unbelief

The apologetic method of exposing the unjustified and faulty faith assumptions of unbelief does not deny the value of other methods of defending the faith, as a great deal of excellent work has been done in addressing specific scientific, philosophical, and theological arguments of unbelief. But the failure to challenge the foundational faith assumptions under arguments against Christianity avoids addressing the heart of unbelief. The unbeliever’s faith in his or her ability to properly interpret God and reality apart from God’s revelation must be challenged as unreasonable and unjustified. The unbelievers’ assumptions concerning God, mankind, reality, knowledge, truth, authority, and ethics must also be challenged as unreasonable and unjustified. Failure to challenge these unwarranted faith assumptions:

·         fails to expose that unbelievers are not neutral, objective interpreters because their hostility toward God prejudices their interpretation of all things;

·         fails to adequately expose their ongoing, unreasonable, and sinful suppression of the clear and compelling knowledge of God;

·         fails to expose that unbelievers have presumed the place of God as the ultimate authority and determiner of truth;

·         fails to expose the unreasonable and unjustified faith in one’s ability to know about God and His universe what cannot possibly be known apart from God’s revelation;

·         allows unbelievers to believe they are justified in their interpretations as their assumed authority and assumptions by which they interpret all things are unchallenged; and,

·         fails to expose the need to repent of their rebellion against God in exalting their will and authority over God’s will and authority.

Thus, “it is impossible to convince any non-Christian of the truth of the Christian position, as long as he reasons on non-Christian assumptions….All looks yellow to the jaundiced eye.”¹² As long as the fundamental faith assumptions of the unbeliever remain in place, the unbeliever will assume the prerogative to interpret God, mankind, reality, knowledge, truth, authority, and ethics in a manner that supports unbelief, regardless of the evidence. The unbelieving worldview will remain opposed to the believing worldview and God will be interpreted as non-existent, unknowable, unimportant, or made-up according to the desires of the unbeliever.

Apologetics Includes The Defense And Proclamation Of The Gospel

The Gospel call to faith in Christ is a call from faith in the idol of one’s presumed authority and independence from God and faith in human opinion, to faith in God’s revelation of Himself and His world in Scripture. Humbly submitting to God through faith in Christ involves turning from the sin of presuming the place and prerogative of God. Thus, the apologetic method that challenges the unjustified faith assumptions of unbelief is not only compatible with the Gospel but integral to it. A biblical approach to apologetics, therefore, includes both the defense and proclamation of the Gospel, as one is intimately involved with the other. All people are called to faith in Christ and loving submission to His sovereign lordship in all things. All people are called to recognize their created and finite status before their infinite Creator, upon whom they depend for all life knowledge, and truth, and to whom they owe all love and obedience. Fallen and alienated from God by sin, the right recognition of God and reality and the right response to His revelation is only possible in a right relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Thus, the ultimate goal of the defense of the Gospel is the proclamation of Christ, in whom is life everlasting, and to whom belongs all the glory and honor forever.

“Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.”

---

¹ Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:440.

² Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 102.

³ Van Til, Case for Calvinism, 128-129; quoted in Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 102.

⁴ “Unbelieving faith” at first glance appears contradictory, for faith is belief. Yet, the description accurately describes unbelief, as all people have faith, while not all people have faith in the true God. Even idolatry is faith, though faith in the wrong object.

⁵ Biehl, What’s in the Box?

⁶ In this respect, Nihilism is the most consistent non-Christian philosophy. Thanks to K. Scott Oliphint for this insight.

⁷ The conscience, though suppressed, remains active in fallen unbelievers. Unbelievers have a clear sense of desert and justice and will even affirm and pursue justice from both a fear of judgment and self-interest. For a helpful discussion on this point, see Jonathan Edwards, “The Nature of True virtue,” in Ethical Writings. Ed. Paul Ramsey. Vol. 8 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 581-599.

⁸ Van Til speaks of this as the unbeliever “borrowing” or “stealing” Christian capital in conducting epistemology and doing science, as neither could be done according to the principles of a random chance universe. See Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic; 297-8, 460, 483n.34, 524n.126, 710. A pastor friend of mine called the atheistic view “parasitic,” as they live by the benefits of the Christian worldview, even as they deny and oppose it.

⁹ “Scripture gives definite information of a most fundamental character about all the facts and principles with which philosophy and science deal. For philosophy or science to reject or even to ignore this information is to falsify the picture it gives of the field with which it deals.” Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 65.

¹⁰ See Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 152-153.

¹¹ In a brief introduction to why Greece was the cradle of Western philosophy, Palmer speaks of an optimism in the “sheer power of human reason” to explain the nature of all things, that “the human mind operating on it own devices is able to discover ultimate truths about reality.” Donald Palmer, Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter, 2nd Ed. (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1994), 7.

¹² Van Til, Common Grace, 94-95.

In the history of Western philosophy, two predominant and competing schools of the thought concerning the nature and discovery of truth have emerged: empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism and rationalism differ in their starting point and approach to determining truth.

In general, empiricists believe knowledge is founded upon the experience of our senses. We observe and interpret empirical data and utilize inductive reasoning to draw conclusions. Empiricists employ the “scientific method,” working from the data or particulars of the world to draw general conclusions.

Illustration: Empiricism

In contrast, rationalists believe knowledge is founded upon reason and self-evident truths or propositions.¹ They identify what they believe to be self-evident truths and draw conclusions by deducing what necessarily follows from these self-evident truths. They work from general propositions about the world to draw conclusions about the particulars of the world.

Illustration: Rationalism

Both approaches are valid and worthwhile when self-consciously used as part of God’s created world, with the creator and sustainer of all things as the assumed determiner of all truth. But neither approach is adequate to interpret reality and determine truth apart from God as the ultimate determiner of truth.

Problems With Atheistic Empiricism

For instance, empiricism has several serious problems when done without the assumption of God as the starting point for all truth.

First, empiricists do not agree in their interpretations of reality. Apart from God, no ultimate and absolute authority exists to whom they can appeal to settle differences of interpretation. All interpreters suffer from the same human limitations, and they all lack the objectivity of an outsider’s perspective. They are all part of the universe they are attempting to explain. Moreover, all people lack the breadth and depth of knowledge to adequately answer ultimate questions. Knowledge of everything in the universe and beyond is required to adequately answer ultimate questions regarding God, mankind, and the universe. Apart from God’s explanation of Himself and His universe, all interpretations are reduced to mere observations of the way things are, with no ultimate explanation of why they are and where they came from.

Second, no one, including scientists, interprets data as a “neutral” observer. All people interpret the things of the world according to a basic set of assumptions concerning the world. This set of assumptions, or “worldview,” is like colored glasses through which everyone views the world.² Data will always be colored according to the assumptions of the interpreter’s worldview, while the assumptions are determined by countless factors, such as culture, personal experience, religious beliefs, education and training, TV programs viewed as a child, and so on. Of course, the greatest influence of all is one’s relationship to God. For example, the theory of evolution as the interpretation of the data of the world (theistic evolution not withstanding) is driven by the assumption that God is not the creator and sustainer of all things, itself an assumption that cannot be proven by the empirical method. The bias of the interpreter is unavoidable. Indeed, we are usually unaware of our ultimate assumptions at work when we interpret the data of the world. And, with no ultimate authority to which interpreters can appeal for an authoritative and objective interpretation, each interpreter becomes his or her own ultimate authority.

Third, any rule stating how the data should be interpreted cannot itself be verified by the empirical method. This is a self-defeating internal contradiction. All such rules as to how data should be interpreted are assumed, contrary to the principles of empiricism.

Lastly, apart from an ultimate authority for interpretation (i.e., Scripture), empiricism leads to relativism and skepticism. As all people are subject to the same human limitations, so no one person’s authority is more justified than another’s with respect to ultimate issues. All truth becomes relative, with the result that no warranted statements of truth can be made. “That’s just your opinion” becomes the law of the land, and who can say otherwise? Apart from an ultimate authority to which we can appeal for ultimate truth, we are left with as many authorities as there are opinions, and as many opinions as there are people. Six billion opinions of similarly constrained interpreters is no basis for truth.

Problems With Atheistic Rationalism

Rationalism suffers from similar fatal problems when the ultimate authority of God is ignored.

First, to what ultimate authority does one appeal to justify “self-evident truths”? Philosophers do not agree on what constitutes a “self-evident truth.” That which is “self-evident” to one philosopher is not necessarily “self-evident” to another. To what ultimate authority does one appeal if the designer, creator, and sustainer of all things is disregarded?

Second, to what ultimate authority can one appeal to confirm with certainty that a given deduction from a “self-evident truth” necessarily follows? How does one know which deductions are true? To what ultimate authority does one appeal to validate the deductions? If the “self-evident truths” cannot be known for certain, neither can the deductions made from them be known for certain.

Lastly, in the same way that atheistic empiricism leads to relativism and the loss of truth, so atheistic rationalism leads to the loss of truth. All interpreters become speculators, with one guess or opinion as good as another. No interpreters can transcend their human limitations to glean the information necessary for a definite statement of truth concerning the ultimate nature of things. Apart from an ultimate authority for truth (i.e., Scripture), rationalism also reduces to six billion opinions of similarly constrained interpreters with the resulting loss of ultimate truth.

Therefore, in considering the historical feud between empiricism and rationalism as the proper method of interpreting reality and determining truth, at issue is not empiricism versus rationalism, as the history of Western philosophy would seem to suggest. Rather, the basic issue is whether or not empiricism and rationalism are done with a proper acknowledgement of the One who created and sustains all things, the ultimate and final authority as to the nature and meaning of all things. Apart from God as the basis of all knowledge, neither empiricism nor rationalism is adequate to account for the nature of reality as we know it. Neither is adequate to answer ultimate questions if done in ignorance of the source of all truth. Both, however, are equally valid when conducted with proper deference to God as the ultimate authority and interpreter of all things. God is the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes a proper interpretation of His world, and the one who determines the most basic or “self-evident” truths.³

---

¹ For a quick and simple comparison of the two schools of thought, see Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (New York: Wiley Publishing, 1999), 68-69.

² Van Til, Why I Believe in God; quoted in Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 128-9

³ Of course, “self-evident” is a bit of a misnomer with respect to God-determined truths, as we know them as true because God has revealed them to be true.