Lesson Five: Apologetics As Proof (Part Two)

Lesson Five: Apologetics As Proof (Part Two) ⁽¹⁾

• Who Made Logic? Is logic a human invention?
  • If mental processes are merely biological processes, why should we believe human reason to be true?
    • “Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true.” C.S. Lewis
    • “Science cannot discover the self; the self discovers science.” Antony Flew
  • To what extent does logic transcend humans?
  • Is reasoning possible without the use of the laws of logic?
  • What is the source of the laws of logic?
• Background
  • The scientism/empiricism of David Hume: all “proof” (except in mathematics and logic) is reducible to sense-experience.
    • Problem: Knowledge of physical causes, moral values, God, human freedom, or the human self … is impossible.
  • The rationalism of Immanuel Kant: Knowledge is possible, so what are the necessary conditions that make knowing possible?
  • Cornelius Van Til, John Frame and others: knowledge is not possible without God.
• Transcendental Argument for God (TAG): Outline
  • The argument: Without God, there is no meaning (truth, rationality, etc.); therefore, God exists.
    • Unless God exists, there is no reason to assume the validity of logic, the uniformity of nature, the obligatoriness of moral standards.
    • When the atheist uses logic to try to disprove God, this is is like a child sitting on her father’s lap, slapping his face. She would not be able to slap him unless he supported her. (Van Til)
  • The Bible presupposes God as the source of all reality and truth; these are attributes of God’s nature.
    • Christ holds all things together (Col. 1:17)
    • Unbelief is foolish (Ps. 14:1; 1 Cor. 1:20)
  • Logic demands the existence of God
    • The laws of logic are necessary attributes, inalienable qualities, of all God’s thinking and acting.
  • Ethics demands the existence of God
    • If God does not exist, “everything is permitted.” (Dostoyevski, Brothers Karamazov).
    • Secular theories of ethics cannot show why moral standards obligate.
    • Unbelievers can and do recognize moral standards without belief in God (Rom. 1:32)
      • Even demons believe (James 2:19).
    • Believers, who recognize God’s standards, are not perfect of course (1 John 1:8-10).
    • To truly improve ethically, a new heart, given by Gods’ grace, is required. (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:8-10).
  • Science demands the existence of God
    • God ordained a basic uniformity to nature.
      • This can be seen in the various cosmological constants, and in the anthropic principle.
      • E.g., God’s covenant with Noah to keep the seasons regular “while the earth remains” (Gen. 8:22).
    • Exceptions: Miracles
      • Even though some miracles have natural explanations (See, e.g., Exodus 14:21, where God dried up a portion of the Red Sea by sending “a strong east wind.”)
• The Lordship of Christ over all is always the “bottom line” of the transcendental argument. For example:
  • Lordship over wealth and economic life (Matt. 19:16-30).
  • Lordship over our intimate relationships (John 4:7-26).
  • Lordship over our intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18 – 2:16).
• Certainty and Probability
  • Relying on the Holy Spirit and the Word, we need to be certain of the truth of Christ (Luke 1:4) and of our own salvation (1 John 5:13).
    • The believer is assured by the supernatural factor of God’s Spirit concerning both the truth of the gospel (1 Cor. 2:4-5; 1 Thess. 1:5) and his own relationship to Christ (Rom. 8:16).
    • It is true that believers do sometimes doubt both the truth of God and their own salvation, but they have the resources and the right, both logical and supernatural, to come to full assurance on at least the major points of the gospel message.
  • General revelation is so plain and clear that it obligates belief and obedience – leaving us without excuse (Rom. 1:19-20).
    • John speaks of Jesus’ miracles (“signs”) as warranting belief (John 20:30f.), and Luke speaks of the “convincing proofs” (Acts 1:3 NIV) that Jesus presented to the disciples after the resurrection.
    • The evidence for Christian theism, therefore, is “absolutely certain.” Or, to put it in moral terms, there is no excuse for disbelief. The evidence obligates belief.
  • Compare: The thrust of many “negative” apologetics discussions (i.e, discussions with skeptics who want to argue that the claims of the Gospel and of Christianity are implausible) may be to simply show that such claims are not implausible.
    • Mere possibility, if no plausibility, is sufficient in order to challenge the unbeliever to give careful consideration to the claims of the Gospel and of Christianity.

 Drawn from Frame & Torres, Apologetics (P&R Publishing, 2015), Chapter 4, “Apologetics as Proof: Transcendental Argument”