Summer in the Systematics: Theology Proper (Part 2)

Transcript

JRS 12
07/10/2022
Summer in the Systematics: Theology Proper (Part 2)
Selected Verses
Jesse Randolph

Well, good evening. It’s good to see everybody back here. What a wonderful day to worship the Lord morning and evening. What a privilege we have, to gather as God’s people in the morning and in the evening. Amen? Yeah, it’s great! We’re not used to this in California. There’s like one church left. It’s pastored by a guy named John MacArther, that does this out there. So, it’s such a blessing to be able to do this twice a day, and just be spent in this way. To unpack God’s word this way. I pray is blesses you.

A couple of things, before we get started. We’ve back into our study of Theology Proper. And you know, when I got to the last lesson, the first lesson in the series, I kicked myself the next morning. Because I could sense, even with the glare up here, some of the glazed-over looks that I saw out there. As I was racing through a bunch of slides with no visual outlines for you guys to work through. So, I was already convicted about that. And then a brother in the church, gave me the idea, and he set this into motion, that I really ought to provide you with some notes. So you can have a better learning experience as we learn about our great God. So, if you came in, you should have received two sheets. One that’s already completed. That’s from the last lesson. And one with some blanks, which is for tonight’s lesson. I’m going to do this weird thing where I ask you, if you have not received either of these two sheets, go ahead and put your hand up, there’s no shame, we can put our hands up in this church. And I’m going to have the ushers come down and give you… (you know what I meant, ) have the ushers give you a worksheet if you missed that on the way in. That, I think, will make for a more edifying, enriching, and then a learning experience that will transcend tonight. You’re going to be able to keep these. We even hole-punched them so we can bind these. Like I said in the very beginning, I’d like to teach through a category of systematics each summer. So, doing the math here, if we have 10 of these this summer. And 10 over the next 9 summers, we’ll have 100 pages full of systematic theology, which might be when we need to write an Indian Hills Community Church Systematic Theology for the world to see. Anyway, with that, let’s get going!

We’ve made it though session one of Theology Proper. That’s the lesson I taught a couple of Sundays ago. And our topic there was, “The Revelation of God.” In tonight’s lesson, we’re going to work through three additional topics. And those are the three main blanks, the main headings that you see on page 1 and 2 of your blank worksheet. We’re going to talk about the “Existence of God.” We’re going to talk about the “Knowability of God.” And we’re going to talk about the “Incomprehensibility of God.” Major topics to cover in 45 minutes. Pray for me, please. Because these are really impossible topics, of course, to plumb the depths of everything about God, His existence, His knowability and His incomprehensibility. I hope you can appreciate that one mortal man, speaking to a room of mere mortals in the room here tonight -- we have quite the tall task ahead of us.

But here’s the opening question for tonight. Can you think of a question that’s been asked more frequently -- over the millennia, over the centuries? Whether it be by professional philosophers? Whether it be by theologians? By people in coffee shops or college grads, or kitchen tables or water coolers, or social media -- than the chief question, the ultimate question, the question of questions -- does God exist? I can’t think of a more frequently asked question. Whether it’s phrased that way: does God exist? Or in one of these other ways: Is there a God? Are we alone? Is this all there is to this life? The reality is, there has not been a more frequently asked question in the history of mankind, than some formulation of this question, “Does God Exist?”

Now, the question has not only been frequently asked, it is the most central and basic and fundamental and ultimately important question that a person could ask. And why? Well, if God exists, it means we have someone to answer to. If God exists, it means that we aren’t just a random collection of molecules with no origins or direction or purpose. If God exists, we need to recognize that we are intentionally designed creatures who will one day give an account to the One who created us. And give an account for the lives He gave us. And for how we stewarded all He gave us in the world that He placed us in. In other words, the question “Does God exist?” is massively important and is loaded with massively important implications.

Well, over the course of the centuries, a series of philosophical arguments, also known as natural proofs, have been offered to build the case for the existence of God. We’re going to go through four of these natural proofs this evening. More than these four have been offered, by the way, over the course of church history, but we’re going to zero in on these four as representative of the types of arguments that have been offered to prove the existence of God.

As you’re going to hear me though, say over and over in tonight’s message, while there are useful elements to each of these arguments, ultimately there’s a better argument, a fifth argument. The argument from scripture itself, for the existence of God. But to make sure that we are being and becoming well-rounded students of theology, we need to go through each of these four major, philosophical arguments which have been offered up over the centuries, to prove the existence of God. So, these are those four philosophical arguments, they are up here on your screens. You can jot these down actually, in sections A through D on page 1 of your worksheet, while this is up here:
the “Cosmological Argument,” the “Teleological Argument,” the “Moral Argument,” the “Ontological Argument.” Don’t worry, if I’m going to fast, we’re going to hit each one of these in detail in just a little bit.

The Cosmological Argument. The term “cosmological” comes from the Greek word “kosmon,” or cosmos, which means “world”. And according to this argument, there is not such a thing in this world as chance. Rather, everything has a cause. Proponents of the cosmological argument would say that when we look at the world around us, and how everything came to be. We need to think less in terms of ‘coin tosses’ (that would be chance), and instead, look at things in terms of ‘dominoes falling’ (which would be causation). According to this position, in this finite world in which we live, there cannot be an infinite sequence of causations or causes. Rather, there must be, at the beginning of all things, an original uncaused cause. Something that got everything into motion.

First, we had Aristotle promoting this argument. This is the “original uncaused cause” argument… comes from Aristotle. What he called the “first mover” or “the unmoved mover.” In book twelve of his Metaphysics, Aristotle said this, “There is that which, as first of all things, moves all things . . . [and] . . . the first mover must be in itself unmovable.” Now, while Aristotle’s “unmoved mover” theory did not ultimately get him to the God of the bible, his idea is very much consistent with what the bible reveals about God in fact being the first “mover”, that He is the Creator. Creating everything, ex nihilo, out of nothing. It’s what we see in Psalm 90:2, “Before the mountains were born or You gave birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” So, we could say fairly, that Aristotle was on to something. It didn’t lead him to the God of the bible. He didn’t receive the type of revelation that was already there in the scriptures that testify to what he was chasing after.

Next, we have Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas, a medieval Catholic theologian. He would pick up on Aristotle’s logic, when he referred to God as the ‘first cause.” So, Aristotle referred to Him as the first mover or the unmoved mover. Aquinas would call God the first cause. Like Aristotle, Aquinas taught that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Instead, the buck must stop somewhere. The ball stops bouncing against a wall somewhere. And according to Aquinas, the buck stops with the first cause or the unmoved mover. Meaning, some “original, necessary being” who was sufficient to create all things. And Aquinas took it a step further than Aristotle in saying that the ‘necessary being,’ that first mover, that unmoved mover, was the God of the bible. Here’s a quote from Aquinas, “There must be an absolutely unmoved, separate, first mover. This is God.” So, in other words, Aquinas (I say this carefully) “Christianized” Aristotle’s unmoved mover argument. Why am I being careful by saying that? Well, I alluded to it earlier, but Aquinas was a Roman Catholic. So, I wouldn’t call him a Christian in any sense of the term. Maybe we could say, he deified or gave a deity to this unmoved mover argument of Aristotle.

Now, surely this cosmological argument gives us a helpful start to answering the ultimate question about the existence of God. Surely, this argument does have a number of benefits, including its simplicity of its logic. Including its built-in rejection of evolutionary dogma. For instance, the cosmological argument would reject the evolutionary idea that something can be generated spontaneously out of nothing. This cosmological argument would reject that as being logically impossible. The universe didn’t simply start existing. Planet Earth did not simply start existing. The sun and the moon and the stars did not simply start existing. No, logically there must be a first cause. An unmoved mover behind all of it.

The cosmological argument, then, would allow for the existence of an eternal and omnipotent God, being that “unmoved mover” who caused everything to come into existence by an ex nihilo act of creation. That’s a lot of words I’m throwing at you, to summarize what Genesis 1:1 already says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” We could have been out of here 5 minutes earlier, had we just jumped to that conclusion from the text of the scripture itself.

You know, I appreciate what Charles Ryrie of Dallas Theological Seminary said about the benefits of the cosmological argument. He said this in his “Survey of Bible Doctrine.” (And I apologize, by the way, these slides, some of them might be a little small for those of you sitting in the back. I wanted to make mention of the fact that every one of these slides will be on the website by mid-week this week. So, when you see, like the link to tonight’s message, there’s an attachment there with the slides. So, you can pop open and look at it, if you ever re-listen to this.) So, Ryrie says: “While we have to admit that his cause-and-effect argument,” another name for the cosmological argument, “does not in itself prove that the God of the bible exists, it is fair to insist that the theistic answer is less complex to believe than any other. It takes more faith to believe that evolution or blind intelligence, whatever such a contradictory phrase might mean, could have accounted for the intricate and complex world in which we live than it does to believe that God could.”

Even more to the point is Robert Jastrow, who wrote in “God and the Astronomers,” “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” A tad snarky. But absolutely true. Because it highlights the ultimate emptiness of the so-called wisdom of this world.

Well, as useful as this cosmological argument for the existence of God can be, it does still leave open a variety of questions. And those questions, I would contend, undermine its ability to stand on its own, as a sufficient basis to prove the existence of God. Here’s one reason why I would say this in not an adequate, in and of itself, argument for the existence of God.

First, this argument does not logically compel the conclusion that God, if He is the unmoved mover, was not Himself caused. There’s just not a logical compulsion to say, that if He’s the unmoved mover, that means there is nobody that moved Him.

Second, this argument does not logically compel the conclusion that the first cause is God. Again, that’s just summarizing what’s already been said. It doesn’t necessitate the God of the bible. Something else, someone else, some other thing or person or figment, could have been the unmoved mover.

Third, this argument does not logically compel the conclusion that there was only one first cause. In other words, this argument does not require a monotheistic worldview. What if it was a committee of gods that set things into motion? What if, like a lot of the false religions of the world, as they would articulate it, there was a father-god and a mother-god who came together and birthed the world? That would be some religions’ version of this unmoved mover argument.

The most that can be said, from this cosmological line of argumentation, is that it establishes that there was some nameless, faceless, unidentifiable “unmoved mover.” But it does not necessarily lead one to believe that the unmoved mover is the God of scripture. Rather, the argument simply proves that there is a first and absolute ‘first cause’ of everything. Now, why am I belaboring this? Why these concerns over the overall effectiveness of this argument? One reason would be, that there are real-live applications. There are real-life consequences to accepting this view and this view alone, as proving the existence of God.

In fact, one such person who uses this argument heavily, to prove the existence of God, is a man you may have heard of, William Lane Craig. He’s a philosopher/theologian out at Viola, close to where we’re from. He’s the founder of something called “Reasonable Faith” ministries, it’s an apologetics ministry. And Craig is an ardent proponent of what he calls the Kalam Cosmological Argument. “Kalam” is an Arabic word which means “speech or word or utterance.” And it has at its root the Islamic way of thinking about our origins as humans. So, in the tradition of Aquinas, but borrowing openly Islamic terminology, William Lane Craig has heavily and regularly relied upon the cosmological argument to prove the existence of God. He’s done it in his writings. He’s done it in his debates with atheists and agnostics.

But do you want to know what else Wiliam Lane Craig also believes? He believes that Adam was not a true, historical figure. He believes that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are fictional. In fact, here’s a quote from Wiliam Lane Craig (that’s him pictured in the top left.) He says, “The primordial history of Genesis 1-11 includes elements which if taken literally, would be so extraordinary as to be clearly false. Take, for example, magical trees with fruit that, if eaten, would impart the knowledge of good and evil or immortality, or the presence of a talking snake that tempts the man and woman to sin.” Can you hear the condescending and derisive tone that Craig is using here, to condemn, to throw under the bus, those of us who take God at His word? Wiliam Lane Craig does not hold to the inerrancy and the sufficiency of scripture. Rather, he holds his doctoral degrees and frankly, his haughty opinions, over scripture. Deciding for himself, to use this word here, that the first and the foundational chapters of Genesis, are “clearly false.” If taken seriously, Craig’s writings would have the effect of eroding the very foundation of the Christian faith, by washing these first eleven inspired chapters of God’s word.

The point is, you can believe the cosmological argument, taking it back to our point here, but still have very unorthodox views of the God of the bible. And there are many other examples of philosophers and apologists and theologians using this cosmological argument to prove the existence of what they’ve called God. Including Islamic theologians, by the way. But the God that their argument points to, is not the God of the bible. And ultimately, believing simply as Craig does, that there is “a god,” ultimately does no one any good. James 2:19 says, even the demons believe such a thing.

Well, that’s the cosmological argument. Friends, I hope you can understand, I am scratching the surface of each one of these, in the time that we have tonight. There’s so much more that can be said about all of these arguments. And there are so many positive and negative things to say. But the main takeaway is these arguments are not enough. And they are not the ultimate way to demonstrate the God of the bible.

The next one is the teleological argument. The Teleological Argument. Now, while the cosmological argument looks at the cause-and-effect nature of how things work in the world, and the reality that there must be an ultimate cause, that there must be an ‘unmoved mover’ that stands behind every sequence or event that happens in the world -- the teleological argument is an argument for God’s existence from design. It looks at the undeniable complexity and order and purpose and intelligence in the universe. Seen in things like the human eye and the human ear and the design of a snowflake or the design of a spider web. And the order of various forces in the universe and how somehow everything seems just to hold all together against staggering statistical odds. And then it reasons backwards to posit that this all must have been designed by some ultimate Designer.

The teleological argument for God’s existence says that because there is order and design in the universe, there must be a supreme, intelligent Designer who created it all. You know, in his “Lectures on Systematic Theology,” Henry Clarence Thiessen pointed this out, “Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. The universe is characterized by order and useful arrangement; therefore, the universe has an intelligent and free cause.” Thiessen here, has given us a helpful summary and definition of this teleological argument. And not only is this argument compelling, it just makes sense. Right? The presence of design and purpose in this world is undeniable. The creation does point to a Creator. The design that we see, we can’t deny it, does point to a Designer. Now, you’ve probably heard some of the allusions and illustrations that have been given over the years, to demonstrate the sheer statistical improbability that this world and all that’s in it came into existence somehow by chance. There’s this one commonly cited illustration I jotted down, that says: “chance has less of a chance of creating a complex universe than a million monkeys who randomly pound on a keyboard and reproduce a line from Shakespeare.” In other words, it would take more faith to believe that this all happened by accident, than it would be to believe that an omnipotent God designed an ordered universe. I’m going to borrow the line from Norm Geisler when he said: “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.”

Well, despite its strengths, there are weaknesses also with this teleological argument. Now, weaknesses that show that this cannot be the ultimate argument to prove the existence of God. Here are some of those weaknesses.

First, that there may be an original Designer does not necessarily logically require that that Designer be the Creator. One does not compel the other. The Designer, conceivably, could be logically separate from the Creator. Perhaps the Designer was created by the Creator. Meaning that the Creator was, in fact, the original Designer.

Second, how do we know that there is only one Designer? Just like with the cosmological argument, could there not have been a design-by-committee, happening somewhere out there in the cosmos? Couldn’t this argument, in other words, leave the door open to adopting a polytheistic worldview, where we worship each of the Designers?

Third, there is evil in this world, which appears to have the existence of design to it. You know, think of various strains of disease and illness, just the complex apparent design behind it. Think of the concept of organized crime. The fact that evil exists in this world, and that some of that evil does have these elements of what appears to be design, demonstrates that design itself, could not and does not prove the existence of the God of the bible. Because if we relied on design exclusively, we’d ultimately have to conclude that God is the designer of evil. And then we would no longer have a perfect God. We’d no longer have the perfect God revealed on the pages of scripture.

Fourth, and finally, we know that the teleological argument cannot and does not, ultimately point people to the true God, because of its various proponents. You know, (on the slide) left to right here, Plato held to some version of the teleological argument. Immanuel Kant held to a version of this argument. Aristotle held to a view of this argument. None of these men believed in the Christan God. In more modern terms, you probably heard of the “Intelligent Design” community. They rule out, as we would, that biological complexity is just a matter of sheer chance. So, in other words, they hold to a design, they hold to these teleological beliefs. But the “Intelligent Design” community is not, in and of itself, Christian. Sure, there are some in that community who do hold to the Christian truth and have been saved by the grace of God. But there are many who don’t profess to be Christians. Their religion is design.

So, like with the cosmological argument, there are helpful components to this teleological argument, but the teleological argument does not and cannot stand on its own. It does not adequately land the plane, you could say.

That takes us to our third philosophical argument for the existence of God, The Moral Argument. And what is the moral argument? It’s called the moral argument because it has to do with man and his makeup and his composition. And it’s also been called the Anthropological Argument, “anthropoos,” “man.” The basics of the moral argument or anthropological argument are as follows: Because there are certain undeniable ethical traits associated with mankind, our conscience, our intelligence, our volition, our will, our sense of justice, our sense of reward and punishment, our fear of death and punishment. Those ethical traits establish that we are moral beings, not mere biological accidents. And the fact that we are moral beings, then allows us to reason back to the conclusion that there must be a supreme moral being, who created and maintains moral order in the world.

I appreciate what Lewis Sperry Chafer said about this in his “Systematic Theology.” He says, “There are philosophical and moral features in man’s constitution which may be traced back to find their origin in God. . . A blind force . . . could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and inherent belief in a Creator.”

Now, how does the moral argument differ from the previous two arguments for the existence of God? It does so in this important way: while the cosmological and teleological arguments deal with the complex nature of the universe as a whole, the moral argument gets its name from the complex nature of mankind, of us. In its fundamental premise, is that the undeniably moral nature of mankind can only be attributed to the fact that mankind derives from a personal, intelligent, moral being, who Christians would call the God of the bible. Acts 17:28 says He is the One in whom “we live and move and exist.”

Now, the moral argument again, has its appeal. It does contain certain kernels of truth. But it has its flaws and its limitations as well. Now, let’s go through some of those.

First flaw of the moral argument as a free-standing proof for the existence of God. First is this, it will not always be conceded by those to whom we are trying to prove the existence of God, that there is a single and uniform set of morals and virtues in this world. We live, if you haven’t noticed, in the “what’s true for you is not true for me” generation. We live in the “you get to define your own reality” generation. We live in the “I get to decide what words with already-settled definitions mean” generation. We live in the “when does life begin?” generation. We live in the “what is a woman?” generation. We live in the generation which has its feet, as one commentator rightly put it, with its feet “firmly planted in mid-air.” Which is to say, we are less and less likely to encounter unbelievers who are going to immediately concede that there is a universal moral code.

Now, we as believers, as Christians, know that there is such a moral code, it’s the law of God written on the heart of man. That’s Romans 2:14-15, “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” But if we are making this case, with this unbeliever, for the existence of God, based on this argument, the moral argument, the point is this: we face a steep uphill battle, since in their flesh and with their carnal minds, waging war against the truth, as Romans 1:18 says, they “suppress the truth [that they know about God] in unrighteousness.”

Second argument against the exclusivity of the moral argument for God, and it’s this: though we have a conscience and though its powerful, it does not necessitate the Christian God. At most, it necessitates the existence of “a” God. And why? Well, consciences can be skewed and seared. So, ultimately, appeal must be made to the gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in scripture (more on that in a bit), to help the person see their need, to not only embrace the existence of a divine, moral lawgiver, but to come to faith in the God of the bible, by placing their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

Third, and related to the previous point, even unbelievers can affirm the existence of a supreme, moral lawgiver without affirming that that lawgiver is the God of the bible. That was the case with Immanuel Kant, I referenced earlier. He was the Enlightenment era philosopher who denied both the trinity and the incarnation. But yet, believed that the moral nature of man pointed to some supreme, moral lawgiver. He didn’t have an orthodox view of God. He did not believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. His beliefs -- like many today, frankly, who adhering to the modern-day religion of moral, therapeutic deism -- did not amount to saving faith. This faith-made god of his own imagination.

So, while we would not deny that the moral compass, that God has given us, does ultimately point to a supreme, moral lawgiver -- we can affirm that truth, that our moral instincts point to a Supreme Being, a God -- we would not say that the moral argument itself is a sufficient proof to establish the existence of God.

That leads us to our fourth argument, which has been historically offered for the existence of God, and that’s called the ontological argument. The Ontological Argument. If you found the first three riveting… this fourth one, it’s hard to even get it out. The ontological argument gets its name from a Greek participle “ontos,” which derives from a Greek verb that you’ve heard, “eimi,” “I am.” Ontos comes from I am. And ontos simply means “to exist, to have being.” The ontological argument is rooted in the idea of being.

Now, this argument has taken on various forms throughout the centuries. Again, I can’t give you the whole universe of this argument. I can just give you a nutshell. But the Christian form of this argument, can be traced to Anselm of Canterbury, a medieval theologian. And track with me if you can. If you can’t, I understand, its hard enough to get it on paper here.

Anselm’s basic argument is this: mankind is capable of thinking of something absolutely perfect. We have the ability, as humans, to think of something absolutely perfect. In his words, “something than which nothing greater can be thought”. But if that thing does not actually exist, then it’s not absolutely perfect . . . since existing is better than not existing. Have I lost you already? “Thus,” says Anslem, “if the thing we are imagining does not exist, we can think of something even greater than it, something that actually does exist. This means an absolutely perfect being must necessarily exist. And that absolutely perfect thing is God.”

Convinced? It’s a bit convoluted, right? But boiling it down, what this argument is saying, is that our ability to come up with an idea, a conception of “something which nothing greater can be thought”, proves the existence of that very thing. Any clearer? Maybe not. Boiling down even further, what this proof is doing, is arguing from the idea of God -- whatever idea of God we can conceive of in our fallen minds -- to the existence of God. The fact that we can conceive of Him, means He’s there. Here’s a direct quote, by the way, from Anselm. You can see here, he lived from 1033 to 1109, “God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived.” That’s his argument in a nutshell, the ontological argument.

Like the others, this argument has its strengths. But it has its weaknesses as well. First, in terms of weakness, one cannot escape the sense that with this argument, at some sense, man is measuring God by man’s thoughts. There’s a certain man-centeredness built into this, that’s always there under the surface. Even this phrase, God is that “than which nothing greater can be conceived”, is centered around whatever can be conceived by man.

Second, it’s not logically necessary to say that “something than which nothing greater can be conceived” is God. God could be something that transcends even what we can conceive.

Third, even if a person has an idea of God, he cannot know that that idea is of God, unless he first knows what God is like. And how is he to come to know what God is like? Through God’s own self-revelation of what He is like! Not based on what we think God is like.

Fourth, and like many of the other arguments we’ve gone through already, there have been those who have held to some form of this ontological argument, who never came to believe in the God of the bible. Here we have (on the slide), left to right, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and George Hegel, he looks really suspicious. But these men believed in some version of that ontological argument and did not believe in the Christian God. Did not believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

All that to say, that the ontological argument, like the other three, is not the be-all-end-all natural proof for the existence of God.

Now, again, and I’ve said it before, each of these philosophical arguments -- the cosmological, teleological, moral and ontological -- they can be helpful tools in our understanding of this doctrine of God. These can be useful tools in our Theology Proper toolbox. But as we’ve seen, each has major limitations. Because ultimately, each one of these does what my own theology professor once said, they build “theology from below.” That is, each of these arguments derives from human reason, human argumentation, and human thought processes. Rather than God’s self-revelation in scripture, which would be building our theology from above. We want to build our theology from above, from scripture. Not like these guys, from below.

Herman Bavinck, a highly respected Dutch theologian from the early twentieth century, once said this, “We receive the impression that belief in the existence of God is based entirely upon these proofs. But indeed that would be ‘a wretched faith, which, before it invokes God, must first prove His existence.’ The contrary, however, is the truth. There is not a single object of existence of which we hesitate to accept until definite proofs are furnished. Of the existence of self, of the world round about us, of logical and moral laws, etc., we are so deeply convinced because of the indelible impressions which all these things make upon our consciousness that we need no arguments or demonstration. Spontaneously, altogether involuntarily: without any constraint or coercion, we accept that existence.” What Bavinck is saying here is, that we accept the material world all around us, by sight, as being what it actually is. The sky, that we see, is actually the sky. My arm is actually my arm. If I put one bean here and one bean here, and I bring the two beans together, I have two beans. That’s reality. We don’t need further proofs for these realities.

Bavinck continues, “Now the same is true in regard to the existence of God. The so-called proofs,” that’s what we’ve just gone through, “may convey greater clearness, they are by no means the final grounds of our most certain conviction that God exists. This certainly is established only by faith . . . The proofs, taken as real proofs, are not sources but rather products of faith.” The proofs taken as real proofs, are not sources, but rather products of faith.

Which leads us right into our final argument for the existence of God. The one that will undergird the remainder of our study of Theology Proper this summer, which is the presuppositional argument.
The Presuppositional Argument. The presuppositional argument, that’s section ‘E’ on the first side of your worksheet. By the way, I’m guessing that these are not going to be sufficient for note taking. Have you filled these pages up already? Alright, hope you’re writing small.

The presuppositional argument. Now, in our first lesson in this series, I laid out the presuppositions which will inform the entirety of our study of Theology Proper. In fact… No, they are not on this worksheet. I might need to change that. I had laid out six presuppositions. We’re not going to go through them all right now. I’m going to remind you of the first two of these presuppositions. The first is this, God exists, and second, God has revealed Himself. We went over this in our first session, where we saw that God has revealed Himself, generally, in nature and history and conscience. And He’s revealed Himself, specifically, or specially, in direct speech to certain men. In dreams and visions. Through the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. And then, with utmost clarity, through His word, through scripture.

So, God exists. And God has revealed Himself. He has spoken to us in this generation most clearly through His word. So, if we want to understand whether God exists, we need to go with what God Himself has revealed in scripture, in His word, about His existence. And in what ways does scripture demonstrate the existence of God? Again, the time restrains us here, but there are at least a few that we can go through.

First, scripture establishes the existence of God based on its lack of argumentation for the existence of God. Unlike the natural proofs, the scriptures don’t build a case for God’s existence. We don’t read the bible as from A to B to C to D, and oh, now I believe God exists. No, scripture is not a series of natural or logical proofs, to establish that God is there. Rather, scripture simply assumes and implicitly asserts the existence of God. Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God.” Not, “here are three reasons why you should believe God exists.” No. “In the beginning, God.” Plain and simple, cut and dried. The same with John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word.” Just lets you have it.

Another esteemed Dutch theologian, Louis Berkhof, weighed in on scripture’s “lace of argumentation” for the existence of God. Berkhof says “The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith. But this faith is not a blind faith, but a faith that is based on evidence, and the evidence is found primarily in scripture as the inspired word of God . . . Scripture proof on this point does not come to us in the form of an explicit declaration, and much less in the form of a logical argument. In that sense the bible does not prove the existence of God . . . it presupposes the existence of God.”

Now surely there will be someone here who’s thinking, and saying internally, “Hang on a second, I’m throwing a flag. You’re engaging, Jesse, in circular reasoning. By arguing for the existence of God, by referring to the God of the bible. Which assumes the very thing you’re trying to prove. You’re engaging in circular reasoning.” Yes, I am. I am engaging in circular reasoning. And the reality is, even secular people engage in circular reasoning. Non-believers engage circular reasoning, I would say, when they obey the law. Why? Because it’s illegal to break the law. That’s their own way of, in a circular way, acknowledging the law is there, and that they should be obeying that law. I’m doing so, I’m engaging in circular reasoning here, without apologizing, because the source that I’m drawing from, to engage in my circular reasoning, the bible, is superior to any other form of authority that exists. In other words, this is the best form of circular reasoning anybody could ever engage in. To do so, from the standpoint of God, from the standpoint of scripture. How else does scripture demonstrate the existence of God?

Second, scripture establishes the existence of God by simply requiring man to believe that God is, which starts with believing that He exists. That’s Hebrews 11:6, “he who comes to God must believe that He is.” The message of scripture does not equate having a saving relationship with God and being able to engage in human reasoning about whether God exists. Instead, it simply compels us, as this passage does, to believe that He is.

Here’s another way scripture demonstrates the existence of God. Third, scripture provides a harsh assessment of those who deny the existence of God. You know some of these, I’m sure. Psalm 14:1, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” Psalm 10:4, “The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, ‘There is no God.’ ” Psalm 53:1, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God,’ they are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice.” Did you catch each of the descriptive words of rebuke that God has for those who deny His existence? Foolish, wicked, corrupt, abominable.

Fourth, the scriptures assert that God is self-existent. The scriptures testify on their face, to the fact that not only that God exists, but that He is self-existent. Meaning, He is the source of His own life. He’s not the Grand Designer because we see elements of design in creation. He’s not the Moral Lawgiver because we see elements of morality and law around us. No, and He’s not God because we are able to conceive of nothing greater, the way that Anselm would say. No, scripture testifies that God simply is. “I Am Who I Am,” Exodus 3:14. “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things,” Romans 11:36. 1 Timothy 1:17, He is “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God.”

In summary, the scriptures, which we know are the word of God, testify that God exists. That means, we can affirm, through faith and with the Spirit living in us, that God does, in fact, exist. That’s the presuppositional argument in a nutshell. Again, entire courses are taught on each one of these. I’m doing my best to get them each before you, to kind of weigh and measure, and see which is the best one.

So, we have covered, so far, the existence of God, in about 40 minutes. That sounds irreverent. But we’ve covered the existence of God in 40 minutes. Now, we’re going to look at the knowability of God. And then we’re going to get into the incomprehensibility of God, as we turn the page in our worksheet here.

You can, I hope, appreciate sort of the build in tension of these two concepts. The bible reveals that both are true. That God is knowable to mankind. And specifically, to His true followers. But at the same time, because of His transcendence and independence and His very God-ness, God is incomprehensible. He is personal, yet He’s infinite and absolute. He’s knowable, and yet He’s incomprehensible.
Let’s go ahead and start with the knowability of God.

The Knowability of God. The testimony of scripture is clear. God has personally related to His people, through His very presence, throughout the scope of history. He had a relationship with Adam and Eve in the Garden, before the fall, Genesis 3:8. He descended to the people of God at Babel, in Genesis 11:5,7. He spoke directly with Moses. Exodus 33:11 says He spoke with Moses, “as a man speaks to his friend.” God gave His law at Sinai, Exodus 19. He dwelt between the cherubim in the Old Testament mercy seat, from which He communed with His original people, 1 Samuel 4:4; I Kings 8:10,11. He is present, 1 Corinthians 3:16 says, with the church collectively. He indwells today, each individual believer, Ephesians 3:17. In James 2:23, He calls us friends. Clearly, God is no aloof or unattainable deity. He is involved in the lives of His people.

Further, God’s interactions and relationships with His people show not only is He interactive and relational with His people, but He can be personally known. In fact, that’s the clear testimony of scripture. Here’s Jeremiah 9:23-24, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,’ declares the Lord.”

Knowing God, as described here, has something to do with knowing something of His character, as He has revealed it to us. Or consider the words of our Lord, in John 17:3, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” Knowing God, then, also is linked to our having been granted eternal life, through Christ Jesus. If you are one of God’s true followers here tonight -- meaning you have bowed the knee to this Jesus, in repentance and faith -- you can know and have comfort, not only in the truth that God knows you as His adopted child, but also, in the truth that you can know Him. That He is knowable by you, in a personal and relational way.
Among other things, this means that the Spirit will illumine His word, so that you can understand His will. This means you can pray to Him. You can cry out to Him. You can teach others about Him. And it means you can serve Him in your family and in His church. I hope we never loose sight of how incredible it is that we, as mere creatures, and sinful and wretched one at that, can know the living God! I hope that’s not lost, ever, on any one of us here.

But… and there always has to be a “but” when we study theology! While God is knowable, at the same time, scripture teaches that God is incomprehensible. This means that while God has been truly and sufficiently revealed, so as to be personally knowable, He has not completely revealed Himself, so as to be comprehensively and exhaustively knowable. That brings us to the incomprehensibility of God. The Incomprehensibility of God. See, as much as we might try, through our study of scripture and theology this summer, to plumb the depths of the Person and Being of God, the reality is, we’ll never get there. We’ll never come even close. And why? Because we are time-bound, earth-bound, temporal creatures, whose minds have been weakened and polluted and corrupted by indwelling sin.

In contrast to our plight as humans, scripture teaches us that God is spirit (He is invisible), John 4:24, “God is spirit.” God dwells in heaven, Isaiah 66:1, “Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool.” God dwells in unapproachable light, 1 Timothy 6:16 , He “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light.” God is higher than all other so-called gods, Psalm 95:3, “For the Lord is a great God and a great King above all gods.” God transcends time, space, and His creation, Isaiah 55:9, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts higher than your thoughts.” God is infinite, Psalm 147:5, “Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.” God is absolutely unique, Isaiah 46:5, “To whom would you liken Me and make Me equal and compare Me, that we would be alike?” Or Psalm 50:21, “You thought that I was just like you.” God does not reveal all He knows, or all that He is, Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God.” God cannot be fully searched out, Job 37:5, “God thunders with His voice wondrously, doing great things which we cannot comprehend.” Or Psalm 145:3, “Great is the Lord, and highly to be praised, and His greatness is unsearchable.” Or last, Romans 11:33, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!”

Wayne Grudem, in his “Systematic Theology,” has helpfully summarized, I think, God’s incomprehensibility when he says this, “It is not only that we can never fully understand God; it is also true that we can never fully understand any single thing about God. His greatness, His understanding, His knowledge, His riches, wisdom, judgments, and ways are all beyond our ability to understand fully . . .” He continues, “Thus, we may know something about God’s love, power, wisdom, and so forth. But we can never know His love completely or exhaustively. We can never know His power exhaustively. We can never know His wisdom exhaustively, and so forth. In order to know any single thing about God exhaustively we would need to know it as He Himself knows it.” And, of course, if we ourselves knew what God knew, what would that make us? God!

No, the most that we can engage in is what my theology professor, Dr. James Mook at Masters Seminary, has called “blessed despair.” That holy frustration that we experience, when we attempt to search out and understand, any aspect of God’s person or God’s works. “Blessed despair” refers to that process whereby we seek to plumb the deep things of God. To study Him, through His word. To come to a fuller understanding of who He is in His person, character, and will. That’s the “blessed” part, the beauty of studying God. But then the “despair”. The “despair” comes when we reach the conclusion that, because we are mere creaturely beings, and fallen ones at that, we’ll never come close to a complete understanding and full appreciation of who He is. “Blessed despair” really is a hallmark of the study of theology. You know, the study of theology can produce headache-inducing thoughts, about God and His nature, His person, and His character, while at the same time producing soul-stirring affections, for the Triune God of scripture. That’s ok! We should absolutely lean into that tension and go no further with it.

Again, Grudem says: “If we . . . delight in the fact that God alone is God, that He is always infinitely greater than we are, that we are His creatures who owe Him worship and adoration, then this will be a very encouraging idea. Even though we spend time in bible study and fellowship with God every day of our lives, there will always be more to learn about God and His relationships to us and the world, and thus there will always be more that we can be thankful for and for which we can give Him praise.” Indeed!

So, when we reach one of these topics, like God’s knowability and His incomprehensibility. When we reach on of these topics, like God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Or God’s goodness and the existence of evil in the world. Let’s diligently search the scriptures for answers. But let’s always be prepared to end with the humble posture that David had in Psalm 139:6, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is too high, I cannot attain to it.” I pray our lesson tonight has been an encouragement to you, as you worship and serve the God who is. Meaning the God who exists. The God who is knowable. And the God who is incomprehensible.

Let’s pray. Our great God, as we study this subject, we are immediately in awe. In awe of who You are, who we are, and that we would have the opportunity to worship You. Have fellowship with You. And approach You through the blood of Your Son Jesus Christ. You truly are holy and righteous. You truly are loving and merciful. You truly are a good and gracious and so many other things that we call attributes. But they really just comprise who You are. God, I pray that You would help us work through this process of “blessed despair” as we go through this study this summer. Help us to be diligent to seek You out. To know You in a more deep and intimate way, through Your word. At the same time, realize that we’ll never reach the ultimate subject of this study. But because of our fallen-ness, because of the effects of sin -- though forgiven, they are still there -- we’ll never be able to get to the end of the subject of our study. There will always be something lacking, something missing, something we wish we could know. But help us to find rest in that, and hope in that, and comfort in that. Knowing that You alone are God, and worthy of all our worship and praise. We thank You for this day, Lord. We thank You for the privilege, morning and evening, to worship You around the word, through song, through fellowship, through prayer. And we ask that our service to You, this week, would be found faithful and pleasing in Your sight. In Jesus’ name. Amen