INTRODUCTION

Truly there is a God, although the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. And so, Lord, do thou, who dost give understanding to faith, give me, so far as thou knowest it to be profitable, to understand that thou art as we believe; and that thou art that which we believe.¹
<!--break--->
Such were the words of St. Anselm of Canterbury, the medieval monk, as he began his discourse (Latin Proslogium) on the existence of God. He begins his work with the statement "Truly there is a God" and such is reality. The human heart's longing for the transcendent and to understand that for which he yearns is expressed well by this early scholastic thinker. Christians for millennia have used rational arguments, both a priori and a posteriori, to confirm the existence of the infinitely perfect being. In this paper I will discuss the use of reason to argue for the existence of God and the proper role and usage of such arguments (be they classical or contemporary) for the people of God. I will do this by beginning with a brief discussion of the knowledge of God and humanity's sinful suppression of such knowledge. I will then move to consider a few objections to the use of the word "proof" by clarifying the range of meaning and offering a nuanced definition. Finally, I will present several benefits to the use of theistic arguments by Christians in the evangelistic environment, the defense of the historic Christian faith, and loving God with our minds.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD BELONGS TO US

The knowledge of God is universal for all people. Such a statement perhaps on its face appears naive in a world filled with unbelief and the worship of all manner of things other than the Almighty. Yet the book of Romans begins with an unequivocal statement of just this fact; all human beings not only have access to the knowledge of God, but in some sense they actually posses the knowledge of God (Rom 1:19-21). The apostle presents the existence of a God with certain attributes as clearly perceived through what has been made. Thinkers from various spheres of evangelical thought throughout history have acknowledged that on some level all people truly know God. John Calvin argued plainly for this truth in book one of his Institutes, "That there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead, the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally enlarges, that all to a man being aware that there is a God, and that he is their Maker, may be condemned by their own conscience when they neither worship him nor consecrate their lives to his service."² Others in the reformed tradition, notably the Old Princeton divines³, followed Calvin in this view. In more recent literature, theologian John Frame echoes the same theme, "Because God is Lord, He is not only knowable but known to all (Rom 1:21).⁴ Millard Erickson concurs in his treatment of the subject, "All persons have a knowledge of God. Although it may be suppressed to the extent of being unconscious or unrecognizable, it is nonetheless there, and there will be areas of sensitivity to which the message may be effectively directed as a starting point."⁵ Likewise, political philosopher J. Budziszewski, albeit from a different context⁶ , conveys a similar idea:

"I have written this section in reverse. It is not by molecular machines and carbon-oxygen ratios that we know that God is real. Nor is it by criticizing abstruse speculations about extraterrestrials, about the age of the universe, or about universes other than our own. The knowledge of God belongs to us already; these arguments are not its source, but only responses to objections. We recognize immediately that nature requires an explanation beyond itself, that the things in nature are designed, that design requires personal agency. In short, we recognize immediately that we are created by the one true God."⁷

There is a resounding evangelical consensus⁸ from various traditions, that people actually in some sense know God from a revelation through nature. If this be the case, that people do know God, we must give an account for the persistence of unbelief in the world. Our thought must now be brought to bear on those who know Him yet neither acknowledge nor worship him. Or stated more precisely, we must investigate how the Scripture describes the present condition of those who deny the knowledge of God.

SIN'S SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH

Many people claim to be agnostics⁹, to not know whether there is or is not a God. This is not disputed; people claim to not know that which they know. The usual claim of the agnostic is that the knowledge of God is simply not available, that there is just not enough information to decide one way or another. However, if the aforementioned is true, if everyone in some sense truly knows God, the person making a claim to agnosticism (or atheism for that matter) is either not telling the truth or engaging in irrational self-deception. The Scriptures record that this is precisely the case. The Psalmist tells us that "the fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is not one who does good" (Ps 14:1 ESV). In other words, a person must engage in telling himself (saying in his heart) that he does not believe in God, when in fact he knows better. According to Frame, "the 'agnostic' who says that he does not know if God exists is deceiving himself and may be seeking to deceive others."¹⁰ For such self-deception the only appropriate word is irrational. In addition the book of Romans tells us that humanity will actually "suppress the truth by their wickedness" denying the knowledge of God which God "has made plain to them" (Rom 1:18-20 ESV). It is not simply that man is self-deceived; he will actually hold down or distort the truth in his wickedness further revealing the source of his agnosticism. So as we begin a discussion of the valid use of arguments for God's existence we must acknowledge that the playing field is indeed somewhat less than level. Human beings whose minds are blinded (2 Cor 4:4), whose understanding is darkened by the hardness of their hearts (Eph 4:18) are in no way neutral or objective when reasoning from the clear evidence in the universe for God's existence. If this be the case, some think it futile to attempt to persuade unbelievers about the existence of God using reasonable arguments and evidence. If man will only come to faith through the gospel, which comes through the testimony of Scripture¹¹, the place for "theistic proofs" that do not actually prove anything to the unbelieving mind is brought into question. Before moving to a salvaging of the use of theistic proofs for the task of the church, a hurdle must be lowered in order for a proper place of theistic arguments to be achieved. That hurdle lies with the word proof itself.

ON PROVING GOD'S EXISTENCE TO THE UNBELIEVING MIND

Some have showed an aversion to the word "prove" when speaking of the existence of God. An argument can be made that the Scriptures simply assume God's existence (see Gen 1:1) and so Christians should do likewise in all their thinking.¹² To this the author must simply agree. Others have objected that attempting to prove the existence of God to unbelievers is simply futile for the unregenerate simply cannot be persuaded without being converted by the Word (see above). Wayne Grudem makes a helpful clarification in his discussion of the classical proofs and the validity of them to the task they are assigned. Grudem writes:

"Because all of these arguments are based on facts about the creation that are indeed true facts, we may say that all of these proofs (when carefully constructed) are, in an objective sense, valid proofs. They are valid in that they correctly evaluate the evidence and correctly reason to a true conclusion - in fact the Universe does have God as its cause, and it does show evidence of a purposeful design, and God does exist as a being greater than which nothing can be imagined, and God has given us a sense of right and wrong and a sense that his judgment is coming someday. The actual facts referred to in these proofs, therefore, are true and in that sense the proofs are valid, even though not all people are persuaded by them. But in another sense, if 'valid' means 'able to compel agreement even from those who begin with false assumptions,' then of course none of the proofs are valid because not one of them is able to compel agreement from everyone who considers them. Yet this is because many unbelievers either begin with invalid assumptions or do not reason correctly from the evidence. It is not because the proofs are invalid in themselves."¹³

So perhaps the word proof is problematic if narrowly defined as convincing to all. Which such a high definition of proof, the amount of things that are proved in this world would prove quite small. In fact there is a long tradition¹⁴ arguing in favor of a skeptical viewpoint disbelieving that anything can be proved at all. In light of Grudem, I would like to provide a nuanced definition of proof in the following manner. Let us call the version of proof = convincing to all, P-roof. This version of P-roof sets the bar much too high as rational persuasion still may be convincing to some while not to all. Perhaps we may define a version of proof in just such a manner, as convincing to some. We may call this p-roof. Such p-roofs then may be a valid part of the work of persuasion in those who actually become convinced. This then could free theistic arguments from having to perform a feat they should not be meant to perform - to convert the mind apart from God's Word. This will leave the conversion power with God the Holy Spirit, thereby freeing the arguments to simply be a part of the evangelistic environment.¹⁵ Christian philosopher William Lane Craig acknowledges a similar idea in his treatment of faith and reason. Craig differentiates between the certain knowledge of the truth of the gospel which is the privilege of the believer and the task of rationally demonstrating the truth of the gospel to others. Knowing Christianity to be true, according to Craig, only comes by the inner witness and confirmation of the Holy Spirit. Such knowledge is true and certain and is properly available only to the regenerate soul. Showing Christianity to be true requires demonstrating its truths to others in a reasonable, comprehensible fashion with the intention to persuade.¹⁶ This distinction of lowering the bar of P-roof combined with the Craig distinction of knowing and showing, frees the Christian to use theistic arguments in her evangelistic encounters without over estimating the actual purpose and power of such arguments. Additionally, the other value of theistic arguments - that of apologetics and helping the believer to love God with all his mind - may be joyfully affirmed. To each of these ends we now turn.

THE BENEFITS OF THEISTIC ARGUMENTS

Now that we have freed theistic proofs from having to do the entire work of convincing and converting, we can turn to the key question of their usefulness to the church. It will be first noted that theistic arguments, based on nature, conscience, providence, and the human constitution are very helpful in the evangelistic task. When the gospel is shared with others, we admit that we are sharing with individuals who have certain presuppositions, life experiences, relationships, intellectual background and perhaps professional training. This forms what we may call their evangelistic environment, or historical situation of their soul. Some of the environment of the unbeliever may prove to be fertile ground and open windows to the gospel while some may not be so useful soil. With Scripture and the scriptural viewpoint as his foundation, the witness may properly use theistic arguments when the situation calls for it. The discerning witness should be equipped with many tools at his disposals as he proclaims the gospel. One could easily see how an understanding of cosmology would be of use if proclaiming Christ with a person with scientific interests. Just as God may use a tragedy in one's life to bring them to a readiness to hear, it also seems quite plausible that God may use rational argument as well. If God wants to open a heart to hear his Word through pre-evangelistic engagement with theistic arguments, he may do so.¹⁷ We will also find that some of the arguments are very convincing to certain people. Charles Hodge echoes this in his discussion of the usefulness of such arguments.

"The second objection to natural theology is that its arguments are inconclusive. This is a point which no man can decide for other men. Every one must judge for himself. An argument which is conclusive for one mind may be powerless for other minds. That the material universe began to be; that it has not the cause of its existence within itself, and therefore must have had an extramundane cause; and that the infinitely numerous manifestations of design which it exhibits show that that cause must be intelligent, are arguments for the being of God, which have satisfied the minds of the great body of intelligent men in all ages of the world. They should not, therefore, be dismissed as unsatisfactory, because all men do not feel their force. Besides, as just remarked, these arguments are only confirmatory of others more direct and powerful derived from our moral and religious nature."¹⁸

It seems that the Christian who is mindful not to assume alien, unbelieving presuppositions as he speaks with unbelievers, but argues from within his Christian framework, is quite justified and even commended in using theistic arguments in the evangelistic environment of his hearers.

Secondly, an apologetic based on reasonable arguments and logical precision has an encouraging and emboldening effect on the witness of Christian believers. Such a use of apologetics must be commened broadly in the churches. Unbelieving worldviews can bring tension to the mind of believers who are not equipped with sound Christian thought and reasoning about the issues of our day. Theistic arguments and apologetics serve as a great response to the objections of the intellectual avant-garde of our day, with which the Christian must be equipped to do battle.¹⁹ These efforts should be brought to bear with full force in the discipleship minsitry of the church. This is especially important for high school and college students who are bombarded with sanctioned antithetical ideas during the tenure of their studies.²⁰ Additionally, apologetics can serve to inoculate students against hollow and deceptive philosophy by allowing the disciple to engage with small doses of unbelieving thought while refuting it with good arguments.²¹ The author has personally observed the effect of apologetic training on the tactful boldness of the witness of young Christians. Those who are prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in them, (1 Peter 3:15 ESV) usually do so joyfully without relinquishing opportunities to commend to others the gospel of our Lord.

Finally, it must be said there is another purpose for which theistic arguments and sound reasoning about God should be commended in the church. This reason finds its source in none other than the great commandment of our Lord. "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." (Mark 12:30 ESV, emphasis added). In light of this commandment, the following words are appropriately spoken, "We need to admit the mind into Christian fellowship again. We need the mind disciplined in Christ, enlightened by faith, passionate for God and His Creation, to be let loose in the world."²² To think deeply about the nature of the universe, the revelation of the Lord, to form a uniquely Christian theology of nature, and to present arguments towards this view, is a profound way to express love to God with the mind. The church should encourage her sons and daughters to think and to reflect both on the works and words of God. By doing so, a deep and often missing part of Christian worship, that of adoring contemplation, may once again be offered in humility before the throne of grace.

CONCLUSION

In this paper I have argued that the use of theistic arguments should be encouraged in the life of the church for their evangelistic value, their apologetic value, and for the worship of God through the life of the mind. I did this by first defining the intellectual playing field as one that is quite uneven; an arena in which unbelievers indeed know God, yet irrationally and sinfully suppress this knowledge in themselves and with others. I then argued that although not all people will be convinced by theistic P-roofs due to obstinate irrationality, there may be a place for the use of em>p-roofs that will be convincing to some in the evangelistic environment. By placing theistic arguments under the Lordship of Christ, and the witness remaining submitted to biblical authority and truth, ²³ there remains a great treasure for the church's evangelistic, apologetic, and intellectual labors. To these ends theistic arguments are submitted for the glory of God.²⁴

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anselm. Proslogium; Monologium; an Appendix in Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilon and Cur Deus Homo. Translated by SIDNEY NORTON DEANE. Chicago, IL: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1926.

Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, NY: Free Press, 1998.

Boa, Kenneth, and Robert Bowman. Faith Has Its Reasons - an Integrative Approach to Defending Christianity. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001.

Budziszewski, J. What We Can't Not Know - a Guide. Dallas: TX: Spence Publishing, 2003.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edinburgh :: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846.

Cowan, Steven B. Five Views on Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith, Christian Truth and Apologetics. Revised Edition ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994.

Dempski, William, and Jay Wesley Richards. Unapologetic Apologetics - Meeting the Challenge of Theological Studies. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2001.

Dempski, William, and John Wilson. Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2004.

Empiricus, Sextus. Outlines of Scepticism Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, ed. Julia Annas and Jonathan Barnes. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Second ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.

Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987.

Geisler, Norman. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, 1872.

Moreland, J.P. Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1997.

Morrison, Alejandro Moreno. "The Role and Use of Evidence in Reformed Presuppositional Apologetics." IIIM Magazine Online 2, no. 37 (2000).

Wells, Jonathan, and Jody F. Sjogren. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2002.

Notes:

---

¹ Anselm, Proslogium; Monologium; an Appendix in Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilon and Cur Deus Homo, trans. SIDNEY NORTON DEANE (Chicago, IL: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1926), Preamble to Chapter 2.

²John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Edinburgh :: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846).

³ See Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (1872), Part I, Chapter 1 - The Knowledge of God is Innate.

⁴ John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), 18. Emphasis in original

⁵ Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Second ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 198.

⁶ J. Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know - a Guide (Dallas: TX: Spence Publishing, 2003). This work is a discussion about Natural Law and the witness of God in nature. In his discussion of the witness of design in the universe, Budziszewski makes the claim that we do possess the knowledge of God independently from arguments.

⁷ Ibid. 84 Emphasis added.

⁸ It should be noted that Karl Barth and some who follow his understanding of natural theology would object to the unbeliever having any knowledge of God from nature alone. See a discussion of Barth's view in Erickson 187-191.

⁹ Bertrand Russell perhaps serves as a good example of an agnostic. "An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. . . . An Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable" Quoted in Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999).

¹⁰ Frame 18.

¹¹ Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 144.

¹² Those who argue for a transcendental approach to apologetics (Van Til, Clark, Frame) exhort believers not to assume an unbelievers presuppositions and worldview in order to prove the existence of God to them. The existence of God and the Biblical worldview should be assumed in our discussions with unbelievers. See Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons - an Integrative Approach to Defending Christianity (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 249-277. I would add that we can only use the rationality we all have, that which is endowed to us by our Creator - be it regenerate in the case of the believer or fallen and unregenerate in the case of the unbeliever. In either case, we can only use the reason, language, and minds that we have as gifts from God.

¹³ Grudem 144.

¹⁴See the 5 modes of skepticism in Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Scepticism, ed. Julia Annas and Jonathan Barnes, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 40-43. The rediscovery of Sextus in the 16th century gave impetus to Enlightenment skepticism which greatly affected the history of philosophy.

¹⁵ The concept of evangelistic environment will be developed later in this paper.

¹⁶ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Christian Truth and Apologetics, Revised Edition ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 31-50.

¹⁷ The Apostle Paul's interactions with gentile farmers and philosophers in the book of Acts (Acts 14 and 17 respectively) seem to illustrate this as part of his practice when preaching the gospel.

¹⁸Hodge. The Facts of Nature Reveal God, emphasis added.

¹⁹ Knowledge of God belongs to us already; these arguments are not its source, but only responses to objections. Budziszewski. 84. Emphasis added.

²⁰ Certainly the Darwinist onslaught endured in public education can be and is being refuted by theistic thinkers in the current intelligent design movement. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York, NY: Free Press, 1998), William Dempski and John Wilson, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2004), and Jonathan Wells and Jody F. Sjogren, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2002) come to mind.

²¹ See William Dempski and Jay Wesley Richards, Unapologetic Apologetics - Meeting the Challenge of Theological Studies (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2001) for a discussion of Apologetics as inoculation.

²² David Hazard, The Christian and the Well-Formed Mind quoted in J.P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1997) 16.

²³ John Frame, "Presuppositional Apologetics" in Steven B. Cowan, Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000) 220, 221. Frame who puts forth a sort of Lordship Apologetics contends "We can reach this transcendental conclusion by many kinds of specific arguments, including many of the traditional ones. The traditional cosmological argument, for example, argues the God must exist as the First Cause of all the causes in the world. That conclusion is biblical and true, and if it can be drawn from true premises and valid logic, it may contribute to the goal of a transcendental conclusion. Certainly if God is the author of all meaning, he is the author of causality. And if God is the author of causality, the cause of all causes, he is the cause of all meaning. Therefore, the causal argument yields a transcendental conclusion." Emphasis added.

²⁴ Alejandro Moreno Morrison, "The Role and Use of Evidence in Reformed Presuppositional Apologetics," IIIM Magazine Online 2, no. 37 (2000). Morrison's article is a great example of commending theistic evidences in their proper context to those who have been opposed to their use in recent times. The conclusion is noted here:

"Evidence as a direct, positive, demonstrative tool, not merely as a heuristic or complementary tool (as in "positive inductive apologetics"), has no room in vertical argumentation (from immanent to transcendent). The transcendent God has already worked his way down to make himself present. However, in the horizontal level, evidence is in its jurisdiction and, duly submitted to the Lordship of Yahweh, can militate in the holy war against unbelief, demonstrating the folly of these creaturely attacks against God. This holy war pits the City of God with the Word of God against the city of man and the word of man. It is now my desire to encourage my fellow Reformed presuppositional apologists to engage in offensive apologetics. I urge them to claim the use of evidence to the Lordship of our God, both developing it and taking advantage of the work already done by our fellow brothers in Christ, giving it the proper scriptural focus and use, and putting it to the service of the kingdom in order to fight the good fight, the holy war, until the King appears to consummate his victory."