This is a post from a messageboard where I have been debating the Christian faith with some folks. I was asked to "make my argument," and so I thought it might be interesting for y'all to read.
Hi, Gentlemen.
Thanks for your patience. I have had very little time to actually sit down and think, much less then proceed to write anything!
Though I am going along with posting this whole thing all at once, I am dividing it into four sections. This is to make it easier for the reader. This first is an introduction, and the set up is actually longer than the argument proper.
I’d like to begin by thanking y’all for your patience. I’ve profited greatly from our conversation, and I hope that y’all have, too. I would be remiss if I didn’t also express that I’m very grateful to the Lord Jesus for the opportunity to discuss these things with so many people, as the circumstances surrounding us all being here for this conversation are solidly under His control, and He has graciously allowed His poor servant an honor far above his station in allowing me to be here to offer a defense of the Christian Faith.
I want to reiterate several things which I have stated earlier, since they are an important “frame” to what I have to say.
The first is that I am here to offer a reasoned defense of the Faith, and not to argue anyone into becoming a Christian (though I certainly hope and pray that y’all will). No one is converted by an argument; they are made regenerate through the work of the Holy Ghost. He is the operative power in the process.
Secondly, my defense of Christianity will be presented by a Christian thinking like a Christian. In simple terms, I believe what I do and will not set it aside in order to conform the argument to non-Christian assumptions. Which is what we should expect--I wouldn’t think a Buddhist would argue his point from the presuppositions of monotheism. So I’m going to begin with the assumption that what I believe is true, as anyone would. No one argues for that which they don't believe, unless they're playing devil's advocate. Let it be officially noted that I advocate no devils!
Third, my argument pro Christianity is not an evidentialist argument. It cannot be, for several reasons. The first is that I can not and will not put the Lord God on trial before His creatures. He is our Judge. We do not and can not sit over against Him and decide whether or not He is telling the truth about Himself. The second reason explains this. God already has very clearly and plainly revealed Himself in the created order, as well as in the special revelation of Scripture. All men already know of Him, but suppress that truth in unrighteousness. It is sin in addition to creatureliness which makes any of us unfit for weighing the evidence in the first place. Finally, the unbeliever’s ability to weigh evidence at all is going to be called into question, so I can't submit evidence to those who (I will argue), on their beliefs, have no means by which to interpret it. This is not said by way of insult, as I think you guys are very able “opponents.” It’s just what the Bible has to say about unbelief.
Fourth, this argument will be called circular, and it ultimately is. Any argument is ultimately circular. We reason from certain things we assume to be true, and these assumptions are based on faith. We take certain things about the world for granted, apart from any evidence or “proof.” An example from earlier in this thread is that the empiricist takes the reliability of his senses for granted in his interpretation of facts, and that this cannot be tested, because any evidence from the test would be communicated by those same senses. So he begins with faith in his senses. There is an old Christian saying for this, “Credo ut intelligam,” or “I believe in order to understand.” I intend to demonstrate that only Christian belief can lead to real understanding. I also intend to show that any understanding non-Christians have comes from their having to think like a Christian, even as they profess unbelief.
The means by which I’ll do this will be to discuss several of these assumptions that must be true in order for our reasoning to be possible, then to see whether the atheistic or pantheistic worldviews, taken on their own terms, hang together in a way that provides them. I’ll then show how the Christian worldview, taken on its own terms, does provide a solid foundation for reason, logic, science...all those things which have been referenced in our discussion.
The reason I’m focusing on atheism and pantheism is because those are the views expressed by those of you with whom I’ve had the most interaction. This line of argumentation would stay the same if those on the other side were, say, Hindus and Muslims, but the particulars might vary.
Convincing y’all of the existence of God is kind of like trying to convince you of the existence of this messageboard (if you doubted it). It is the board, itself, which makes our conversation possible. It’s a given. The chief way of making the argument for the board’s existence would simply be to tell the unbeliever, “If what you say is true, we couldn’t be holding this conversation!” And that’s pretty much what I’ve been saying all along.
So, here is the gist of what I have to say. God exists, because He says so. He proves it by making proof possible. Any other worldview is impossible when consistently taken on its own terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment