7/31/2007

Proof

Question to R. C. Sproul:
Some modern theologians believe that we can’t prove God’s existence. They say that devising proofs for God’s existence is a useless exercise; it’s just a matter of faith; we don’t need reasons. Is that approach consistent with the Bible?


Part of R. C.’s Answer:
No, I don’t think it’s consistent with the Bible at all. I believe, first of all, that we can prove the existence of God. I think we can do more than just give evidence. I think we can argue compellingly for the existence of God, at least in terms of a self-existent, eternal being.
Further, I think Aquinas was absolutely right
when he developed the concept of a “necessary being”. What do we mean by a “necessary being”? We mean that this particular being is one who is both ontologically necessary, that is, that he is a being who cannot not be, as
well as being a being who is logically necessary. When I say that God is logically necessary what I mean is this: it is illogical and inconceivable that you can have something coming out of nothing. It’s impossible. Nothing cannot produce something. Something must have the power of being, within itself, or other things couldn’t come into existence. This is what I mean when I say that
God is logically necessary. That’s as potent an argument today as it was in the days of Aquinas. People still try to get around it with fancy arguments, but I think that their efforts fail.



Christian Apologetics is the effort to give reasons or arguments that further the case for the Christian faith. I have been privileged to have the time to study many of those who engage in Christian Apologetics:

C. S. Lewis

Josh McDowell

Norman Geisler

Ravi Zacharias

John H. Gerstner

R. C. Sproul

John M. Frame

J. Budziszewski

Cornelius Van Til

Greg Bahnsen

Craig Blomberg

Ben Witherington III

and several others.

I am beginning to look at books by:

Mark D. Roberts

Ronald H. Nash

and John W. Montgomery.

After that, I plan to move on to:

Gordon Clark.

I find myself amazed that these teachers can put forth so many different arguments for God’s existence from so many aspects of the world we live in or the way we think. I do agree with Sproul in the quote above, despite the intra-mural debates that rag between different lines of thinking from people on this list (Can’t we all just get along?). I find no logical reasons to discount the traditional arguments for God’s existence when properly stated.

God’s existence is proven by argument. Someone who disagrees will have much to overcome.

1 comment:

J. K. Jones said...

I edited this post after receiving a comment.

The statement originally said:

“I find a logical reasons to discount the traditional arguments for God’s existence when properly stated.”

It should have read:

“I find no logical reasons to discount the traditional arguments for God’s existence when properly stated.”

Sorry for my insufficient proof-reading.

Search This Blog