God Exists - But How do we Know?
God Exists – But How do we Know?
We can know that God exists in three ways:
1) We know God exists by listening to our hearts.
a. Mankind has suppressed the truth by their wickedness (Rom.1:18)
b. Mankind has darkened their hearts (Rom.1: 21)
c. Mankind has exchanged God for a lie (Rom.1:25)
- Therefore we see that we know that God exists yet we try to push him out of our minds because we have all sinned. Sin is a deceiver and when we are not growing close to God and living in Him, sin becomes like living in a fog where we forget that God is even around or exists.
d. Mankind has fooled himself by his sin. (Ps. 14:1, 53:1)
e. Mankind has pushed God out of his thoughts (Ps. 10:3-4)
- Deep down, mankind knows that God exists, but over time He learns to block God out. There are no true athiests.
2) We know God exists by looking at nature.
a. God is seen clearly in creation (Rom. 1:20)
b. God is seen clearly in the sky (Ps. 19:1-2)
- Look at a wristwatch. If I told you that this watch formed by itself would you believe me?
3) We know God exists by looking at Scripture.
a. This is self-explanatory. We have been looking at Scripture the whole time.
b. 2 Tim. 3:16-17
What does this mean for me?
1. Because we are all sinners, only God can change the hearts of people. We are the messengers.
2. The world tries to push God out of the way but as Christians we are called to be ‘salt and light.’
posted by Charlie Wallace at
3:18 PM
7 Comments:
Sound stuff. Do you favour any particular theory of apologetics?
The cosmological and teleogical arguments are good. (Aquinas and Paley)
So you would go with the Classical approach, like Norman Geisler?
To be sure we are speaking the same language, what are my options?
Lots.
Classical- Emphasises arguments for existence of God as a startign point for apologetics.
Evidential- Use of a variety of arguemtns, usually beginning with the Resurrection.
Historical- Primary emphasis on Rsurrection as starting point for apologetics.
Classic Presuppositional- Identify the existence of the unbelievers wrong worldview.
Rational Presuppositional- Emphsis on preenting Christianity as a logically coherent philosophy.
Systematic Consistency Presuppositional (Cumulative approach)- Demonstrate how a true worldview must be consistent in all areas of thought.
Practical Presuppositional- Pragmatic apologetics. Demonstrate the practical and ethical difficulties of life under a non-Christian worldview.
Reformed Epistemenology- Arguably not really an apologetic theory. Christianity need not be rationally justified, it can be a basic belief. Emphasis on negative apologetics?
I like these two:
Systematic Consistency Presuppositional
Practical Presuppositional
I think Paul Feinberg and possibly Gordon Lewis advocates the former. Thelatter is assocaiated with Francis Schaeffer.
God Bless
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home