The Scholar's Arguments

Though divided by theological differences, the agnostic Robert G. Ingersol is said to have accepted an invitation to view a gift received by his pastor-friend, Philips Brooks. The gift, a scaled model of the universe, fascinated Ingersol as he watched the coordinated mechanism replicating the movement of the bodies of our solar system.

"What an amazing machine," marveled the famous agnostic. "Who made it for you?"

"No one," laughed the minister. "The device originated like our universe which it typifies. The entire system just came together by accident."

Whether true or only fiction, the story illustrates how the human mind can react to scholarly arguments concerning the Bible, the reality of God, and the spirit world. Some people do confirm their faith by accepting the scholar's logical reasoning and scientific investigations. Others simply reject the unwanted spiritual conclusions as inconclusive or incorrect.

Scholarly arguments to prove spiritual realities may be divided into two segments: logical apologetics and scientific evidences. In some presentations the two segments unite.

1. Logical Apologetics. Logical apologetics are reasons for accepting the Christian faith that scholars have developed in theological literature over several centuries before contemporary emphasis upon so-called scientific method. Text-books usually divide these intellectual arguments for God's presence and power as follows: the cosmological, the teleological, the anthropological, and the ontological. Each argument has strength and weakness.

The cosmological argument, though similar to the law that every effect requires an adequate cause, rests on the assumption that material things must have had an origin or "beginning". This argument focuses upon "the beginning" of the physical world or cosmos. The strength of the argument lies in the assumption that all things must have a "beginning" and that the "beginning" must have a producing cause. This assumption gives weight to Paul's argument that "the things that are made" show the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator.

The weakness of the argument lies both in the materialist's contention that matter is eternal and in the believer's admission that an adequate "beginning" cause of the present world does not require the holiness and grace revealed in the God of the Bible.

The teleological argument, though similar to the fact that a design requires a designer, rests on the fact that "order" and "collocating" are universally present in the design of the universe. The strength of the argument lies in the contention that both the "order" and the "collocating" require an adequate and "orderly" intelligence in the designer. The weakness of the argument lies both in the evolutionist's contention for natural selection and in the believer's admission that the logically projected intelligence does not require the nature of the God of the Bible. A designer lacking the full complement of holiness and grace revealed by the Bible and by the Son would suffice for a logical explanation.

The anthropological argument goes beyond both the cosmological and the teleological. It surpasses the causative power required by the first and the contriving intelligence required by the second by focusing upon the necessary factors of personality required to produce the human being.

How is this done? Man, who must have had a "beginning", requires a producing cause sufficient to account for his reasoning ability, his self-consciousness, and his moral nature. While this argument comes closer to requiring the God of the Bible, it fails to require infinity or holiness in the projected First Cause. Again, the evolutionist asserts natural processes can account for human abilities. The anthropological argument may strengthen the faith of the believer but fail to convince the unbeliever.

The ontological argument stands on the logical inference that only the actual existence of God can account for the presence of abstract and necessary ideas in the human mind. Three forms have received special recognition.

1. Samuel Clarke contended that time and space are necessary attributes of substance or being. If time and space are infinite and eternal, he contended that this assumption requires an infinite and eternal substance or being to whom these attributes belong.

2. Descartes contended that man innately has the idea of an infinite and perfect being. Believing that imperfect and finite beings could not produce this idea unless the idea represented reality, therefore, he asserted that the innate ideas require the actual existence of an infinite and perfect cause.

3. Anselm contended that actual existence is a necessary attribute of perfection; therefore, he claimed that the fact that man has a concept of perfection requires the existence of a perfect being.

The greatest weakness of the ontological argument lies in the fact that it rests upon what is actually only an assumption. The sceptic needs only to express his disagreement. There is no tangible or external evidence to prove the argument's validity.

These four historic intellectual arguments - cosmological, teleological, anthropological, and ontological -deserve recognition because they afford logical support to a mental acceptance of belief in God. Even the believer must admit that they still fall short of requiring the holy nature of the God of the Bible. And the materialist, though admiring the logic, can simply deny the assumptions and assign the conclusions to the evolutionary processes.

2. Physical and Scientific Evidences. In the eighteenth century Bishop Joseph Butler published his famous Analogy of Religion. Without robbing this classic of just praise for presenting analogies between nature and spiritual truth, even his admirers have confessed that his work does not refute the materialist or the evolutionist. The physical and material must ever lack the power to reveal the fullness of the eternal and the spiritual. Nature's analogies can indicate the presence and the handiwork of God to the believer but will always fall short of revealing the full nature of God's holy and gracious character. In fact, only the eye of faith sees proof of deity in nature.

Television programs about nature illustrate both the power and the weakness of physical nature to prove or even to indicate the presence or work of deity. When the believer sees either the immensity of space, the majesties of earth, the amazing life forms of land and sea, he rejoices, "How great and wonderful are the works of God!" When the unbeliever sees the same natural phenomena, he declares, "How intricate and remarkable are the adaptations of evolution."

Both the Psalmist and the great Apostle Paul could claim only that the material creation gives proof for the presence and power of deity, and that only to the believer. What man experiences by his reason or his five senses fails to reveal the full glory of the holy nature of the God of the Bible. Paul admits that "in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God...." Logical reasoning and scientific investigation will always fall short of demonstrating the holiness and grace of God.

The "bottom line" can claim only that scholarly and logical arguments and scientific investigations have made faith in God intellectually reasonable; they can go no further. The believer must admit that man's best arguments and discoveries fall short of revealing the holy and gracious nature of the God of the Bible. And the confirmed unbeliever may retain his unbelief because intellectual arguments and scientific evidences only confirm what faith believes. Without Christian faith, the materialist explains nature's wonders by the evolutionary processes. It is certain, therefore, that the scholarly arguments and scientific evidences that fall short of proving the reality of God will fail completely in proving the validity of the Bible.

My discovery detracts no honor from the inward spiritual response that God gives to each believer in response to his faith. God's assurance may give adequate proof about the validity of the Bible to the true believer but the unbeliever can defend his rejection on the ground of lack of external and tangible evidence.

My discovery detracts no honor from the value of the logical and material evidences produced by scholars who confirm faith with reason. Christian scholarship and knowledge of God's creation may strengthen the faith of the believer but the unbeliever can refuse the arguments and even defend his rejection on the ground of natural and materialistic processes.

The common sense proof for the validity of the Bible that will be presented in this book will differ in that it is founded upon an external and stangible fact: the Bible itself.

 Go to Chapter Three-->

Top of Page