GIRS syllabus index: Survey Studies in Reformed Theology
Theology Proper index: Theology Proper
Theology Proper - Lesson 1
Knowing God
by Pastor Bob Burridge ©1997

Belief in the true God who reveals himself in Scripture cannot be derived by a process of raw logic. Given both the fallen nature of humanity, and the infinite difference between God's nature and the creature's nature, there can be no raw logic.

1. The natural facts we work with are insufficient
Observations we make through our physical senses are themselves unreliable since our fallen minds strip them of their declaration of God's glory (Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:18-25, 1 Corinthians 2:14). The vastness of the universe indicates that our own sampling of information is far too small for reliable generalizations. Therefore we do not have by natural means sufficient data (quantitatively or qualitatively) to support a method of raw logic.

2. The way we assemble ideas is suspect
If our data is neither qualitatively nor quantitatively complete and accurate we are not able to put together absolutely reliable ideas to work with. The data we use are not able to be elevated to level of facts. Since the mind is effected by the sin condition, its products cannot be imagined to be uneffected by the expectations of our fallen nature.

3. Our method of drawing inferences is not reliable.
The methods of logic fall into two categories: deductive and inductive.

Deductive logic produces no new information. It is just a set of rules that allow us to cautiously handle information and definitions so that we only introduce conclusions that are directly derivable from the data we begin with. If properly conducted the results are inescapable. They necessarily follow. This is the method we use in putting together information from Scripture to derive confessional statements, and to apply Scriptural teachings to specific cases. For example:

But this type of reasoning cannot be used to create new ideas by way of doctrinal generalizations.

Inductive logic makes generalizations from accepted data. Since there may be data or situations not included, considered or known, and since there is no way to rule out other possible generalizations not anticipated, induction only produces a degree of certainty. It does not produce absolute truth and is always subject to error. For example:

When human experience and sensory data are used to attempt to form proofs for the existence of the God of Scripture the method will be inductive and hence demand nothing in the absolute sense. When we use such methods we reason either as if inductive logic were a possible way of producing absolute truth, or as if all we really expect to establish is the possibility that such a God exists. Neither limit could accomplish anything of value for the believer and will not of itself convince an unbeliever of the truth.

Thomas Aquinas long ago formulated certain rationalistic arguments to "prove" God based on this type of inductive reasoning.

His argument from "first cause" reasons that since everything is admitted to have a cause before it, then as we extend backwards from every event we will come to one original cause which therefore must be God.

His argument from "design" reasons that since order and design are found everywhere in the universe, then there must have been some rational being behind all things since pure chance would produce chaos. Therefore that ultimate rational being behind all things must be God.

There are other lines of argument produced by the Thomian school of thought. But they all demand nothing in the absolute sense. They make assumptions drawn from human experience and understanding which are both subject to the limitations and distortions of sin. While they may impress people that belief in God is not contrary to reason, they do not demonstrate anything with absolute certainty.

The critic Bertrand Russel was right in his article "Why I am Not a Christian" in so far as he pointed out that pure logic does not, cannot, demand that we believe in God. Such proofs only prove the poverty of our own imaginations to come up with better explanations. The biblical presentation of God rules out making him the subject of scientific investigation.

The best these arguments can do is to demonstrate the rational possibility that a god exists who is at least a little greater than that which we as humans can conceive. There is yet another non-biblical line of argument that is often appealed to: the mystical proofs of God. This appeals to our awareness that there are things beyond our ability to comprehend. It accepts that since some things are unknowable, it is always safe to presume the possibility of things. Reality is seen as subjective rather than objective. We generate reality by what we choose to believe. For example:

"If God is an illusion, He is so wonderful and so satisfies all I can conceive He should be, that if He is the great illusion, I will remain a little illusion along with Him." (pg. 182 Once Caught, No Escape Norman Grubb)
This method is purely existential. It has no concern to determine if a matter is true or not. Mystics dare to hold the possibility that God is just an illusion. They then suppose it best to accept an illusion as truth and follow illusory teachings rather than imagine it possible to find an absolute foundation for truth. In this view faith us just a "leap in the dark". This view does not deal with God as he is presented in the Bible. This concept of faith is not the faith spoken of in Scripture. It is not a "firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds and sealed on our hearts by the Holy Spirit." (as John Calvin defines faith in his Institutes: book 3, section 3.2.7).

The rationalistic arguments place the possibility of assurance of the existence of God in the exclusive province of skilled intellectuals. The existential arguments make any assurance an impossibility.

There is sound evidence for the existence of God
The fundamental error of the rationalist's approach to becoming assured about the existence of God is that he attempts to work from within a closed system of truth. He presumes that all the facts worth accepting are those we gather through our five senses. He may enhance the range of his senses by using sophisticated equipment, or he may enlarge his own limited experience by sampling information gathered by many other individuals. But still he only accepts observations made within our limited human experience.

Since God is spirit, and is infinite in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth, he is not directly observable with our finite physical senses. Therefore the human investigator who limits his information to what he sees in nature and experience does not have any direct information upon which to perform the work of deductive logic. Me must therefore reason by induction only. Therefore the best he could hope for is to show the reasonableness of belief in a god slightly greater than himself. Since we are fallen creatures and totally depraved, we cannot be certain that any detail we accept is rightly understood if it comes just from our own perceptions.

Since humans have invented the rules of logic and only have opportunity to test them within their own human experience, there can be no confirmation that our basic assumptions are even remotely accurate. When the thinker establishes the rules for thinking, he has engaged in the most clear case of circular reasoning.

But God has not presented himself or his universe that closed way. He shows us that information comes into our experience by another means than just our physical senses. We can also know truth by revelation directly from God. Since this data comes from outside our world, it comes with the validation of the God who gave it. It makes no sense to imagine that we have a powerful enough system, developed by our own minds, that must first validate what God says. That would presume that we have more confidence in our own limited and corrupted thought processes than we do in God.

We say that we know God by faith. That is not the same process that we use in deciding to trust our weight in a particular chair, or that a particular road will get us to our destination while the end is still outside of our view. Such illustrations have nothing to do with the kind of faith the Bible speaks of. These examples are really only judgments we make based on the best information we have and on our personal experiences with things like chairs and road maps. Faith is not just a decision based upon gathered evidence.

This faith is not the blind leap in the dark of existentialism. It does not act irrationally and without concern. To decide to believe in anything without any reason to do so, would be a meaningless, if not insane, act and certainly would not reflect the virtue described in the Bible.

Biblical faith is something certain. It is made certain not by our own investigation but by a supernatural work of God's Holy Spirit upon the individual as the completed work of Christ is applied.

Any attempt to validate truth about God by something other than God directly putting truth about himself into our world, would introduce uncertainty and doubt rather than remove it. It would put the investigator over God as a greater and more reliable source of information.

The approach of Scripture declares the nature of God, the content of his decrees, and the ways of his providence. It does not appeal to things created as if they should be more trusted than the word of God.

The doctrines of the work of the Holy Spirit, of fallen man's ability to reason, and of the nature of faith as something bestowed by grace alone, are covered in detail in other chapters of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Questions for Review and Thought

  1. Why are fallen humans unable to reason accurately about God and truth?
  2. Why is deductive logic unable to yield new truths?
  3. Why is inductive logic unable to produce absolute certainty?
  4. What is faulty with the "proofs" for God's existence by Aquinas?
  5. Summarize the Mystical approach to the existence of God.
  6. Explain why we say that our ideas about God should be formed "receptively" rather than "constructively."

    return to the top of this Page