Studies in The Baptist Catechism: Section One – Authority, Revelation, and Scripture

Table of Contents

Part I – Prolegomena

  • Section One: Authority, Revelation, and Scripture

Part II – What Man Ought to Believe Concerning God

Part III – What Duty God Requires of Man

  • Section Eight: Introduction to the Moral Law
  • Section Nine: The First Table of the Moral Law (Part One)
  • Section Ten: The First Table of the Moral Law (Part Two)
  • Section Eleven: The Second Table of the Moral Law (Part One)
  • Section Twelve: The Second Table of the Moral Law (Part Two)
  • Section Thirteen: The Proper Response to Law and Gospel

Part VI – The Communication of God’s Grace

  • Section Fourteen: The Ordinary Means of Grace
  • Section Fifteen: Prayer and the Lord’s Prayer

______________

There have been several commentaries and helps written on the catechisms of other traditions, especially commentaries on The Westminster Shorter Catechism. Here is a list of some of those that I have found particularly helpful:

  • The Westminster Shorter Catechism for Study Classes by G.I. Williamson
  • The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism explained by The Westminster Assembly (1753)
  • The System of Theology Contained in the Westminster Shorter Catechism by A.A. Hodge and J. Aspinwall Hodge
  • An Exposition on the Shorter Catechism by Alexander Whyte

One scriptural exposition of Collins’ The Baptist Catechism (1693) in question and answer form has been offered, which I have found immensely helpful:

  • A Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist Catechism by Benjamin Beddome

I don’t hope to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with these men in writing this humble series. What I do hope to accomplish is to make The Baptist Catechism a bit more accessible and clear for my generation. With that in mind, having completed the first series of articles on the Catechism, you may now read it in its entirety below or click on the links to read it question by question.

 

Q.1: Who is the first and chiefest being?

God is the first and chiefest being.1

1Isaiah 44:6; 48:12; Psalm 97:9

In January of 2012, I had the honor of taking a winter course on “The Theology of the Word of Faith Movement” with Justin Peters at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The class was memorable to me for several reasons. I had been following the career of Mr. Peters for a while with great interest. One night, my wife and I even had the honor of having him into our home and serving him chicken pot pie. I recall sitting in my living room laughing and singing Ray Stevens’ The Mississippi Squirrel Revival together while my wife rolled her eyes.

I also recall one of the first statements he made in front of the class. I recall it because I wrote it down. He said, “Your worship of God will only be as deep as your theology.” Then he said, “Let me rephrase that. Your worship of God will only be as deep as your knowledge of Him.” In making this statement, Mr. Peters was answering one of the most important questions a Christian should ask himself: “Why do I study theology?”

What is theology? Theology, simply put, is the study of God. The word is derived from two Greek terms: θεὸς (ha theos) and ὁ λόγος (ha logos). θεὸς means God or the divine, and ὁ λόγος can be translated word, message,knowledge, and many other similar terms. In modern English usage, –ology (derived from ὁ λόγος) has come to mean “the study of. . .” When combined into one word, then, theology means the study of God.

Why do we study God, though? Well, as Mr. Peters so eloquently stated, we study God so that we might deepen our worship of Him. As The Westminster Catechism teaches, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.” This is why we study theology. This is our end goal in all our study and apprehension of God and the things of God. If a man is to glorify God and enjoy Him, he must first take hold of some knowledge of Him.

A great many people in this world claim a high level of piety, claiming to have reached new heights of spirituality through private contemplation and stimulating conversation. However, if they have not tapped into the actual truth of God as revealed directly from God, all their musings are a mere pooling of spiritual ignorance. They may speak with flowery language and elevated tones, but they have no real knowledge of the One whom they claim to represent. They have speculation. They have imagination. They have fantasies and rhetorical prowess, but they do not have God.

20Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God,”(1Cor. 1:20-24; NKJV).

All proper knowledge of God must have God as its Source. The world will tell us that this is circular reasoning and that we cannot point to God as the authority that establishes His own authority. We must ask in return: “What then stands as the prime authority above God that would be sufficient to establish His authority?” If they answer reason, we must ask what gives reason its authority and, in order to assist them to remain consistent, we must ask that they not use reason to argue for the authority of reason. If they answer evidence, our response is the same. We ask them to prove evidence as a sound authority by which to judge God without the use of evidence.

How is the authority of God different, then, from evidence or reason? While our interpretation of evidence can be flawed and our reason will inevitably fail us, God never fails. Wherever we find God, whether in Scripture, or in nature, or in our own consciences, we find that He always ultimately lines up with what He has spoken about Himself in His word: the Bible. Apart from His word, we are destined to run into error.

“God is the source and fountain of all our knowledge. He possesses an archetypal knowledge of all created things, embracing all the ideas that are expressed in the works of His creation. This knowledge of God is quite different from that of man. While we derive our knowledge from the objects we perceive, He knows them in virtue of the fact that He from eternity determined their being and form,” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology. Eerdman’s Publishing Co, Grand Rapids. 1996, pp. 93-94.).

We have limited knowledge; God has exhaustive knowledge. God knows all things perfectly, fully, and truly. There are many things we know truly. There are many things we know falsely. There are many things that are true that we don’t know. There are many things that are untrue that we don’t know. It is not our place to strive to know all things. “It is totally inconsistent with creatureliness that man should strive for comprehensive knowledge; if it could be attained, it would wipe God out of existence; man would then be God,” (Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith. P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ. 2008, pg. 36). Rather than comprehensive knowledge, we ought to strive after the apprehension of true knowledge. We cannot know all things but, by God’s grace, we can know true things.

All that there is to know, including the depths of God Himself, are known by God. “God’s knowledge is primary, and whatever man is to know can only be based upon a reception of what God has originally and ultimately known,” (Greg Bahnsen, Always Ready. Covenant Media Press, Nacogdoches, TX. 2011, pg. 19). Thus, if we are to have any assurance that what we know about God is true, we must receive affirmation of its truthfulness from Him. We must do the impossible and reach into the heavens to pull down truth. Rather, God must condescend to us in order that He might reveal His truth to us.

The Baptist Catechism starts with the question, “Who is the first and chiefest being?” This question is necessary because it starts with the origin of all proper thought about God: God Himself. “God is the first and chiefest being.” This recognition is key. As finite, material creatures, we are incapable of grasping the truth of an infinite, immaterial God (Isa. 55:8-9; Rom. 11:33-36). We are wholly inadequate for these things, unless God graciously enables us. Out of recognition of our human impotence, The Baptist Catechism begins by highlighting our supremely omnipotent God. We are fallen, sinful, finite beings; God is the first and chiefest Being. Thus, we do not start with man, but with God.

In recognizing God as the first and chiefest of beings, we recognize in Him a particular otherness. He is completely unlike all His creatures. Specifically, He is from everlasting to everlasting. He is the only Being without beginning. Thus, He is the only Being who can rightly claim to be both the first and the last, and He does so time and again.

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:

‘I am the first and I am the last,

And there is no God besides Me,’” (Isa. 44:6; NASB; cf. Isa. 41:4; 48:12; Rev. 1:8; 2:8; 21:6; 22:13).

No creature can lay claim to being first and last over all creation. All of creation has a beginning and, were it God’s design, all creation would have an end. God not only created all things, but He sustains and directs them, too (Col. 1:17). All of creation is God’s creation and, with it, He does as He pleases (Ps. 115:3; 135:6). How shall man stand as a mere spectator of the vast scope of God’s creation and not give Him due honor and praise for all of His mighty works?

God is distinct from all of His creation. However, He is not merely distinct from it in His eternality, His creation, and His providence; He is also distinct from it in His majesty. God is the first Being; He is also the chiefest Being. By this, the catechism means to draw our attention to God’s preeminence over all things.

Our tendency, as fallen creatures, is to worship the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:25). As a Master Artist, God has adorned His creation with His divine signature. We are like art critics who stand in awe of a masterful painting and give credit to the individual brush strokes and arrangements of color rather than to the painter who gave the painting life. Credit for Symphony No. 5 does not go to the individual trumpet blasts, but to Beethoven himself. How much more is the God of creation due His proper exaltation and adoration for the works of His hands?

“For You are the Lord Most High over all the earth;

You are exalted far above all gods,” (Psalm 97:9; NASB).

Let the pagans sing the praises of their false gods, but let our praises of the one true and living God far exceed theirs. Let us exalt Him as the Lord Most High over all the earth! Let us sing with the saints of old:

“Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

Praise Him, all creatures here below.

Praise Him above, ye heavenly hosts.

Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”

Let our study of theology always stem from a heart of doxology. Let our pursuit of head knowledge always spring from a wealth of heart praise. Let our desire to take in greater truth about God never be to the end of puffing up the student, but that of lifting up the Creator in praise, and adoration, and worthy exaltation. He truly is worthy, for He truly is the first and chiefest of beings. As J.I. Packer writes:

“We need to ask ourselves: What is my ultimate aim and object in occupying my mind with these things? What do I intend to do with my knowledge about God, once I have it? For the fact that we have to face is this: If we pursue theological knowledge for its own sake, it is bound to go bad on us. It will make us proud and conceited. The very greatness of the subject matter will intoxicate us, and we shall come to think of ourselves as a cut above other Christians because of our interest in it and grasp of it; and we shall look down on those whose theological ideas seem to us crude and inadequate and dismiss them as very poor specimens,” (J.I. Packer, Knowing God. IVP Books, Downers Grove, Il. 1993, pg. 21.).

 

Q.2: Ought everyone to believe there is a God?

A. Everyone ought to believe there is a God;1 and it is their great sin and folly who do not.2

1Hebrews 11:6

2Psalm 14:1

 

The world is full of art critics. Everywhere we go, we see people standing in awe of great art. They study it, they marvel at it, and they even try to duplicate it. What they will not do, however, is recognize the existence of the great Artist who gave it birth. This great art of which I speak is the art of creation, and the great Artist, of course, is the Creator. God is not merely an Artist, though. He wears many hats. Like the great Leonardo di Vinci, God assumes the titles of Artist, Engineer, Innovator, Inventor, and a great many others. However, unlike Leonardo, God is the Chief among all others in these fields. He far surpasses all His creatures, as we noted in the previous section.

One great difference between God and all others is that His art, His engineering, His innovation and inventiveness pervades all of His creation. Painters place their signatures in the corners of their paintings. The signature of the Divine is pervasive throughout the vast scope of creation and notable in every detail of every element and atom. God is at once immensely God and intimately God. He is both the God of the stars and the planets (Job 38:31-33; Ps. 8:3; 136:7-9) and the God of our grief and our joy (Mt. 6:25-34).

This God is unavoidable and, as such, He is undeniable. He consumes and pervades all around us and all within us, though He is completely distinct from us. It is at once our familiarity with Him and the odd otherness of Him that bids us recognize Him. This too is by divine design. The signature in the bottom right corner of a painting is not so recognizable because it so readily melds into the motif of the painting. It stands out as different so that it might be recognized, but it is not so different that it does not complement the general beauty of the painting.

In the economy of God’s created order, the highest good for man is that He know God and, as such, honor Him. God’s artful creation, then, does not exist for art’s sake. Rather, God’s artful creation exists to point man to the Artist Himself. As we recognize the art and, more importantly, the great Artist behind the art, we fulfill our great purpose as the only creatures made in His image.

This was the great purpose for which God created man: that we might glorify Him and enjoy Him. However, it is impossible to glorify and enjoy One we do not believe to exist. “And without faith it is impossible to please Him,” (Heb. 11:6a; NASB). Thus, because God loves His creation, He has made Himself known through His creation. God’s existence is evident to all through two distinct witnesses: the internal witness and the external witness.

God reveals Himself internally through our consciences. Each of us has the works of the law written on our hearts from birth (Rom. 2:14-16). None of us can rightly claim ignorance of God before the God who reveals Himself to us through our consciences. None are without excuse, “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them,” (Rom. 1:19; NASB). We are programmed to have an innate knowledge of God’s existence. It is inescapable.

Furthermore, we are programmed to receive knowledge of God’s existence from our surroundings. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse,” (Rom. 1:20; NASB). The sun, the moon, the stars, the planets, and the world and everything in it all call out to us proclaiming God’s divine artistry.

1The heavens are telling of the glory of God;

And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

2Day to day pours forth speech,

And night to night reveals knowledge.

3There is no speech, nor are there words;

Their voice is not heard.

4Their line has gone out through all the earth,

And their utterances to the end of the world.

In them He has placed a tent for the sun,

5Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;

It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.

6Its rising is from one end of the heavens,

And its circuit to the other end of them;

And there is nothing hidden from its heat,” (Ps. 19:1-6; NASB).

If God is so evident in His creation, then, why do men still deny Him? It is not because they are necessarily convinced that He does not exist. Rather, it is out of a willful, sinful, foolish suppression of the truth that men deny Him. “Sin involved every aspect of man’s personality. All of man’s reactions in every relation in which God had set him were ethical and not merely intellectual; the intellectual itself is ethical,” (Van Til, Defense, 70.). Thus, when a man deceives himself by denying God’s existence, he is acting out of a corrupt heart and committing abominable deeds.

“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’

They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;

There is no one who does good,” (Psalm 97:9; NASB).

The default belief of man is not the nonexistence of God, but His existence. Out of the corruption of the fallen heart and mind, unregenerate men suppress the truth of God’s existence: “as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith.’ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” (Rom. 1:17b-18; NKJV). The contrast here is between those of faith and those who suppress the truth. “The just shall live by faith,” but the unrighteous and ungodly “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Paul means to say that the active suppression of truth required to disbelieve in God is an act of willful rebellion against Him.

Adam and Eve knew of God’s existence, for He walked among them (Gen. 3:10). Godly men of the earliest ages also know God existed and called upon His name (4:26). Men and women of all nations have always known Him, but they do not glorify Him as God (Rom. 1:21). Belief in God, then, is the default (Benjamin Beddome, A Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist Catechism. Solid Ground Christian Books, Birmingham. 2006, pg. 3). The suppression of this belief then is absolute rebellion. This is no mere intellectual exercise. This is an active, willful sinning against the God who reveals Himself to us in His creation.

One of the duties, then, that Christians owe to one another is to spur one another on to greater faith (Heb. 10:23-25). If unbelief is sin, then we should seek how we might aid one another in avoiding it. If I, as an ember in the fire of the church, rely on the other embers to keep me burning, with what zeal should I blow on my fellow embers until I feel the return of the warm glow of their faith in Christ? In the same way, it benefits all members of the church to encourage others in their faith and purity, for it will only reap returns of greater faith and purity in their own lives.

 

Q.3: How may we know there is a God?

A. The light of nature in man and the works of God plainly declare there is a God;1 but His Word and Spirit only do it fully and effectually for the salvation of sinners.2

1Romans 1:19-20; Psalm 19:1-3; Acts 17:24

21 Corinthians 2:10; 2 Timothy 3:15-16

I have long taken issue with the use of the terms nature and natural in discussions of God’s divine revelation. To suggest that revelation can be natural is to suggest that it could be something other than divine in origin. Indeed, nothing about divine revelation is natural. What is meant by many theologians when they refer to natural revelation might best be rendered cosmic revelation.

When referring to natural revelation, what is meant is that which God reveals to us about Himself through His created order. However, post-Darwin, the term nature has come to mean something vastly different than what it once meant. Where the pre-moderns may have been referring to the created order when they referenced nature, Charles Darwin and his humanist predecessors have redefined nature as an undirected, impersonal, random order of events and laws in the vast universe. Thus, the Christian sojourning through a modernist society does himself and the Bible a great disservice to persist in the use of the term natural revelation.

The Baptist Catechism uses a similar term to describe one aspect of cosmic revelation (cosmos from ὁ κόσμος, or the created order): “The light of nature in man…” Another way to describe this is the internal witness. The catechism breaks up cosmic revelation into two categories. God’s existence is attested to us by (a) the internal witness of the conscience and (b) the external witness of God’s works of creation and providence.

“because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse,” (Romans 1:19-20; NASB).

Notice how Paul writes that what is known about God is evident within His human creatures. This line of reasoning refers to the internal witness of the conscience. Because men know right and wrong, and have an innate sense of justice, we can know that God must exist. We are confronted with this undeniable fact every time we read a news story about a child being victimized. Our hearts cry out for justice. We are aware, deep within ourselves, that love demands a verdict.

We also know that anyone who would pass such a judgment, loving though He may be, must be absolutely perfect in order to render such a verdict. As a result, we are struck with a dilemma. If God exists and loves that child enough to punish her abuser, He must in His infinite perfection punish me for the crimes I have committed against Him. Such an undeniable truth causes people to make all kinds of irrational claims.

The first is the outright denial of God’s existence. God cannot exist, goes the argument, or else I would have to be punished. The second is the denial of absolute truth in the realm of ethics and morality. We cannot rightly deny the existence of absolute truth in medicine or physics, because that would lead to utter insanity on those fields. Absolute truth cannot exist, goes the argument, or else there would be one universal standard of justice under which I must be punished.

All that is left is to outright deny justice or love, which only leads to nihilism and the pure futility of an unlivable life. These are all the mere suppressions of the internal witness to God’s existence. All that is within us screams to us that God exists, therefore absolute truth exists and, with it, love and justice.

“The heavens are telling the glory of God;

And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

Day to day pours forth speech,

And night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words;

Their voice is not heard,” (Psalm 19:1-3; NASB).

Alongside the internal witness to God’s existence is the external witness. Yes, we live in a fallen world, but it is still a universe that undeniably declares the glory of God. The mere existence and grand design of the created order attests to His great work of creation. The perpetuity of the cosmos generally and of humanity specifically attests to God’s great work of providence. Yet, for all of the telling, for all of the declaring, for all of the pouring forth of speech, and for all the revelation of knowledge, there is no speech and there are no words, for their voice is not heard. Men, in our sin, suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness.

Paul argued for the existence of this great God in his sermon on Mars Hill. He did not waste time giving an over-abundance of evidence or trying to convince these Roman philosophers of the existence of God. Rather, He recognizes that they must know He exists: “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands,” (Acts 17:24; NASB). Paul assumes they have the “light of nature,” that internal witness. He assumes they have looked up at the stars and, perhaps, examined their immediate surroundings and have picked up on the undeniability of God.

Paul’s goal was not to try to argue from a neutral position of, “Perhaps you are right and the Christian God of the Bible does not exist,” to a more Christian position. Paul’s goal was to assert the authority and superiority of the Christian position and to defend that non-neutral position with gentleness and reverence (1Pt. 3:15). Paul understood that they had sufficient witness (both internal and external) to God’s existence. His goal was to remind them of what they already knew and stand firm on it.

Sinful men are accountable for their sinful, foolish denials of God. They are without excuse. What then does cosmic, or general, revelation accomplish? It renders men speechless and excuseless before an eternally holy and just God. This is why we do missions. Some say that men are saved from God’s wrath on the basis of what they do with the light they have been given. If they do not hear the gospel, they may be saved by virtue of the fact that they did not reject it. Were this the case, there would be no reason whatever to do missions.

Rather, the reason we do missions, the reason Christ came as the first Missionary, is because men see the glory and goodness of God in the internal and external witness but, apart from the preaching of the gospel, they cannot turn from their sin and receive the cleansing of the new birth with all that it entails.

“How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?” (Rom. 10:14; NASB).

Men must then have not only the internal and external witness in order to be saved; they must also have the witness of the word of God and His Spirit. Where cosmic revelation falls on ears that cannot hear and eyes that cannot see, God’s word and Spirit open the ears and restore the sight. Where general revelation is only sufficient for the condemnation of men, His special revelation is fully sufficient to save him to the uttermost.

“and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness,” (2Tim. 3:15-16; NASB).

However, God’s word alone is not sufficient salvation in the strictest manner of speaking, because God Himself must also attest to it. He does so through His Spirit: “For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God,” (1 Corinthians 2:10; NASB). The word of God is merely words on page just like any other words on a page apart from the work of the Holy Spirit to illumine him who reads or hears it.

 

Q.4: What is the Word of God?

A. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God, and the only certain rule of faith and obedience.1

12 Timothy 3:16; Ephesians 2:20

In ages past, God revealed Himself in many ways. He spoke through visions, dreams, a burning bush, and even a donkey. At one point, He spoke through a stuttering, stammering prophet. At other points, He spoke directly to people. This same God “in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world,” (Heb. 1:2; NASB). These words of Christ, by the work of His Spirit, were brought to His apostles’ remembrance and written down in His holy word.

Whether we are referring to the Old Testament or New Testament, all Scripture is the word of God. It is God-breathed, or breathed out by God. This is what Paul meant when he wrote that all Scripture is θεόπνευστος (theo-pneustos, or God-breathed) in 2Tim. 3:16. Most translations render the term inspired. Thus, when the term inspiration of Scripture is used by theologians, they mean to say that Scripture is breathed out by God—the very word of God Himself.

As such, it would be improper to say that Scripture is the word of man, as though God had spoken to man and man, to the best of his ability, conveyed what had been revealed to him. This is the view held by the neo-orthodox school of theologians, like Karl Barth, who argue that the Bible contains the word of God, but is not itself the word of God. As orthodox Christians, Reformed Baptists affirm every word of the Bible, in the original languages, to be the very word of God. However, Barth and his neo-orthodox companions would contend that “the word of God is within the Bible” (Barth,The Word of God and the Word of Man. Wipf & Stock, Eugene, OR. 1957, pg. 43).

This view came to have prominence in some pockets of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), in the mid-to-late 20thcentury. The Baptist Faith & Message of 1963 (BF&M 1963) included language that allowed for such views to be held. This neo-orthodox influence was successfully eradicated from the SBC through an effort spanning more than two decades that would come to be known as the Conservative Resurgence. Compare the first sentence of the BF&M 1963with the first sentence of the BF&M 2000.

“The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man,” (BF&M of 1963; emphasis added).

“The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man,” (BF&M of 2000).

 Asserting that the Bible is “the record of” God’s revelation of Himself to man leaves open the possibility that the Bible may not be, in its purest form, God’s actual revelation of Himself to man. Neo-orthodox pastors and seminary professors within the SBC had seized upon this language as justification for teaching that the Bible contains the word of God while not, in total, being the word of God. Dockery and Nelson explain in A Theology for the Church:

“With respect to its nature, Barth distinguished the Bible from revelation itself: ‘Therefore, when we have to do with the Bible, we have to do primarily with this means, with these words, with the witness which as such is not itself revelation, but only—and this is the limitation—the witness to it.’ The Word of God is perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ; the Scriptures are witness, however imperfect, to the perfect revelation of the God-man. It is the church’s responsibility to preach the Scriptures; and, Barth contends, as they are preached, the Holy Spirit works such that the Bible becomes the Word of God to the people,” (ed. Daniel Akin, A Theology for the Church. B&H Academic, Nashville. 2007, pp. 138-139).

We, as orthodox Christians, affirm what has come to be known as the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture. That is a fancy way of saying that we believe every word of the Scriptures to be inspired of God. Particularly, we look to the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament. As Jesus taught of the Old Testament canon:

17‘Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven,’” (Mt. 5:17-19; NKJV).

Jesus believed that even the most minor of strokes in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament bore with them the very authority of God. This is because they are the very word of God. Intrinsically linked with the 39 books of the Hebrew Old Testament are the 27 books of the New Testament. Peter affirms this fact when he writes: “15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction,” (2Pt. 3:15-16; NASB). For Peter, the writings of Paul were to be included with the “rest of the Scriptures.”

This prestige was not merely meant to be ascribed to the writings of Paul, though, for Paul himself wrote of the church of God:  “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,” (Ephesians 2:20; NASB). How was the church of God built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets? Through their writings and teachings. Notice what we are told of the New Covenant church from her earliest days: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers,” (Acts 2:42; NKJV). The apostles’ teaching was paramount for the early church.

It was paramount because it, along with the 39 books of the Old Testament, is “the only certain rule of faith and obedience.” It is certain in that it is spoken, through the apostles and prophets, by God Himself. God used the personalities and backgrounds of the authors of Scripture to preserve for us precisely what He desired for us to know about Himself. God, then, is the prime author of Scripture, though He used the instrument of fallen, sinful men to pen it.

God chose Amos and Paul, Moses and Luke, Nehemiah and Peter to write His holy word, precisely because of who they were and the gifts and limitations He had placed in their lives. He used these human instruments to write Scripture much like a teacher or a professor might use different color ink pens to grade a paper. The characteristics of the human authors were as much important for the writing of Scripture as were the words they wrote. Again, there is no undirected molecule in the creative and providential working of God.

Therefore, even though Scripture was written by imperfect human beings, we can trust that its primary Author is perfect and has not spoken a word, through them, in vain. Scripture is the only certain, sufficient, inerrant, infallible rule for all faith in God our Creator and Savior. It is also the only certain, sufficient, inerrant, infallible rule for all obedience to Him.

 

Q.5: May all men make use of the Holy Scriptures?

A. All men are not only permitted, but commanded and exhorted to read, hear, and understand the Holy Scriptures.1

1John 5:38; Revelation 1:3; Acts 8:30

Having conducted a survey into the nature of Scripture itself, we now bring ourselves to the consideration of how men are to make use of it. The question is asked of the catechumen, May all men make use of the Holy Scriptures? What does the catechizer mean by the words “make use”? To make use, according to the answer offered, is to read, hear, and understand the Holy Scriptures. The catechism goes so far as to note that we are not only permitted, but are commanded and exhorted to avail ourselves of the Scriptures in this way.

Before we begin to flesh out this divinely ordained obligation, another question needs answering. In the realm of soteriology (the study of salvation), we often ask what the biblical authors mean when they use the term all men. There are two possible definitions of this term: all men without exception, and all men without distinction. It is not readily apparent which is meant by the catechism, so let us consider the implications of both.

If by all men the catechism means all men without exception, we must give a hardy “Amen!” Every single person everywhere is bid to hear the word of God and repent. “30Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead,” (Acts 17:30-31; NASB). The word of God and, therefore, the general call of salvation is to go out to all people everywhere throughout the earth. And, as it comes to each ear, it comes with a divine obligation to read, hear, and understand.

If by all men the catechism means all men without distinction, we must likewise give a hardy “Amen!” for this divine obligation is binding on all men of all positions in all tribes, tongues, and nations. Let us recall the Great Commission:

18And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age,’” (Mt. 28:18-20; NKJV).

Notice two things. The Great Commission that is given to the church is to go and make disciples of all nations. This means that all men without exception will now read, hear, and understand God’s holy word. Notice that the church is not merely commissioned to make converts of all nations. Rather, we have been tasked with making disciples of all nations. This means that they will partake of at least two local church ordinances. They will be baptized into church membership, and they will be taught all that Christ commanded in the Holy Scriptures.

Read the Scriptures

We can affirm, then, that if by all men the catechism means all men without distinction (people of all positions in every tribe, tongue, and nation) and all men without exception (every single human being on earth), that includes us. How then ought we expected to read God’s word? First, we must have access to His word. That means translation. In order for men and women of all tribes, tongues, and nations to avail themselves of Scriptures, they must have it in the common language of their people. Note what is affirmed in The Baptist Confession (1689):

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope,” (The Baptist Confession of 1689, 1.8).

Imagine a missionary from England that goes into a foreign land and in order to bring them the gospel of Christ, but who only speaks to them in English with no translation or interpretation. No matter how much he reads to the people or preaches to the people, that man would be speaking only “to himself and to God” (1Cor. 14:28; NKJV). Of course, there are some King James Only movements that would argue for teaching all nations, or at least the most learned among the nations, English so that they can read the King James Version of the Bible.

This mindset is precisely what our Particular Baptists forefathers were hoping to avoid. For centuries the world was shut up in darkness because of this type of thinking. The church had taken a stance that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was to be the only translation used by the church. As a result, Latin speaking people had the word of God in their language, but the rest of the world had to rely on priests within the church to explain the Bible to them. This period of church history is rightly called the Dark Ages, because the nations were forced to be in darkness as a result of a refusal to translate the Holy Scriptures into their languages. Hence, as Luther and others began to translate the Bible into the common languages of the people, the Reformers coined a new Latin phrase: post tenebras lux, or after darkness, light!

It is important to note, also, that the post-Renaissance education movement was largely started as a biblical literacy movement. Luther is reported to have written to his princes in Saxony demanding that they educate the peasants, because he was finding that none of them could read the Bible he had labored so diligently to translate into their languages. He reportedly told the princes that it was their duty before God to ensure that their people could read His word.

We are not merely exhorted to read the Scriptures in order to have private dealings with God. In reading the Scriptures, we are able to check what is being taught from the pulpit by the very word of God. “10Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so,” (Acts 17:10-11; NKJV). It is when people are robbed of their rightful access to the Holy Scriptures that they accumulate false teachers to themselves (2Tim. 4:3).

Hear the Scriptures

We are not only commanded and exhorted to read the Scriptures, as though the whole of the Christian life were one of seclusion and subjective interpretations of God’s word. Rather, we are also commanded and exhorted to hear God’s word. This brings us to the primary way by which God has promised to work in His church: the public reading and preaching of Scripture.

Over and over again, we are told in Scripture to attend to the public reading and preaching of Scripture. In Antioch, nearly the whole city (Gentiles) came together on the Jewish Sabbath to hear the word of God from the apostles, inciting the Jews to jealousy. Many of the Gentiles received the word with gladness, but they apostles were persecuted and driven out by the Jews (Acts 13:44-50).

Paul binds up saving faith in the preaching of the word of Christ: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ,” (Rom. 10:17; NASB). For this reason, he exhorts his protégé Timothy to “give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching,” (1Tim. 4:13; NASB). The author of Hebrews goes further by exhorting even the hearers to attend faithfully to the public worship of God:

23Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching,”(Heb. 10:23-25; NKJV).

The preaching of the word of God holds a certain primacy in God’s redemptive economy. It is through the proclamation of God’s word, by God’s ordained ministers, that He has promised to unite His people in truth. Paul tells the church at Ephesus:

11And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,12for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,” (Eph. 4:11-13; NKJV).

It is thus through the hearing of God’s word that He has determined, primarily, to work in and through His people. When the church is given either to private interpretations or to untested teaching from the pulpit, the church is opened up to error and to division. This is how cults start. Either men and women come up with doctrines that the church has never believed through private interpretations or they give themselves to the teaching of one man without ever searching the Scriptures for themselves to see if what he is teaching lines up with Scripture.

Understand

Along with reading and hearing God’s word, the readers and hearers are expected to understand it. The Christian life is a life of taking in knowledge, understanding it, and walking it out in wisdom. Paul writes about this correlation between knowledge, understanding, and wisdom in his letter to the Colossians:

9For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God,” (Col. 1:9-10; NKJV).

The hearers of God’s word are to follow this cycle. We take in knowledge. After obtaining knowledge, we couple it with understanding, which is to say that it affects our character and shapes our dispositions toward God and others after Christ’s. Finally, it is to be coupled with wisdom so that we walk according to the knowledge and understanding we have obtained. The result of this taking in of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom is that we take in more knowledge (vs. 10).

This is an obligation both on the part of he who preaches and on the part of him who hears. It is the job of the pastor to take the cookies down off of the shelf so-to-speak. It’s easy business to confuse people with overly academic language; it takes great work to convey difficult truths with clarity and simplicity. I have heard James White say that the way one truly knows that he knows a doctrine is if he can teach it to children. This is true. The preacher must do all he can to help his hearers understand the meaning of the text of Scripture.

This obligation is not merely a one-sided obligation, though. Hearers have an obligation as well. When any confusion arises over any teaching from the pulpit, it is the hearer’s obligation to ask the preacher afterward for clarification. No godly pastor would ever be upset to be questioned, if he is approached appropriately, about his interpretation of a particular text. In fact, pastors are encouraged by such active listening on the part of the hearers.

 

Q.6: What things are chiefly contained in the Holy Scriptures?

The Holy Scriptures chiefly contain what man ought to believe concerning God, and what duty God requireth of man.1

12 Timothy 1:13; 3:15-16

Questions one through five provide the foundation for The Baptist Catechism, in much the same way that the teachings of the apostles and prophets as set down in Scripture provide the foundation for our faith (Eph. 2:20). The answer to question six could rightly be labeled the thesis statement of The Baptist Catechism, insofar as it provides the structure for all the questions and answers that follow.

The catechism could appropriately be said to be structured according to two categories: right believe about God (orthodoxy) and right observance of the duties God requires of us (orthopraxy). The catechism is so structured because it is meant to teach us the Bible, and these two themes are the two primary themes of Scripture. We are taught in Scripture to know the things of God (John 17:7-8; Acts 2:36) and to love God (Exod. 20:6; Neh. 1:5; John 14:15; John 15:10; 1Jn. 5:3). These two commands go hand-in-hand.

A husband cannot rightly say that he loves his wife and yet know nothing about her. At the same time, he cannot learn more of her without being provoked toward greater or lesser affections toward her. As the unbeliever learns more of God, apart from the effectual calling of the Spirit, he will grow in his hatred for Him. As we believers learn more of Him, we grow in our kindly affection toward Him. As we commit ourselves to a study of The Baptist Catechism, let us keep these two commandments in mind. Let us endeavor to know the things of God more, through His word, and so to grow in our love for Him.

Studies in The Baptist Catechism: Section One – Authority, Revelation, and Scripture (Q.3)

Q.3: How may we know there is a God?

A. The light of nature in man and the works of God plainly declare there is a God;1 but His Word and Spirit only do it fully and effectually for the salvation of sinners.2

1Romans 1:19-20; Psalm 19:1-3; Acts 17:24

21 Corinthians 2:10; 2 Timothy 3:15-16

I have long taken issue with the use of the terms nature and natural in discussions of God’s divine revelation. To suggest that revelation can be natural is to suggest that it could be something other than divine in origin. Indeed, nothing about divine revelation is natural. What is meant by many theologians when they refer to natural revelation might best be rendered cosmic revelation.

When referring to natural revelation, what is meant is that which God reveals to us about Himself through His created order. However, post-Darwin, the term nature has come to mean something vastly different than what it once meant. Where the pre-moderns may have been referring to the created order when they referenced nature, Charles Darwin and his humanist predecessors have redefined nature as an undirected, impersonal, random order of events and laws in the vast universe. Thus, the Christian sojourning through a modernist society does himself and the Bible a great disservice to persist in the use of the term natural revelation.

The Baptist Catechism uses a similar term to describe one aspect of cosmic revelation (cosmos from ὁ κόσμος, or the created order): “The light of nature in man…” Another way to describe this is the internal witness. The catechism breaks up cosmic revelation into two categories. God’s existence is attested to us by (a) the internal witness of the conscience and (b) the external witness of God’s works of creation and providence.

“because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse,” (Romans 1:19-20; NASB).

Notice how Paul writes that what is known about God is evident within His human creatures. This line of reasoning refers to the internal witness of the conscience. Because men know right and wrong, and have an innate sense of justice, we can know that God must exist. We are confronted with this undeniable fact every time we read a news story about a child being victimized. Our hearts cry out for justice. We are aware, deep within ourselves, that love demands a verdict.

We also know that anyone who would pass such a judgment, loving though He may be, must be absolutely perfect in order to render such a verdict. As a result, we are struck with a dilemma. If God exists and loves that child enough to punish her abuser, He must in His infinite perfection punish me for the crimes I have committed against Him. Such an undeniable truth causes people to make all kinds of irrational claims.

The first is the outright denial of God’s existence. God cannot exist, goes the argument, or else I would have to be punished. The second is the denial of absolute truth in the realm of ethics and morality. We cannot rightly deny the existence of absolute truth in medicine or physics, because that would lead to utter insanity on those fields. Absolute truth cannot exist, goes the argument, or else there would be one universal standard of justice under which I must be punished.

All that is left is to outright deny justice or love, which only leads to nihilism and the pure futility of an unlivable life. These are all the mere suppressions of the internal witness to God’s existence. All that is within us screams to us that God exists, therefore absolute truth exists and, with it, love and justice.

“The heavens are telling the glory of God;

And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

Day to day pours forth speech,

And night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words;

Their voice is not heard,” (Psalm 19:1-3; NASB).

Alongside the internal witness to God’s existence is the external witness. Yes, we live in a fallen world, but it is still a universe that undeniably declares the glory of God. The mere existence and grand design of the created order attests to His great work of creation. The perpetuity of the cosmos generally and of humanity specifically attests to God’s great work of providence. Yet, for all of the telling, for all of the declaring, for all of the pouring forth of speech, and for all the revelation of knowledge, there is no speech and there are no words, for their voice is not heard. Men, in our sin, suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness.

Paul argued for the existence of this great God in his sermon on Mars Hill. He did not waste time giving an over-abundance of evidence or trying to convince these Roman philosophers of the existence of God. Rather, He recognizes that they must know He exists: “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands,” (Acts 17:24; NASB). Paul assumes they have the “light of nature,” that internal witness. He assumes they have looked up at the stars and, perhaps, examined their immediate surroundings and have picked up on the undeniability of God.

Paul’s goal was not to try to argue from a neutral position of, “Perhaps you are right and the Christian God of the Bible does not exist,” to a more Christian position. Paul’s goal was to assert the authority and superiority of the Christian position and to defend that non-neutral position with gentleness and reverence (1Pt. 3:15). Paul understood that they had sufficient witness (both internal and external) to God’s existence. His goal was to remind them of what they already knew and stand firm on it.

Sinful men are accountable for their sinful, foolish denials of God. They are without excuse. What then does cosmic, or general, revelation accomplish? It renders men speechless and excuseless before an eternally holy and just God. This is why we do missions. Some say that men are saved from God’s wrath on the basis of what they do with the light they have been given. If they do not hear the gospel, they may be saved by virtue of the fact that they did not reject it. Were this the case, there would be no reason whatever to do missions.

Rather, the reason we do missions, the reason Christ came as the first Missionary, is because men see the glory and goodness of God in the internal and external witness but, apart from the preaching of the gospel, they cannot turn from their sin and receive the cleansing of the new birth with all that it entails.

“How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?” (Rom. 10:14; NASB).

Men must then have not only the internal and external witness in order to be saved; they must also have the witness of the word of God and His Spirit. Where cosmic revelation falls on ears that cannot hear and eyes that cannot see, God’s word and Spirit open the ears and restore the sight. Where general revelation is only sufficient for the condemnation of men, His special revelation is fully sufficient to save him to the uttermost.

“and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness,” (2Tim. 3:15-16; NASB).

However, God’s word alone is not sufficient salvation in the strictest manner of speaking, because God Himself must also attest to it. He does so through His Spirit: “For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God,” (1 Corinthians 2:10; NASB). The word of God is merely words on page just like any other words on a page apart from the work of the Holy Spirit to illumine him who reads or hears it.

The Ultimate Fate of the Universe

In the previous blog, I argued that God’s providence accounts for the orderliness and regularity of our universe. In essence, the reality of God’s providence allows one to have confidence in the use of the scientific method for the study of natural phenomena. If we believe that the natural world is simply a product of unguided physical laws, then the only way in which we can have confidence in the reliability of the scientific method is through induction of a large collection of observations, which is subject to interpretive errors. However, if we believe that the natural world is upheld and guided by God’s providence, then we can base our scientific knowledge claims on God’s revelation of the natural world.

These are two fundamentally different starting points for understanding our world and ultimately, this means that two people can come to radically different conclusions about the nature of the world based upon the same evidence. In the previous blog, I argued this principle by discussing some of the irrational interpretations from quantum theory, particularly the idea of effects without causes. It is my contention that the Christian worldview concerning the nature of the universe is most consistent with our evidence of the natural world. This means that the universe is not only understandable and consistent, but it is purposely designed to communicate a particular message concerning God’s invisible attributes. In previous blogs, I made arguments concerning the existence and knowability of God based on the creation and maintenance of the universe. To end this mini-series, I want to address a topic of growing interest: what is the ultimate fate of the universe? This is no longer a purely speculative, philosophical question, but it is now a scientific question. This topic is also important because our answer is fully based on deductive reasoning concerning the origin of the universe.

Heat Death or Cold Death

This semester, I have the privilege to teach my favorite physics course as an undergraduate: thermodynamics. The impetus for the development of thermodynamics was the industrial revolution and the efficiency of heat engines, but now we’ve come to understand that many of the fundamental phenomena in our world are implications of the laws of thermodynamics. The key to thermodynamics is to understand the role of entropy.  Entropy is the precursor of the definition of information as developed in information theory. Information is carried, stored and processed by all macroscopic physical systems and is ultimately governed by the laws of physics, so it’s not surprising that physics and information should be closely related to one another. The usefulness of the concept of entropy can hardly be overstated and it’s probably fair to say that the connection between physics and information is still not fully exploited.

There are many ways in which a person can qualitatively understand the concept of entropy. First, it can be said that entropy is a measure of energy concentration in that entropy increases as the energy of a system becomes more dispersed throughout time. This is related to the idea that entropy is a measure of disorder of a given system. Second, it can be said that entropy is the variable that determines irreversibility of physical processes; in particular, entropy controls the direction of heat transfer between systems as well as causal arrow of time in the universe. Finally, it can be said that entropy determines the amount of available energy that can be used to do useful work for a given system. Entropy is also a central concept in understanding the natural world because the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe (as a closed, isolated system) will always increase over time. In terms of the above definitions, this means that energy is become more dispersed throughout time, that time is irreversible, and that the avaiable energy in the universe is gradually decreasing.

image: universe

There are numerous implications of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but one that is relevant concerns the fate of the universe. Even though it is difficult to define the entropy of the universe, there should be a theoretical point in time in the distant future in which the universe reaches a state of maximum entropy according to the 2nd Law. This happens when all the available energy of the universe has been completely exhausted. When this occurs, there will be no more heat flow, no more work done, and the universe will essentially become dead and inert.This can also be thought of in terms of chemical reactions. According to the 2nd law, a chemical reaction will only occur if it results in an increase of entropy. Any reaction that takes place will either result in the products becoming less ordered, or heat being given off. This means at some time far in the future, when all the possible reactions have taken place, all that will be left is heat and fundamental particles. No reactions will be possible, because the universe will have reached its maximum entropy. The only reactions that can take place will result in a decrease of entropy, which is not possible according to the second law, so in effect the universe will have died. Because of the emphasis on the lack of heat flow, this theory is sometimes called the heat death of the universe.

Another theory concerning the fate of the universe is based upon the expansion rate of the universe. Observations suggest that the expansion of the universe will continue forever and that the expansion rate of universe is increasing. If so, the universe will cool as it expands, eventually becoming too cold to sustain life. Moreover, the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted, and as existing stars run out of fuel and ceases to shine, the universe will slowly and inexorably grow darker, one start at a time. Eventually, even the stellar remnants left behind by these stars will disappear, leaving behind only black holes, which themselves will eventually disappear as they emit radiation. In this scenario, the universe ends in a whimper, becoming dark and cold. Because the universe will approach absolute zero temperature in this scenario, this is known as the cold death of the universe

The Conclusion of the Matter

The heat death and cold death theories are just two of many theories produced by cosmologists that seek to explain the ultimate fate of the universe. Though these theories have numerous differences between them, what is common between them is the assumption that the universe will end through slow, gradual, unguided natural processes. Moreover, it is assumed that death of the universe comes from a source within itself and is based on the inherent futility of our universe. These theories are expected if it is believed that the universe has no inherent purpose for its existence and has purely naturalistic origins. The narrative produced by this worldview is that the universe was created without purpose, the earth has no preferred position in the universe, the life within the universe has no inherent purpose, the current cosmological epoch has no central place in time, and the end of the universe has no purpose. With this view of the universe, it’s no wonder why a growing number of people essentially agree with this famous quote from Richard Dawkins:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

This conclusion is the result of attempting to understand our natural world without acknowledging God’s providence and eternal decree. As was argued previously, the origin of the universe and the meticulous fine tuning of the universe both point to the existence of God. Moreover, the constancy and regularity of the universe all point to the God’s active providence in the world. If the existence of the universe comes from a source outside of itself, then it stands to reason that the end of the universe will occur from a source outside of itself. In other words, if the origin of the universe has a purpose outside of itself, then the end of the universe has a purpose outside of itself as well.

The fundamental Christian argument is that God has intentionally designed our world (and the universe in general) to declare His glory and to make Himself known. Our physical world continues to march forward in time not in meaningless, random fashion, but its purpose is tied up in God’s purposes of redemption. This is best described by the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:19-23

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

The message of the apostles is that the current age we live will end, not when entropy maximizes or when the universe approaches absolute zero, but when God completes His redemptive purposes. This means that we do live in a central place in time and that the end of the universe will also declare God’s glory. If the current universe was created solely from God’s Word (cf. Hebrews 11:3) and upheld by His providence, then it will end based on His decree. This is vividly expressed in 2 Peter 3 in which “the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly” and “the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.” This is the picture of catastrophic un-creation, which will be replaced by the new heavens and the new earth in the age to come (cf. Revelation 21-22).

So let’s return to the original questions which started this blog series: (1) Why do you believe that God exists? (2) Why do you believe that God can be known by us? The evidence of God can be known based on the very origin of the universe and the active maintenance of the universe. We see God’s power and wisdom in the origin of the universe; we see God’s power and faithfulness in the maintenance of the universe (as observed through the fine tuning of the fundamental forces in the universe); and we see God’s intention and purpose through His active interaction with creation. Contrary to popular opinion, all things are not continuing as they were from the beginning of time. There have been numerous miraculous signs in which God has judged His creation (such as the global flood) and rescued His people (such as the exodus). However, His supreme interaction with His creation and revelation to us has come through the incarnation of His Son through which we have redemption. God’s acts of redemption, creation, and providence ultimately give us the evidence that God exists and can be known.

Providence and the Scientific Method

In the previous blog, I argued that the orderliness and consistency of our physical universe, as seen through the fine tuning of the four fundamental field interactions, provides clear evidence of God’s handiwork. This regularity is not simply the result of unguided, impersonal physical laws, but rather it is due to the faithfulness of God. In other words, the evidence of God in our physical world is seen by His acts of creation and providence. Chapter 5, Paragraph 1 of the 1689 LBCF states it in this way

God the good Creator of all things, in his infinite power and wisdom doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, to the end for the which they were created, according unto his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable.

This classic statement on the providence of God explains why being a scientist is an honorable vocation and why the scientific method (when used properly within its constrained limits) does correspond to our reality. When we affirm these basic truths concerning God’s providence with the regularity of our physical world, we will develop a more robust, holistic view of the physical world. Unfortunately, many Christians have inherited a worldview in which the governing physical principles of the natural world are divorced from God’s works of providence. This worldview is not only unbiblical, but it’s also contrary to the worldview of the men who pioneered the modern scientific age. When Isaac Newton published his treatise of classical mechanics, entitled The Principia, he discusses the motivations for his study. He writes:

I had an eye upon such principles as might work, with considering men, for the belief of a deity… this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these being formed by the like wise counsels, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all … All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing.

From the depths of his own soul, Newton came to know God through the Word, but through his study of the design of the physical universe, his belief was reaffirmed. Thus, the diligent student of science and the earnest seeker of truth will learn, as Newton did, that all science and all truth are one which has its beginning and its end in the knowledge of Him whose glory the heavens declare and whose handiwork the firmament shows forth (cf. Psalm 19). Of course, this blog series is being written because many no longer hold on to this worldview. Apart from evolutionary biology, it is my belief that quantum theory militates most strongly against this worldview. In this blog, I want to discuss what happens when we divorce God’s providence from the study of the natural world.

The Leap of Quantum Theory

It is well-known that the two irreconcilable fields in theoretical physics are quantum theory and general relativity. Theorists hope these fields can be reconciled so that a unified field theory can be developed. Undergraduate students tend to ask me whether I believe these fields will be reconciled and my answer has always been in the negative because the interpretations and implications of quantum theory appear to be irrational.

Quantum theory traces its origin to the work of Max Planck, who presented in 1900, the hypothesis that energy comes in discrete units called “quanta”. The watershed moment for quantum theory came in 1927 with the uncertainty principle by German physicist Werner Heisenberg. Heisenberg found that one can learn either the exact position of a given particle or its exact trajectory, but not both simultaneously. This is contrary to the classical physics which states that the location and trajectory of any particle can be determined, in principle, at some point in the future.  This means that classical physics is philosophically built on determinism.

Heisenberg’s experiments showed that this assumption was false – that we can never know everything about the behavior of even one particle and, therefore, can never make predictions about the future that will be completely accurate in every detail. This marked a fundamental change in the worldview of physics and lead to famous debates in the early half of the 20th century. Those who held to classical physics (such as Einstein) believed that the observed randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality, whereas proponents of quantum theory believed that the physical world is fundamentally built on uncertainty and probability.

The interpretation of the mathematical postulates of quantum theory led to a number of implications. The most fundamental interpretation of quantum mechanics asserts that the natural change of any quantum system is by way of indeterministic physically discontinuous transitions between stationary states. For a classical example of this postulate, consider the description of the subatomic world as described by Timothy Ferris in his book Coming of Age in the Milky Way

The more closely physicists examined the subatomic world, the larger indeterminacy loomed. When a photon strikes an atom, boosting an electron into a higher orbit, the electron moves from the lower to the upper orbit instantaneously without having traversed the intervening space. The orbital radii themselves are quantized, and the electron simply ceases to exist at one point, simultaneously appearing at another. This is the famously confounding “quantum leap” and it is no mere philosophical poser; unless it is taken seriously, the behavior of atoms cannot be predicted accurately.

Thus, if this explanation is an accurate description of the subatomic world, then quantum mechanics has revived the concept of change and self-creation as a tool to explain the physical world. If the “quantum leap” is literally simultaneous, then we have a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction since the electron is in an orbit and not in an orbit at the same exact time and in the same relationship. However, a more serious problem with the explanation is that it introduces the tacit assertion that effects can exist without causes. The popular interpretation of quantum theory suggests that quantum leaps occur by “chance” (since probability distributions are the irreducible physical concept) and this justifies the hypothesis that nothing causes the behavior of subatomic particles. To be free of casuality is to be free of logic, and license is given for making nonsense statements with impunity.

Ultimately, we must come to the conclusion that quantum theory and general relativity cannot both be correct. While general relativity allows for (and predicts) a perfect point-like singularity at the beginning of time, quantum mechanics does not, for it prohibits defining at the same time the precise location, velocity, and size of any single particle or singularity. Furthermore, quantum mechanics seems to suggest that the sub-atomic world – and even the world beyond the atom – has no independent structure until it is defined by the human intellect. We can say that quantum theory has great explanative power for many phenomena, but for the reasons given above, it cannot be a full and accurate description of reality.

The Conclusion of the Matter

So what are the conclusions that we should draw from this? First, we should recognize that the behavior of the natural world cannot be fully explained within itself. When we attempt to explain the nature of this world without a consistent natural theology, we end up with inconsistencies and absurdities. No one disputes the appearance of quantum behavior on the subatomic scale, but the interpretation of this behavior leads to absurdities. Second, we are meant to use general and special revelation to understand this world. Human knowledge is limited not only by our sin and our intellect, but it’s also limited by our finitude. Thus, we need special revelation to inform our observations of the natural world.

Third, it’s important to note that no scientific theory develops in a vacuum. Our worldview affects how we interpret the natural world. It is not an accident that many Christian scientists gravitate towards general relativity since this theory is the culmination of classical physics, which is built off of ultimate causation. Conversely, it’s not an accident that quantum theory is appealing to those who gravitate toward Eastern religion and philosophy since its predictions has many similarities to Eastern mysticism. Ultimately, this means that a discussion on the existence of God and science boils down to a question of worldviews. The fundamental Christian claim states that the universe, being made by the all-wise, all-knowing God, is internally self-consistent because it reflects His wisdom and knowledge. Thus, we do not have a universe in which contradictions abound, but one in which Christ upholds all things by the Word of His power. In the next blog, I will conclude this mini-series by discussing two of the strongest unifying concepts in physics, energy and entropy.

 

Contingency, Complexity, and the Existence of God

In the previous blog, I argued that there is significant evidence that points to the fact that the universe is finite and has an origin (which points to the existence of God). This evidence rules out the possibility of a static, eternal universe, but it also must rule out any notion of self-creation and spontaneous generation.

First, it’s important to note that self-creation and spontaneous generation is a logical and rational impossibility. For something to create itself, it must have the ability to exist and not to exist at the same time and in the same relationship. In other words, for something to create itself, it must exist before it exists. A being can be self-existent and eternal without violating the law of non-contradiction, but a self-generating, self-creating being is a rational impossibility. Second, it’s important to note that if there was a point in which the physical universe did not exist, then this also means that there is no purely naturalistic reason for the why the universe does exist. In other words, there is no cause for the existence of the universe in and of itself – the cause of the universe must come from outside of itself. This means that the universe could not have been created by “chance”. Because chance is not an entity (i.e it has no being), it does not have any instrumental power to cause anything. Therefore, any appeal to “chance” for the existence of the universe is in effect an appeal for self-creation, which has been shown to be a rational contradiction.

Now, we must ask the next question: Why does the universe exist and what is the purpose of its existence? The fundamental Christian argument is that God has intentionally designed our world (and the universe in general) to declare His glory and to make Himself known (cf. Psalm 19:1-6). Here, I’m going to argue for evidence of purposeful design from the vantage point of the physical sciences, rather than the biological sciences.

A basic question that is usually asked is whether or not the scientific method can actually determine whether or not an event can be the result of a purposeful and designed cause. The emphatic answer is yes. Because of what we know about undirected natural causes and their limitations, the scientific method can be used to rigorously test whether or not there are significant design processes in the universe. First, we may ask whether a particular occurrence was naturally necessary or contingent. An occurrence is naturally necessary if the natural laws governing the physical objects involved are sufficient to explain the occurrence, whereas an occurrence is naturally contingent if it’s dependent upon a non-natural explanation. Second, we may ask whether a particular occurrence is simple or complex. Third, we may ask whether the inherent pattern in the complex occurrence is ad hoc or specific. An ad hoc pattern is one that has no true meaning or significance outside the single occurrence in which it is found. The argument of design easily explains the origin of the universe, but I want to apply this to the regularity and orderliness of universe.

Overview of the Standard Model of Particle Physics

Currently, the standard model of particle physics states that there are four fundamental forces throughout the universe which are constant everywhere and affect all physical objects everywhere. These four fundamental forces (or interactions) are the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. The standard model seeks to illustrate that matter and energy are best understood in terms of the interactions of elementary particles with their underlying physical field. Thus, the standard model attempts to unify the four fundamental forces into a unified field theory. Although there are problems with the Standard Model, the standard model demonstrates (and anticipates) that there is an inherent self-consistency within our universe. However, the Standard Model also shows that the relative strengths of the fundamental forces are so finely tuned to the extent that life as we know it would be virtually impossible without them.

We can start with the nuclear forces. The strong nuclear force ensures the stability of ordinary matter by binding subatomic particles together within the nuclei of atoms. This force is enormously strong because it must overcome the electromagnetic repulsive force between protons in the nucleus. If the strong force did not exist (or was weaker than it is), all atomic nuclei in the universe would undergo spontaneous fission and the universe would be almost entirely composed hydrogen and neutrons (and thus uninhabitable for human life). With the same reasoning, if the strong force was stronger, then hydrogen would not exist at all in the universe, leading to the same conclusion of an uninhabitable universe (see this article for a more detailed explanation). The weak nuclear force is the interaction which is responsible for radioactive decay of subatomic particles and nuclear fission. If the weak nuclear force increased, too much hydrogen would convert to helium and thus stars would produce an overabundance of heavy elements, making life chemistry impossible. Conversely, if the weak nuclear force decreased, too much helium would be produced and thus stars would not produce enough heavy elements, making life chemistry impossible.

The electromagnetic force binds electrons to the nuclei of atoms. If this force were slightly weaker, the electrons would be repelled by the nuclear forces and thus chemical bonding would be disrupted to the extent that molecules would not form. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger, the atoms could not share electrons (since they would strongly bind to the atomic nuclei) and again no molecules would form. Moreover, heavier elements (like boron) would be unstable to fission and thus would not exist. The gravitational force is the weakest of all of the fundamental forces, but it is responsible for the large-scale structure and evolution of stars, galaxies, and planets. If the gravitational force were somewhat stronger, the stars would be so hot that they would burn out too quickly and unevenly for life to form. If gravity were somewhat weaker, the stars would not become hot enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Such stars would burn quietly for a long time but make no heavy elements needed for planets.

The Conclusion of the Matter

So what are the conclusions that we should draw from this? First, we should note that the universe is balanced on a knife-edge and is clearly contingent upon external sources. It is not necessary that the gravitational force and the strong force are as strong as they are. Nor is it necessary that the physical constants and other phenomena of the universe have happened together, making the universe hospitable and observable for us. There are numerous other examples of the fine tuning in the universe that demonstrates that the universe truly is contingent and yet internally consistent. We don’t live in a universe in which instabilities and contradictions abound. These are undeniable realities and these realities become clearer when one takes the time to study the discoveries within these fields. Consider the words of Fred Hoyle, a renowed 20th century English astronomer:

A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

Second, we should note that the universe is deeply complex and harmonious. Undergraduate physics students around the country who study theoretical physics feel an overwhelming sense of complexity, but also begin to sense a deep sense of internal consistency and harmony within the universe. This sense is magnified by the fact these fundamental interactions that we are describing are also described by deep mathematical symmetries. Again, it’s important to note that there is no necessary reason for why the physical processes of our universe are accurately described by mathematics. Here’s a quote from physicist Eugene Wigner regarding this point

The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.

The last question to ask is whether the complexity and harmony in nature is ad-hoc or specific. First, the mere fact that our universe is coherent, understandable, and predictable indicates that the complexity is specific and purposeful. However, here I want to note that the complexity, regularity, and harmony observed in our natural world today is absolutely consistent with God’s covenantal dealings with man as revealed in scripture. In the Noahic covenant (cf. Genesis 9:8-17), God promised consistency and regularity in the cosmos, which means that the orderliness of our physical universe is because of the faithfulness of God. In other words, we don’t have a “natural” world in which supernatural events occasionally happen; rather our universe is held together by the Word of His power (cf. Hebrews 1:3), which includes ordinary events that occur daily and extraordinary events of redemptive history (such as the resurrection, the global flood, and the future return of Christ). The constancy of the physical world is not an a priori assumption, but rather it is the result of God’s covenant faithfulness to man and God’s providence throughout this physical world.

In the next blog, I will address how the harmony of the physical sciences with our human experience serves as evidence of God’s existence and knowability.

The Evidence of God in the Origins of the Universe

As mentioned in the previous blog, the fundamental Christian argument is that God has intentionally designed our world (and the universe in general) to declare His glory and to make Himself known. This statement includes two other presuppositions: truth and reality exists and can be known.

In most matters, most people speak and act as if reality matters, but not when it comes to God. In matters of religion and faith, there seems to be a pervasive idea that all religious beliefs are equally valid, as long as those beliefs do not harm people, and all religious beliefs have different perspectives that should be celebrated and preserved, rather than challenged and critiqued. In other words, many people are troubled by claims that a particular religious belief is objectively true and does correspond to reality. Frankly, if this popular notion is true, then all defenses for the faith are exercises in futility since Christianity (and any other religious belief) would be nothing more than escapism and speculation.  C.S. Lewis addresses this mentality:

Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of facts— to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.

Escapism in philosophy and religion boils down to a matter of folly and self-deception. It’s simply foolish to try to avoid the truth about who we are, what we are, and why we are here in this world. If there is a God who made us and has placed demands over us as His creation, we need to know. Conversely, if God is nothing more than a clever mythological device from the ancient world, we need to know that, too. Even if one believes that the reality that we live in is a mere illusion (as some do believe), the very concept of an illusion presupposes a reality. Ultimately, reality exists and ultimately, we cannot escape it.

Our common experience also tells that we can know objective truth. For instance, many accept mathematical statements (i.e. 2 + 2 = 4) and scientific statements (i.e. humans require air to breath) as absolute truth. In making these statements, we are not imposing fictional models on reality; rather, we are recognizing truths that would be true even if we did not recognize them. In other words, human beings do not create knowledge, but we recognize the reality of our world. This leads to the ultimate question: if human beings do not create knowledge or reality, then what is its ultimate origin? In this, our ability to know truth (which exists outside of us) is a kind of evidence for the existence of God. If there is a God, then it must be true that some ideas about God will be true and others false.

My first evidence pointing to God’s existence and knowability comes from the very basic fact that the universe has an origin. The topic of the eternality of the universe was originally a matter of philosophy in which Western philosophers generally assumed that the universe had a beginning until the late 18th century. Immanuel Kant originally argued for the infinitude of the universe and over time, this theory became widely accepted among scientists. By the turn of the early 20th century, the common worldview held that the universe is static – more or less the same throughout eternity. However, the discovery of Einstein’s theory of general relativity and astronomical observations contradicted this view.

A Brief Historical Survey of 20th Century Physics

In 1913, astronomers noticed that several galaxies were moving away from our planet at high speeds. Shortly thereafter, Einstein published a series of papers which described the theory of general relativity and derived the Einstein field equations, which was a mathematical tool used to describe the general configuration of matter and space taking the universe as a whole. Einstein’s work was endorsed by numerous famous experiments, and by the early 1920s, most leading scientists agreed that the Einstein field equations could serve as a foundation for cosmology.

Shortly after Einstein published his theory, Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter produced a cosmological model from the Einstein field equations which pointed to an expanding universe (for those who are interested in the debate between Einstein and de Sitter, see this historical page). Later, Edwin Hubble used his telescope to verify de Sitter’s mathematical prediction that “the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves” – implying that the universe was expanding from a central point. The implication of these findings was obvious: the universe is finite and had a beginning. Even though there were (and still are) scientific concerns about the big bang theory, numerous scientists, from Einstein to Eddington, opposed the big bang theory because it contradicted the prevailing worldview of a static, eternal universe. For example, in an exchange of letters with de Sitter, Einstein quipped “this circumstance irritates me,” and “to admit such possibilities seems senseless.”

There were numerous theories that attempted to revive the eternal universe model (for a historical survey, see this historical page), but all of these alternative models, which utilize a static universe, received a fatal flaw through the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (which is the background radiation that the big bang hypothesis had predicted would be left behind by the initial creation of the universe). In early 1990s, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) demonstrated that the cosmic background radiation was homogeneous enough so that the universe must have begun from a singularity point and yet the background radiation had just enough irregularities (of an extremely minute amount) to account for the formation of the universe’s galaxies.

The Conclusion of the Matter

Now what conclusions can we draw from this historical survey? First, even if one argues with the methodology of the big bang hypothesis, what should be plain and obvious is that the universe is finite and has a beginning. This means that there once was a time when matter did not exist. Therefore, any worldview that requires spontaneous generation or self-creation to explain itself must be inherently self-refuting (since something has to already exist in order to create itself). Second, the existence of the universe is not the result of “chance”. If there was a point when matter did not exist, this also means that there is no naturalistic reason for why it is necessary for the universe to exist. This means that questions regarding the purpose of the universe must be asked if we care about matters of truth and reality.

Now this is a point that is not that difficult to understand. All of us have asked questions about the origin of the world as children and I can bet that none of us concluded that the world was eternal. This basically means that this knowledge is self-evident to us and to deny it means that we are suppressing this truth (cf. Romans 1:18-23). This leads to the last point: the fact that the universe has a beginning and is separate from its Creator is only explained in theism. In theism, God is understood as the distinct, eternal being who brought the universe into existence by an act of His will. However, it is only in Christianity in which the purpose of creation is linked with redemption. Consider the apostle Paul’s words concerning Christ in Colossians 1:15-20:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Christ is not only the agent of creation, but He is the agent of the new creation for those who put trust in Him. In the next blog, I will address the contingent complexity of our universe as an evidence of God’s existence and knowability.

Knowing God in the Sphere of Nature

As mentioned in a previous blog post, there are three questions that I’m asked pretty often:

Why aren’t there more Black Reformed Christians? This question was answered in a blog series, in which I asserted (and attempted to demonstrate) that traditional Black spirituality is quite different than Reformed spirituality. The second question is similar to the first.

Why have I chosen to join a church with no other minorities? This question is usually asked from other Black Christians, and it’s a question that deals with the matter of ethnic solidarity vs. doctrinal convictions. However, the question that I want to answer is as follows:

How do I reconcile my vocation as a physics professor with my confession of Christ? This question is asked by Christians and non-Christians alike. When the question is phrased by an unbeliever, it can be a statement of curiosity (usually in the best case scenario) or it can be a statement of incredulity (usually the common scenario). When the question is phrased by a believer, it usually is a question about the scientific method, the creation debate, and the claims from modern scientifically-minded atheists.

Whatever the case may be, ultimately these questions devolve into questions regarding apologetics. At the end of the day, every Christian must be able to give an answer to at least three basic questions: (1) Why do you believe that God exists? (2) Why do you believe that God can be known by us? (3) Why do you believe the Bible? From the perspective of a scientist, I’m usually asked to answer the first two questions more often than the third so in this blog series, I want to address the first two questions from a scientist’s perspective.

__________________

As an broad introduction in addressing these questions, I want to address the topic of how God reveals Himself to us, apart from special revelation. This is answered in Chapter 1, Paragraph 1 in the 1689 LBCF.

… although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation.

This states that God reveals Himself to us internally (through our religious consciousness and moral conscience) and externally (through His works of creation and providence).

It’s also important to note that both modes of natural revelation depend upon each other. On one hand, if there was no preceding innate knowledge of God, no amount of observation from nature through scientific processes would lead to an adequate conception of God. On the other hand, our innate knowledge of God is not complete in itself apart from our external knowledge of God from creation – in other words, the works of creation and providence gives our innate knowledge of God richness and concreteness. This can be observed in Romans 1, and it explains why the scripture never assumes (even in regard to the atheist) that man must be taught the existence of God. Rather, when the scriptures exhort unbelievers to know God, this is a call for unbelievers to become acquainted with Him through knowing what He truly is.

With the entrance of sin, the structure of natural revelation itself is greatly disturbed and put in need of correction. In most discussions of this topic, emphasis is given on how sin has affected our innate knowledge of God such that both our religious and moral sense of God have become blunted and blinded. Now, it is true that man’s innate sense of God is more seriously affected by sin than his outward observation of God’s work in nature. This explains why the scripture exhorts unbelievers to correct their foolish pre-conceptions of the nature of God through proper attention to the works of creation (cf. Isaiah 40:25-26; Psalm 94:5-11).

The fundamental Christian argument is that God has intentionally designed our world (and the universe in general) to declare His glory and to make Himself known. In this blog series, I will answer the question of God’s existence and knowability by emphasizing the contingent complexity of our physical world (which is a statement of God’s purpose and wisdom), the existence of the governing laws of nature (which is a description of God’s covenant faithfulness to His creation), and the internal consistency of His creation with His Word (which is a description of God’s self-disclosure to the world).

Another way to address these questions is to examine how man’s knowledge of God through nature has also been made subject to error and distortion because of the effects of sin. In this blog series, I also want to examine how otherwise brilliant scientists make significant errors in interpreting the complexity of our physical world, give irrational and illogical explanations regarding the governing laws of nature, and express various internal inconsistencies concerning various knowledge claims. This is to demonstrate that sin doesn’t remove the existence of natural revelation in our understanding of creation, but it does significantly distort it.

These considerations demonstrate that special revelation is needed not just to reveal things to our inner knowledge, but it is needed in order to correct our misconceptions of nature. The main correction of the natural knowledge of God cannot come from within nature itself, but it must be supplied by special revelation. I want to end this post by quoting Geerhardus Vos in his work Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments:

Redemption in a supernatural way restores to fallen man also the normalcy and efficiency of his cognition of God in the sphere of nature. How true this is, may be seen from the fact that the best system of Theism, i.e. Natural Theology, has not been produced from the sphere of heathenism, however splendidly endowed in the cultivation of philosophy, but from Christian sources.