Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
John 17:3
“We no longer need to prove the existence of God to the people living around my church.” The pastor’s remark grabbed my attention. “The people living in this ‘yuppie’ neighborhood in the heart of Toronto,” he explained, “all assume the reality of the supernatural.”
The pastor’s observation is confirmed by opinion polls that consistently indicate that the vast majority of people in the United States and Canada claim to believe in God or to acknowledge some divine reality. Yet this does not mean that these people enjoy a personal relationship with the living God. Indeed, many people in the early twenty-first century simply choose to ignore the existence of God. God may exist for this populace, but for a complex variety of reasons, people in Western culture are discounting the practice, and in some instances the possibility, of a living faith.
At the heart of our faith is the testimony that through Jesus Christ we have come to know the only true God. We declare that to know God means more than merely asserting that a vague, generic Supreme Being exists. We likewise cannot assume that all religious traditions automatically lead their devotees to the God of the Bible.
On the contrary, we assert that biblical faith entails a personal relationship with the God who encounters us in Jesus. Knowing this God, in turn, leads us to see all of life in a special way. Our faith commitment motivates us to live for the glory of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is a faith shaped by the Trinity. It is this faith that provides the foundation for knowing how to live for God’s glory. Theology assists in this process, for it facilitates us in our quest to know the God of the Bible.
God and the Contemporary World
But how can we continue to proclaim the ancient message about the God of Jesus our Lord in the contemporary context? Does our Christian confession still remain credible in today’s world? And can we truly anticipate that people will listen when we declare that God has encountered us in Jesus Christ?
In responding to these questions, we must remind ourselves that our world is populated by people with many differing opinions about, and attitudes toward, religious matters. Therefore, our claim that the Christian faith is true may take several forms.
Is There a God? Our Response to Atheism
Certain people today deny the existence of any God whatsoever. “There is no God,” they firmly assert. We may call this denial “atheism,” a word that means literally “no God.” Atheists argue that the universe is not the creation of a purposeful God. Rather, it is shaped by blind, random natural forces. Or they see in the presence of evil in the world conclusive proof that a benevolent God cannot exist.
An atheistic spirit has filtered into our general cultural ethos. Pressured by a scientific worldview that leaves no room for religion, many people have discarded the concept of God.1 For them, God has become either the God-of-the-gaps for whom no gaps are left or a debilitating limitation on human freedom.
What can we say to people who do not acknowledge the reality of God?
Intellectual atheism is a relatively new development in the history of humankind. It did not gain a widespread following until long after the church expanded into the world dominated by Greek culture. In fact, it is in one sense a result of the rejection of the Christian gospel by intellectuals standing in the tradition of the Greeks.
Let’s look at this historical development, for it provides a window on our world today.
The Greek philosophers loved to engage in intellectual argumentation. Above all, they debated whether or not we could devise philosophical proofs for theological beliefs, including the existence of the one God, understood as the First Cause of the world.
Influenced by the Greeks, Christian philosophers devised arguments that they thought actually proved God’s existence. These Christian thinkers intended to provide intellectual confirmation of faith in God. Apologists such as Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) thought that they were simply living out Augustine’s famous dictum, “I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.”2 Like other thinkers, Anselm was convinced that intellectual proofs for God’s existence offered the “understanding”—the logical persuasion—that Christian faith naturally evokes.
Christian philosophers developed three basic types of arguments for God’s existence:
Ontological proofs begin with a commonly held definition of God. They then show that there must be a Being (God) who corresponds to the definition. These arguments claim that by definition God cannot merely be an idea in our minds but must also actually exist.
In his classical ontological proof, Anselm defined God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.”3 He then offered two possibilities: either God exists only in human minds or God exists both in human minds and in reality. But if we conceive of God as existing only in our minds and not in reality, Anselm added, this God is not “that than which no greater can be conceived.” Indeed, we could conceive of a God that exists both in our minds and in reality. The God whom we conceive of as existing both mentally and actually is obviously greater than the God who we believe exists only in our minds. Therefore, Anselm concluded, by definition God must exist.
Several centuries later, the French philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650) argued in a somewhat similar manner. God, he said, is the “supremely perfect Being.”4 Now if God does not exist in reality, Descartes reasoned, he lacks one perfection—existence. But the God so conceived—as perfect in every way but not existing in reality—is not the most perfect being.
In the 1800s, Georg Hegel (1770–1831) offered a quite different ontological proof. He defined God as the infinite one, who stands as a contrast to finite beings. The idea of such a God, Hegel argued, is necessary to our human thinking process. The mind, he noted, cannot conceive of finite reality without at the same time thinking of an “infinite” that lies beyond the finite.5
More recently Norman Malcolm (1911–90) asserted that God must exist because by his very conception he cannot not exist. Malcolm believed that God’s existence is by definition necessary existence.6 That is, God necessarily exists or exists by necessity.
Cosmological and teleological arguments build from our observations of the world. They conclude that God must exist as the explanation for certain aspects of the universe that we readily observe.
Thus, cosmological proofs purport to demonstrate that God must exist as the ultimate cause of the universe itself. The world must have come from somewhere. And this somewhere is God.
Already in the thirteenth century, the great Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) developed a series of cosmological and teleological arguments, which are often called “the five ways.”7 Among Thomas’s five ways is an argument often considered the best example of the cosmological proof. According to Thomas, every contingent reality must have a cause that explains its existence. In Thomas’s view, something is “contingent” if it could either be or not be, it does not exhaustively explain itself, and its existence and being are not self-evident. In referring to reality as “contingent,” Thomas was indicating that the universe is made up entirely of contingent things. Because the universe is contingent, it must have a noncontingent cause. Any such cause would have to be a necessary, infinite being. We call this noncontingent cause of the universe “God.”
Teleological arguments, in contrast, look to more specific details of the universe. They claim that God must exist as the cause of some specific characteristic we observe in the natural world. The aspect philosophers most often cite is the apparent design or order in the universe. The design of the universe declares the existence of a cosmic Designer.
Perhaps more widely known is the teleological argument proposed by William Paley (1743–1805). Paley’s proof draws an analogy from the common watch, which in his day was an impressive array of springs and wheels, rather than the electronic timepiece we wear today. Paley noted that a precise mechanical instrument such as a watch declares the existence of its designer (the watchmaker). In a similar manner the intricate construction of the natural world bears witness to the existence of its Designer. We call this cosmic Architect “God.”8
Early in the twentieth century F. R. Tennant (1866–1957) offered an updated version of the teleological argument. Unlike many thinkers for whom Darwin’s theories were a stumbling block to faith, Tennant saw the evolutionary development of the universe as a pointer to God’s existence. Specifically, he found a “wider teleology” within evolutionary nature. Many strands have worked together in the production of higher and higher levels of creatures, he declared. The evolutionary process climaxed in the appearance of humankind, the moral creature. This grand cosmic cooperation, Tennant claimed, provides ground for reasonable belief that God must exist. God is the one who gave direction to evolution.9
The cosmologist Robert Jastrow has offered a restatement of the cosmological proof. He argued that the widely held big bang theory once again makes the postulate of God intellectually respectable.10 God is the one who set off the big bang that started the universe.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) offered a classic formulation of this approach. Each human, he noted, lives out of an unavoidable sense of duty. Kant did not mean that all humans share a specific moral code. Rather, he argued that behind the various and differing codes of conduct humans devise is a common feeling of being morally conditioned, or held responsible by the sense of duty.
Kant concluded that God must exist if this experience of moral obligation is to have any meaning. In a truly moral universe virtuous conduct must be rewarded and wrongdoing must be punished. But for this to occur, there must be a Supreme Lawgiver. This God guarantees that ultimately moral justice will be done.11
Hastings Rashdall (1858–1924) devised a somewhat different formulation of the moral proof. He noted that ideals—standards and goals toward which people strive—exist only in minds. But, he added, certain ideals are absolute. These can exist only in a mind adequate for them—namely, in an absolute or divine Mind. Therefore, he concluded, God must exist.12
Perhaps the most well-known contemporary formulation of the moral argument came from the pen of C. S. Lewis in his widely read book Mere Christianity.13 All human societies reflect a universal code of morality, Lewis claimed. In all cultures certain conduct is praised, while certain other actions are universally condemned. According to Lewis, this phenomenon indicates that behind the universe lies something that is conscious, has purpose, and prefers one type of conduct to another. Hence, this “something” is more like Mind than like anything else we know. Consequently, Lewis concluded, the “something” at the foundation of the world is God.
In the first decade of the twenty-first century, British theologian and scientist Alister McGrath has entered into a variety of debates with atheist Richard Dawkins, among others, on the existence of God. In his apologetics, McGrath argues for God’s existence from all of these positions—cosmological, teleological, and moral—yet adds a few more. McGrath also argues for God’s existence from anthropological and aesthetic positions. Anthropologically, McGrath notes that as early as Pascal, there has been articulated an intuitive human need for God. From an aesthetic standpoint, McGrath argues that the created order displays a beauty that points beyond itself. In a postmodern context, McGrath’s arguments merit further investigation.14
We can seek to demonstrate that faith is intellectually credible, but we cannot argue anyone into the kingdom.
Each of these proofs for God’s existence has elicited criticisms. Nevertheless, many people find them intellectually compelling. For this reason, some Christians continue to use such arguments in the attempt to prove to modern skeptics that belief in God is intellectually credible. These Christian apologists believe that such proofs provide ammunition in the war against atheism. In addition, they add, intellectual arguments assist in evangelism. The classical proofs remove the intellectual misgivings that hinder some people from coming to faith.
How should we respond to this? Are such proofs helpful? Yes and no.
The various proofs for God’s existence may provide some assistance in speaking to contemporary skeptics. But we ought not be surprised to discover that few people can be “argued into the kingdom.”
Nevertheless, the classic proofs remind us that in every age we have an apologetic role to fulfill, a role in explaining and defending the faith. As believers, we are convinced that only when we acknowledge God’s existence can we truly understand the universe and ourselves as humans. As John Calvin declared, “It is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself.”15
Which God? Christian Faith within the Competition of the Gods
We find ourselves living in a complex situation. Not only does our world include skeptics who deny the existence of God, but many other people retain some semblance of belief in God while living as “practical atheists.” Like the “fool” the psalmist mentions (Pss. 14:1; 53:1), they go about the tasks of life with little apparent need for God. For them God has become at best an innocuous postulate or perhaps even totally irrelevant to life.
But this does not exhaust our situation. Our society is also rapidly becoming a fertile field for a myriad of old and new religions. For some people, this proliferation of rival beliefs is merely another indication that Christianity cannot be true. For others, however, the spiritual aridness of contemporary life has produced a new thirst for the divine. As a result, we are witnessing a rebirth of interest in the supernatural. Yet people are not necessarily gravitating to the Christian faith. Rather, many are being enticed by the gods proclaimed by the messengers of other religions. In our Western culture, the god of consumerism is just as exacting and manipulative as the traditional gods of other religious expressions, expecting the same homage, devotion, and worship. Jesus called this god Mammon (Luke 16:9–13).
The proliferation of gods in our society suggests that we may be living in a situation similar to that faced by the biblical community. The first-century Christians were steadfastly loyal to Jesus in a society that worshiped a pantheon of pagan gods (1 Cor. 8:5–6). Like the ancient Hebrews, the early believers proclaimed that the God of Abraham and the Father of Jesus Christ is the only true God. Their response to their situation stands as an example of how we can set forth Christian belief today.
In the ancient world, everybody acknowledged one or more deities. As a result, during the biblical era rival gods competed with each other for the loyalties of people. And the crucial religious question of the day was, Which god is worthy of homage and service?16
But how could this question be answered? The people of the ancient Near East believed that events in the world revealed the relative strength of the various tribal deities. The strong god was the one who could perform mighty acts.
In keeping with the ancient understanding, the book of Exodus presents the plagues as signs indicating that Yahweh was stronger than the Egyptian gods. Israel’s God could do wonders that the deities of Egypt could not imitate.17 The deliverance of the fleeing Hebrews at the Red Sea became a further sign of Yahweh’s power (Exod. 15:11–16). Forty years later, Yahweh parted the waters of the Jordan River so that the children of Israel could enter the land of Canaan. This demonstration of power struck terror in the hearts of the Canaanites (Josh. 5:1). And at a subsequent low point in Israel’s history, Yahweh once again vindicated himself, together with Elijah the prophet, against the company of Baal worshipers on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18).
For the ancient peoples, one mighty act stood above all others—the provision of victory in battle.18 They viewed military conflicts not merely as contests of rival armies but also as struggles between rival deities. A military venture succeeded only because the god of the conquering tribe had vanquished the deity worshiped by the defeated people.
For example, when the army of Assyria surrounded Jerusalem, the invading general taunted not only Israel but also Israel’s God. The haughty commander reminded his dispirited opponents that the gods of the nations had been unable to protect their devotees from the conquering Assyrian army (2 Kings 18:32–35).
There is only one God. This God is not merely our personal God. Rather the God we know in Christ is the God of the whole world.
A grave crisis of faith unfolded when foreigners finally devastated the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Could it be that Yahweh had been vanquished by other gods? In response, the prophets declared that the captivity of God’s people did not mean that Yahweh was unable to protect his own. Instead, they were signs of his judgment on their sin. God had allowed foreigners to take his people into captivity so that they might return wholeheartedly to him.19
The Old Testament prophets knew that Yahweh alone was the true God. This, however, meant that idolatry—paying homage to any other god—was a grievous sin. There is only one God, they adamantly asserted. And he alone is to be worshiped.20
The prophets posed another far-reaching question as well: Is Yahweh merely Israel’s tribal god, or is he also the God of all humankind? Could the Hebrews alone worship Yahweh? Or was their God the only true God, so that all the nations of the earth should join in the worship of the Holy One of Israel?21
Prophets such as Zechariah anticipated the answer. He pointed to a day when all nations would worship in Jerusalem (Zech. 14:16). Zechariah’s vision of an international congregation of worshipers announced that Yahweh is the God of the whole world. He is to be worshiped by all the peoples of the earth.
At the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) the church ratified Zechariah’s conclusion. They declared that gentiles do not need to become Jews in order to join the community of faith. Through Jesus Christ we know that there is only one God, who is God over all (1 Cor. 8:4–6; 10:18–22).
The way the biblical community of faith responded to the conflict of the gods offers a model as to how we can declare our faith in a situation in which many gods are increasingly pervading society.
Our claim to know God gains credibility as we connect belief in God with life as a Christian.
Their example reminds us that we cannot limit our response to intellectual argumentation, especially an argumentation that focuses on the proofs for God’s existence. Instead, ours must be a living demonstration. We must embody—live out—our faith commitment in the midst of life.
Nor in the context of the many “gods” that vie for the loyalties of people today can we merely proclaim the existence of some generic god. As Christians, we assert that the only true God is the one disclosed in Jesus of Nazareth and who raised Jesus from the dead. One day this God will publicly demonstrate Jesus’s lordship, for our Lord will return in glory and judgment.
Until that great day, we must continue to proclaim the good news about the God of the Bible, who alone can give meaning to life. In so doing, our claim that “God exists” flows into a humble declaration that in Christ we have come to know God. In the end, we believe that “God is” because we have encountered the only true God in Jesus Christ. And ultimately our claim to know the one God only gains credence in the contemporary world as he demonstrates the divine presence through the way we live—through our lives as we connect our Christian belief with true Christian living.
This is our most powerful apologetic in a world of many “gods.”
Knowing God
As Christians, we declare that the only true God has made himself known to us in Jesus of Nazareth. In Jesus, we have come to know God. But what does it mean to know God? Can we make such a claim today? And how does this encounter with God occur?
We Know the Incomprehensible God
Many people today respond with skepticism when we claim to know God. As we have seen, some deny God’s existence (atheism). Others, however, assert that even if God exists no one can ever come to know the deity. We may call this viewpoint “agnosticism,” a word that means literally “no knowledge.”
We, however, boldly testify that we have come to know the living God. Yet in voicing our claim we dare not miss the valid reminder agnostics offer us. We must humbly acknowledge with the biblical authors that God is incomprehensible (e.g., Job 11:7–8; Pss. 97:2; 145:3; Isa. 40:28; 45:15; 55:8–9; 1 Cor. 2:11).
What does this admission mean?
We cannot fathom the depth of the divine reality. Whatever knowledge we have about God is at best only partial. Nor can we ever claim to know everything about him. Rather, God always remains partially hidden, beyond our gaze. God declared through Isaiah: “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:9).
Nevertheless, we also adamantly maintain that God can be known. Although our knowledge of God is always partial, we know God as he actually is. Our Lord himself has declared that through him we truly come to know God (John 17:3).
But how does this “knowing God” come about?
We Know the Self-Revealing God
We know God ultimately only as God comes to us—only as he gives himself to be known—only as God reveals himself to us. We know God, therefore, because God takes the initiative. Jesus explains, “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matt. 11:27; see also 1 Cor. 2:9–16).22
We do not approach God in the way that we engage in the study of things around us. We do not scrutinize God in an objective, scientific manner or at our own whim. Rather, in our knowing God, God gives himself to be known.
When we know God, we have gained more than a body of truths. Rather than merely possessing a list of statements about God, we enjoy fellowship with the living, personal God. From this relationship, lofty declarations about God take on new meaning. They describe God’s character and greatness as we have experienced the living One.
We do not actively come to know God. Instead, God grasps and knows us. As Paul remarks to the Galatian believers: “But now that you know God—or rather are known by God” (Gal. 4:9). There is an echo of the apostle in J. I. Packer’s declaration, “What matters supremely therefore is not in the last analysis the fact that I know God, but the larger fact which underlies it—the fact that He knows me.”23
How does this occur? Where does God come to us with the result that we know him?
Of course, this occurs in conversion, the point at which we encounter God personally. We will explore this more thoroughly in chapter 8. Here we need only note that through conversion the Holy Spirit links us with a larger story that begins in the past and will be completed in the future.24 This story has a purpose or goal, for it is leading to that great day when God will reveal the fullness of the divine glory (1 Cor. 13:12; 1 John 3:2). The revelation of God’s glory is not merely future, however. It has already invaded our world in Jesus of Nazareth (1 John 5:20). Consequently, it is in Jesus Christ that God confronts and apprehends us.
And what is the goal of knowing God?
According to the Bible, God’s ultimate desire is to create from all nations a reconciled people living within a renewed creation and enjoying the presence of the Triune God. This biblical vision of community is the goal of history. But it is also the present—albeit partial—experience of each person who has come to know God.
In the final analysis, therefore, we know that we have encountered God in that we have been brought to share in community—that is, as we enjoy fellowship with God and participate in the people of faith.
Our life together with other believers stands as the best confirmation that we know God.
In subsequent chapters we will explore the implications of our encounter with God and the fellowship or community that it inaugurates. One conclusion, however, is crucial to the present discussion. Our participation in community with God, each other, and creation offers a final answer to not only the question about the possibility of knowing God but also the question of God’s existence.
The contemporary world challenges our claim that we have come to know the only true God. We must meet this challenge on many fronts. Our answer includes demonstrating that the Christian faith is intellectually credible. But our response cannot end there. We must also embody our commitment to God by the way we live. We must connect Christian belief with Christian living. This includes living now in fellowship with God, others, and creation. Only Christian living in this way can confirm our testimony that we know the only true God, the “God who is.”
Mastering the Material
Having Read This Chapter, You Should Know:
For Connection and Application