Does God desire all men to be saved? An exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4

In my last blog, a friend of mind asked me the following question:

1 Tim. 2:4 says that God would have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth. Clearly not all men do this. Some men reject God and the knowledge of truth. Do you see it differently?

In 1 Timothy 2:3-4 it states:

“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

A cursory reading of the passage would seem to indicate that God does desire all men to be saved. This verse is often cited as a proof text by those who hold to the idea that God has ordained that man’s “free will” is the ultimate determiner of the salvation He has offered to men. It is assumed by most that the phrase "all men" means every "individual" person that is ever born into the world. But is this interpretation really what Paul had in mind when he penned those words? Let's take a closer look at the context of the passage to see what Paul was communicating to his fellow apostle Timothy.

At the end of chapter one, Paul encourages Timothy in his walk and ministry telling him to "fight the good fight, keeping faith". From there, in chapter two, Paul begins to counsel him as to how he should keep his faith.

v.1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,

Stopping here in mid sentence, what can we surmise what Paul is saying so far. If one understands "all men" to mean each individual person, then is Paul telling Timothy to open up the local phone book, start with the letter A, and start to pray for each individual person listed? An alternative understanding of "all men" is to interpreted as generic categories of men, such as Jews and Gentiles or rich and poor. Continuing on in the rest of the verse:

v. 2 for kings and all who are in high positions,...

Here Paul defines what he means by "all men"; Kings and those in high positions. It would seem that the understanding of "all men" would better fit the idea of generic categories or classes of men rather then individual particular persons.

v. 2 ...so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.

Here Paul tells Timothy the reason why we should pray for "all men", so that they can live a quiet and peaceful life. Remember that during this time the early Church was being persecuted by such men as kings and those in high positions. Paul wanted Timothy to pray for the very people that are causing them distress. And why should Timothy pray for kings and those in high positions?

v. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Because God even wants those who are persecuting His people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. God is not partial in that He only wants curtain kinds or types of men to be saved, but God wants ALL KINDS of men to be saved, yes, even powerful oppressors. Therefore it is clear that Paul did not have in mind a universal scope of “individual’s” when he said “all men” in this passage, but generic categories of men. This is further reinforced in the rest of the passage:

v.5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all

Here Paul explains why Christians should pray for “all men” to be saved, “For there is ONE God, and ONE mediator also between God and men.” If one was to understand “all men” in verse 4 to apply to every individual, does it not follow that Christ must be the mediator of “all men” individually as well? If in fact He was a mediator of all men individually, would it not also follow that He fails in His mediation on behalf of “all men” since not “all men” are saved and come to the knowledge of truth? One would hope that a person with the understanding of atonement, mediation, and intersession would never promote such an idea of a failing Mediator on behalf of His people. Not only would such an idea turn Scripture on its head, but would render Christ’s’ self-sacrifice as less than perfect.

One last point is the ransom that Christ gave. Was His ransom a saving ransom or a non-saving one? If it was a saving ransom (as the rest of Scripture indicates), then to be consistent with the passage, one must say that if “all men” is to be taken in an individual sense, then “all men” individually are saved by the saving ransom of Christ. Obviously this is not the case. Christ’s ransom was a saving ransom for all men categorically and not individually. Christ actually saves those for whom He has died.

There are many other examples throughout Scripture to support this idea of all men in a categorical sense. Here is one example:

For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. Acts 22:15 (emphasis mine)

It is obvious that he is not talking about every individual person, but all kinds of men are in view. Here is one of the clearest examples of how Paul uses “all” in different classes of men:

A renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)

To answer the original question asked of me, yes I do see this passage very differently. God does not show partiality to certain groups of men, but desires all different kinds of men to be saved. The God that I worship and serve is not a God that merely tries to save and fails to bring about His saving will for "all men". No, my God is a sovereign and powerful God that actually saves men and saves them perfectly.

The Foolishness of Unbelief Part 2 – Answering the Fool According to His Folly

In Part 1 I defined my position and argument on the existence of the Christian God. In this part I will demonstrate the foolishness of unbelief from an ongoing discussion I have been engaged in with an unbeliever.

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26:5

The following is a review of an encounter with an unbeliever I had a month or so ago about the existence of God and how we know what we know (epistemology). We have been engaged in written debates over the last few months and decided to have a face to face discussion. Our first few written exchanges were mainly trying to understand each others worldview. This unbeliever worldview states that one can ONLY know something if one FIRST experiences it (through the five senses). Interestingly, his worldview also states that one can never know ANYTHING absolutely for sure, 100% (not even ones own self-existence) because he presupposes that the “logic” he uses is a man made construct (and not from God) and anything that is man made has the potential to be fallible. It also states that the most important goal in life is the need for everyone to be tolerant with everyone else’s worldviews because he claims that one can’t be absolutely sure about their own beliefs. Therefore, since there is a possibility for one to be “wrong” about their worldview (no absolutes), one should not be dogmatic about implementing their beliefs on others (such as Christians voting in favor of laws that reflect their worldview that might inhibit another person or persons competing worldview’s actions or beliefs). Finally, his worldview states that there are no absolute moral standards (morality is subjective and thus relative) and in order for one to be successful in this life, one should live in such a way to avoid as much pain as possible. In a nut shell, this unbeliever is a naturalistic pragmatic agnostic. It is interesting to note that at the beginning of our debate he affirmed that there is only one absolute truth that he could know for certain, his own self-existence (“I think, therefore I am”). I quickly pointed out to him that he had to use logic to come to that conclusion (using the word “therefore” is part of a logical construction) and that if he believed that his “logic” was a man made construct and thus could be fallible, then his “logical” conclusion of his absolute knowledge that he exists could be fallible as well. He eventually agreed and now questions his own self-existence and cannot believe in any absolutes whatsoever. Of course in doing so, he uses logic to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to use “logic” to come to any sure conclusion about anything at all.

It is important to note that this person is not just any old person I use as an example of answering a fool according to his folly. I have known this person for a very long time and have discussed many topics in philosophy and theology with him in the past. There was a time when I once regard his arguments and ideas to a very high standard, but sadly this is no longer the case. As you read, remember my apologetic of my Christian worldview, “If the unbeliever were correct in his presuppositions, then nothing whatever could be understood or known.” (Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Always Ready pg 69)

Everything in the following email is the same with the exception of His responses to my questions and what I noted in Bold. His complete response follows my email. (Note his in depth responses to my objections to his worldview)

(Unbeliever response to this email: “I am actually encouraged by this email, it appears you are starting understand my position”)

(Unbeliever),

It will be a week tomorrow since we have last spoken and I have not yet received your questions about logic that you said that you were going to send me. I was going to try to answer them myself in this message, but I don’t remember exactly what they were. I wanted to take the time and review our interaction and tie up any loose ends there might have been. I want to start off by asking you questions that I hope you will attempt to answer in your next message to me (they will be underlined). The second half is some questions that you had asked me that I want you to be clear on from my worldview.

My first question is how do you, in your worldview, define experience and/or observation? Would I be correct in asserting that it is information that is perceived and encountered through one’s five senses (see, taste, touch, smell, and hear)? If the five senses are not how you define “experience”, how do you determine what is and what is not material since you don’t believe that non material things exist?

(Unbeliever responded: Yes, I would define experience via the senses.)

You have asserted in our last conversation that one can only have knowledge through their experience and/or observation. (If one could have knowledge outside of experience, then there are things that are immaterial that we receive knowledge from, which would damage your worldview of naturalism- the belief that only material things seem to exist). In your last written response you stated, “I don't know how to acquire knowledge outside of observation or experience” and also stated, “…it does not appear possible to know anything ABSOLUTLY, 100%, and undeniable.” In your world view, is it possible for a person to have a false experience and/or observation?
The way I see it is only three answers can be given:

1. If it is not possible, are you saying that you can know something absolutely? Also, how did you come to the conclusion that it is not possible? Your answer certainly cannot come from your experience or observation, because if it did, that would be a circular argument; a logical fallacy. If your answer does not come from your experience or observation, then that would contradict the very foundation of your worldview of knowledge by experience.
   
2. If it is possible for someone to have a false experience, then how do you distinguish between the false experiences and the true ones without using your experiences? You cannot use your experiences to distinguish from your false and true experiences because that would be begging the question, a logical fallacy.
   
3. If your answer is simply that you don’t know, then how do you know that you are not having false experiences and observations to come to the conclusion that a person can only have knowledge through one’s experience and observation?
   

(Unbeliever responded: Yes, I believe that my experience can be false. It has been in the past or at least I think it has ;-)

This leads me to my next question. What happens in your worldview when your logic (internal experience?) contradicts your experience? I’ll give you an example from our last interaction. We started our conversation with your world view contradiction of “freedom of the mind” (which you believe the mind is material) and everything that is material world moves in a predictable and law like faction (no room for freedom). Your response was quite shocking. You stated that it is indeed contradictory and that you don’t have an answer, yet you “know” that we do have freedom because of your experiences. You proceeded to ask me if it is really necessary to have a WHY and an answer for everything and then tried to deflect your predicament by asking me what I would do if I had a logical problem in my worldview (I’ll deal with that later). So it would seem from this that when your logic contradicts your experience, your experience prevails. However, later in the conversation, I pointed out that when you see something that has irreducible complexity (like a car or computer), your experience and your first inclination tells you that there is a designer. Therefore, when we look at nature and at the human body (which is certainly irreducibly complex), we should also conclude that there is a designer (God). You agreed but then proceeded to use logic to discredit your experience by asserting that it would lead to infinite regressions (who created God?). (Note: this is not logically the case. You want to remove a major aspect of my whole argument, and more importantly my worldview, by ignoring the fact that God has revealed that He is eternal (Gen 21:33; Ps 90:2; Rom 1:20) and that there is nothing greater than Him (Heb 6:13). I don’t even understand how you can even “know” about infinite regressions seeing how you have never “experienced” anything infinite.) In this case your logic prevails over your experience. So, in one instance you deny logic for the sake of your experience and in another instance you deny your experience for the sake of your logic. Truly this is foolish thinking, just as it is written, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline” (Proverbs 1:7).

(Unbeliever responded: When logic contradicts my experience, I try to default to logic, however, that is easier said than done.)

You had asserted in our last conversation and in your written replies, “All we seem to have are probabilities and likeliness of things being true.” (Remember that probability is a mathematical (logical) measurement of the likelihood of something happening, such as 1 out of a 6 chance of a person rolling a 2 on a dice). You used probably over and over again in your argumentation to determine the likelihood of something being true. In one of your replies you stated, “…there does not seem to be evidence showing a high probability of the Christian god existing.” I find this quite fascinating because you even admitted that even if God did indeed exist, there would be no way for us to know He does exist. Your reason for this goes back to your worldview (presupposition) that we can only know something if we first experience it. How do you measure the probably of something that you have not yet experienced? Have you experienced God in order to “know” that He does not have a high probability for existing? How do you know the probability (a mathematical measurement) that the future will be like the past if you have not yet experienced the future (my argument of the uniformity of nature)? Better yet, have you “experienced” (knowing through the five senses; empirical) probability itself in order to know the probability of probability existing? If you haven’t experienced probability (and you cannot), how do you know it exists in order for you to use it in your argumentation to know that other things exist? With all of this in mind, how would one understand your statement, “I believe in the probability of absolutes, however, I do not know how to sufficiently prove something as being absolute.” Seeing how you have never “experienced” absoluteness… well, you get the point.

(Unbeliever responded: I do not know how to measure the probability of something I have not experienced personally, however, by experience, have learned to incorporate other people's probabilities into my decision making process.)

To be honest, I don’t know how you would even begin to answer any of these questions because you’ve already stated you can’t know anything for sure (no absolutes). That is why every time you opened your mouth and made a statement about anything, I interrupted you as asked you if you knew what you were saying was absolutely true, and of course you didn’t. How can I ever trust or believe anything you say, if you can’t really trust it or know it for sure yourself? This is why I said over and over and over again that when one removes God from the foundation of their thinking, one can’t know or make sense out of anything (Proverbs 9:10). Therefore, whenever someone challenges you about your worldview or philosophy, in order for you to be consistent with your own worldview, the best you can ever hope to offer in response is keep your mouth closed and not to say anything at all.

For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1:19-20

I will use the rest of this review of our last conversation to cover some of the questions that you asked me of my worldview that I may or may not have answered clearly.

• Do we really need a WHY and an answer (reason) for everything?
  

This question was asked of me when I asked you how we can have “freedom of the mind” (or brain that is material) and know that everything that is material moves in a predictable and law like fashion. You were unable to even begin to reason out an answer. “Most people” would call that a flawed position to adhere to. Therefore if you want to be consistent and be your own favorite person (as your website says), then you should stand for something that you are “willing to let that something be challenged and change if reason begs to differ with (your) something.” So to answer the question, if one wants to, “genuinely seek to know ‘truth’,” and have an intellectual discussion of life’s meaning, then Yes, we need to at least attempt to reason for everything.

• How would you respond to what seems like a logical contradiction in your Christian worldview? For example, Jesus being both God and man at the same time.
  

First and foremost, in order for one to claim that something is contradictory or illogical, one must have a foundation (worldview) for all of their reasoning. In my worldview I presuppose that there is an eternal, omnipotent, personal God who has created and sustains all things and that all knowledge and wisdom is hidden within Him (Col 2:2-3). Therefore man is utterly dependent on God for any knowledge and wisdom. Man receives this knowledge by natural revelation (Rom 1:18-20) and special revelation (Scripture). Because of this dependence, God has chosen, out of His infinite wisdom, to reveal certain things to us, and withhold other things (a mystery). “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever...” (Deu 29:29). An example of one of the things that God has kept hidden from us that seems logically contradictory is how He created this material universe out of nothing. Since God has said that He has created all thing by His Word (Col 1:16) and I was not there as a witness of the creation, I must submit to the authority of His Word and believe that this is true. Therefore, in the answer to how I would respond to a seemingly logical contradiction in my worldview, I would simply respond that God has not yet made it known or revealed it to us. As for Jesus being both God and man, even though I am not able to explain the mechanics of how this is possible (a mystery), it would still make logical sense. Since God is all powerful and the creator of His creation, why would it not follow that He would be able to enter into His creation?

• How do you know that God can’t lie? If God were to lie, how would you know that He did?
  

The Scriptures clearly state, “It is impossible for God to lie” (Num 23:19; Heb 6:18). Why do the Scriptures state this? Because God is by the nature the Truth (John 14:6). In other words, He is the very standard of all that is Truth. Can the standard of Truth itself ever be a lie? No, it is impossible because then there would no standard of Truth in order to determine Truth. Therefore, whatever God says and does is by definition the Truth. So, in my worldview I can call on someone to be logical because in doing so, they think the way God thinks, in a non contradictory (lying) fashion.

(Insert: It would be wise to give some context of following question seeing how he has taken what I have said and has missed used it on his own website. This question he raises is his “silver bullet” to silence his opponents. Because he believes that he can’t know anything for sure (no absolutes), then no one else can know anything for sure either. In his “reasoning”, since no one can’t know anything for sure, we should “therefore” tolerate everyone’s worldviews and actions. Well, as you see, I didn’t “bite the bullet”. As I have already pointed out, if we were to take this position to its logical conclusion, then there would be no reason to for him to debate at all because he can’t even be sure if using logic itself is effective or sufficient to discover any type of truth whatsoever. Remember, it is my worldview that gives the preconditions for logic, reason, and intelligible thinking; his worldview, of course, cannot. Because he can’t even be sure that he exists, one must wonder why he would even begin rely on any of his experiences in order to come to any sort of “logical” conclusion on anything.)

• Is it possible that you could be wrong in your presuppositions and/or worldview?
  

NO! Now I know that for some that might seems arrogant or closed minded, but it is the truth. Just because you don’t believe in absolutes doesn’t mean I can’t believe in them. Besides, how do you know absolutely that I can’t know absolutely that I’m correct in my presuppositions? Going back to the question, my reason for my answer is simple. If in fact my worldview was to be “wrong”, than it would be impossible for me to determine if it is right or wrong. [One cannot claim to be wrong unless they can claim or at least know of a means for them to be right] Therefore my evidence that I cannot be wrong (in an absolute sense) is that I would need an absolute standard to judge [objectively] in order to determine if something is absolutely right or wrong, and that standard would have to be my worldview (showing I was right in the first place). [Why is that? Because the only way for me (or anyone) to determine if they are right or wrong objectively is to have a worldview that has and can account for an abstract, universal, and absolute entity (the laws of logic).] I’ve already demonstrated above what happens when someone removes the absolute standard (God) from their thinking. So, for a person who seeking after Truth, they have only two choices in order to discover truth. They could either presuppose that there is no God and hence forfeit any right to claim an absolute standard for reasoning and logic, the very tools that would lead to the Truth (which would be self-defeating), or they could presuppose God in their thinking so that they are able to debate and rationalize in order to discover and determine the Truth. Therefore, when one wants to debate and use logic in order to deny the existence of God, they must first presuppose the existence of God in order to deny Him.

• Was our interaction and time spent together worth anything to you?
  

At first I didn’t think so, but now after further reflection, I think it was very beneficial. It was beneficial in the sense that it helped me refine certain truths within my faith. Also, you have further strengthened and reinforced my faith in my Lord by proving the Scripture true, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’ (Psalms 14:1a). For that, I am truly grateful.

As always, I look forward to hearing your response.

Eric…

“The proof of the existence of God is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything.” -Dr. Greg Bahnsen
---------
Unbeliever’s Response:

You called me a fool! LOL! That's awesome.

Sorry I have not gotten back to you, laziness mostly.

I am actually encouraged by this email, it appears you are starting understand my position.

First and foremost, by definition, I can not prove with 100% certainty anything I say. Therefore, I can be wrong at any point in any of my arguments.

Yes, I would define experience via the senses. Have you had an experience that does not employ one of the senses?

Yes, I believe that my experience can be false. It has been in the past or at least I think it has ;-)

When logic contradicts my experience, I try to default to logic, however, that is easier said than done.

I do not know how to measure the probability of something I have not experienced personally, however, by experience, have learned to incorporate other people's probabilities into my decision making process.

Well, I wish I were comfortable with presupposing a narrative as "truth"
in order to prove everything from it and then any evidence contrary or missing from it, simply state that the answer will come one day. That would be sweet! Not sure why, but I can't do it any more. It is so funny how you have become the real life version of the even steven religious debaters.

Since you can not be wrong in your world view, it does not seem prudent to argue with you.

I do have a few questions:

1) Define logic
2) Prove its origin
3) How can we be certain we are being logical?
4) What are the principles of logic?
5) Where are the principles of logic defined?
6) How do we know if the definition of the principles is correct?

If I presuppose a God, show you his simple text that says, The Christian god is not real, I am the true god, I'll explain later. How could you prove that the God I was worshiping was not the true god?
Thanks again for calling me a fool. I think you are an arrogant jerk when it comes to the search for truth.
-------------------------------

Because this blog is long enough already, I’ll let my readers have the pleasure in responding to his responses and objections. If one would want to know how I would respond to them, I would be willing to do so if one was to ask me nicely in the comments. However, before I close, here are the very brief answers I would give to his six questions.

1) God’s thoughts or the means by which God thinks.
2) From the impossibility of the contrary (indirect proof) as already demonstrated in the above email and in Part 1
3) Because we have been made in the image of the one that is the very standard of Truth and logic itself- God.
4) I have already provided a list to him. I can provide it to any who may want it.
5) In the perfect mind of God. He has been gracious enough to reveal them unto all men.
6) Please refer to answers 3 and 5

The Foolishness of Unbelief Part 1 – Introduction to TAG

For those of you that may not know, over the last year I have been studying and contemplating the proof of the existence of God in the branch of Presuppositional Apologetics. The particular argument that I have been studying is commonly known as the Transcendental Argument for Existence of God (TAG). This kind of argument is not the usual argument most people are accustomed to hearing and can be difficult to grasp at first. This argument does not try to prove the existence of God rationally (in terms of clear and distinct ideas logically carried out), empirically (experience through the five senses), or pragmatically (life would be better and more enjoyable if one believed in God). A Transcendental proof is to ask what must be true in order for anything to make sense, or what are the preconditions of intelligibility? This proof is an indirect proof that argues from the impossibility of the contrary. Everyone has ultimate presuppositions within their worldview in order to comprehend and function in this world. This argument compares the ultimate presuppositions of an opposing worldview in order to demonstrate that the problem of the opposing worldview (or the contrary of mine) is that if the opposing worldview were correct in its presuppositions, then it would be impossible to prove anything. Basically, the argument proves that when one removes God from their worldview, they no longer have the preconditions for anything to make logical sense (the preconditions of intelligibility). TAG demonstrates that when one wants to debate the existence of God (an intelligible discussion), they must first presuppose God’s existence in order to try to deny His existence.

The Preconditions of Intelligibility

When two people want to engage in a debate (like the existence of God), both must presuppose the laws of logic (there must be something in which one can evaluate arguments or lines of reasoning). TAG asks what must be true for there to be laws of logic (the preconditions of intelligibility). In order to answer that, one needs to ask what the laws of logic are. Are the laws of logic empirical in nature? That is, are they a physical entity that one can experience and measure by the five senses? No, the laws of logic are not physical in nature, but are in fact abstract in nature (immaterial). After all, how much does modus ponens weigh? Not only are they abstract, they are universally applicable and are absolute (there are no exceptions). So when an atheist (a materialist; one that doesn’t believe in the immaterial world) wants to debate, TAG asks if the atheist is able to account for the preconditions for entering into a debate, the laws of logic that are abstract, universal, and absolute. The atheist, given his own world view, cannot account for them. [1]

In a recent conversation with an unbeliever, he objected to the fact that the laws of logic are abstract and insisted that they are physical in nature. He maintained that logic is material in nature because scientists are able to manipulate people’s physical brains to control their movements and actions (like picking up a glass or clapping their hands) or they can pump someone with chemicals to change their emotions and behavior. Of course, this does not demonstrate that the laws of logic are material at all. What law of logic did the scientist used in order for him to cause the person to pick up the glass or change their emotions? Was it the law of non contradiction or the law of excluded middle? No, it is simply manipulating the chemical reactions in the human body (which is not itself logic). All he proved is that human beings have a physical aspect to them (who is going to argue that?). However, let’s assume that he is correct and that the laws of logic are in fact material; that they are the chemical reactions and processes in the brain that people derive the way they think and perceive of ideas. If that were true, then there could never be any common and objective laws of logic because what goes on in one person’s brain is not the same thing that goes on in another person’s brain (everyone’s laws of logic would be different according the way their own brain works). If it were in fact the same chemical reactions, then they would be thinking the exact same way and there would be no reason to debate in the first place. Another problem to consider, if the laws of logic are simply the chemical processes in the brain, then there would be no freedom whatsoever to think contrary of what one already thinks because one cannot think differently then what one’s brain tells them to think. And if that were true then it would not make sense to take courses in logic (or any educational course for that matter) so that one could learn to think more logically. Therefore, if one wants to maintain a reason for education and debate, they must reject the idea that the laws of logic are chemical reactions and/or brain waves and must assert that they are abstract and immaterial in nature.

If you are a naturalist then you have no reason to be a naturalist because you have no reason to trust the results of your brain processes. – Dr. Greg Bahnsen

The other two preconditions for intelligibility are universal and absolute. By universal it is meant that it must apply to everyone and everything. By absolute it is meant that there can be no exceptions and can never change. Take the following mathematical equation for example:

unit value 1 + unit value 2 = unit value 3

What would happen if this simple equation could only be valid to those living in the northern hemisphere and is somehow invalid to those living in the southern hemisphere? (Invalid meaning arriving at a different answer i.e. 1+2=14) What would happen if this equation was only valid on weekdays, but would be invalid on weekends? In a past discussion with an unbeliever, he stated, “One does NOT need an absolute universal truth to create a system or convention of rules and regulation with which to determine if things are sound and or probably, hence logic.” (Of course, he stated an absolute universal statement in order to state that absolutes and universal are not needed for logic.) If the laws of logic were to be partial and/or relative, one could not use it to discover Truth, for what is to stop someone from creating their own reality and thus destroy intelligibility? If one does not believe in Truth, then there would be no reason to debate in the first place because engaging in a debate presupposes a means to discover Truth. A debate with no universal and absolute laws would be absurd and unintelligible and would result in a childish dispute, “Yes it is!”, “No it isn’t!”, “YES it is!!”, “NO it isn’t!!” Therefore, when one wants to enter into a debate they must assume something that is abstract, universal, and absolute in order for the debate to be intelligible.

Ultimate Presuppositions – the starting point of all Worldviews

Everyone living in this world has a worldview. “A worldview is a network of presuppositions which are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted.” [2] By “network of presuppositions” it is meant how one views reality (metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology), and ethics (morality).

It is commonly thought by many that in order for one to determine a correct worldview, one must be neutral in their thinking, that is, one must first establish a theory of knowledge (epistemology; the nature and limits of human knowledge) and then apply it into the facts of experience in order to know the true nature of reality. This is simply an impossibility. It is impossible for anyone to be neutral in their thinking. One cannot choose a theory of knowledge (a method of knowing) without in some way first presupposing something about the nature of reality. One first chooses a worldview that contains both a theory of knowledge and a theory of reality that comport with each other. I’ll illustrate what I mean. Let’s say that I have an apple orchard and I want to sell my apples to the local market. However, the market will only take boxes of only good apples and will not buy any boxes that might contain bad apples. In order for me to be successful and efficient in selling my apples, I come up with an idea to invent a machine that separates to good apples from the bad ones; an apple sorting machine. I dump all the apples in one end of the machine and at the other end the good apples come out of one side and the bad apples come out the other. That machine is a method of apple sorting. The point of the illustration is this, would it is possible to build that machine if I didn’t know the difference between good apples and the bad apples? No, I must first have a “worldview” of reality (the nature of apples) before coming to a conclusion of a method of sort (good and bad apples). In the same way, if one does not first understand something about reality, one cannot devise a method of sorting the true conclusions about reality from the false ones. Therefore, the idea of trying to be neutral in one’s knowledge in order to discover the Truth about reality is simply wishful thinking.

It is an inescapable fact that every system of thought (worldview) has a starting point that verifies itself (an ultimate self-validating authority). As one develops their epistemology, they are going to try to verify and verify the claims that are made and eventually end up at a stopping point because no argument goes on forever. Every system of thought gets to a final point where it states that this is the basic standard for knowledge (an ultimate authority). If one wanted to try to verify their ultimate authority, they would either have to appeal to that ultimate authority as its own verification, or that thing or method that they use that is outside their ultimate authority would now become their ultimate authority because their original ultimate authority would no longer be ultimate. Therefore, when it comes to ultimate authorities, circularly reasoning is unavoidable. (This does not mean however, that all ultimate authorities are correct or valid) It should be realized then, that when entering into a debate, by nature, all worldviews assume a stating point that is ultimate and self-authorizing.

A Two-Fold Apologetic Procedure

Because all worldviews control the way people think (meaning it is impossible to be neutral) and has a staring point that is ultimate in its authority that verifies itself, how are two opponents that have different worldviews going to have any meaningful and intellectual contact? A “debate between the two perspectives will thus eventually work down to the level of one’s ultimate authority.” [3] It would appear that both sides would be sealed off from one another and would make any defense of each others worldview useless. Fortunately, this is not necessarily the case. The problem can be solved by asking which worldview (reality, knowledge, and ethics) makes sense out of the human experience; human experience meaning anything at all. For example, a professor that believes in evolution complains to one of his fellow professors about how the politicians in his city are oppressing of the poor. The tension in his worldview is evident. It makes no sense to believe that oppressing the poor is wrong because in an atheistic evolutionally worldview, man is just a group of complex chemicals that survived by getting rid of the “weaker” complex chemicals beings. Therefore it is inconsistent to condemn anyone for anything, especially for oppressing the “weaker” in society. His worldview cannot make the human experience intelligible. By taking two competitive worldviews and comparing them side by side with one another, one can determine which worldview can make human experience meaningful.

This particular apologetic method can be found in Proverbs 26:4-5

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

The writer of this proverb did not contradict himself as some may claim. He is giving directions on how to expose the foolishness of a fool. In verse 4 he means don’t accept the fool’s presuppositions and/or philosophy in order to try to demonstrate his folly because in doing so you will end up thinking just like the fool. In other words, stand firm and grounded in the Truth as you talk to the fool and don’t try to be neutral, for if you do, you will be trapped behind enemy lines which will eventually lead to your surrender to him. In verse 5, however, to answer a fool according to his folly is not to accept his presuppositions, but to carry his presuppositions to its logical conclusion in order to demonstrate its utter foolishness. It means to enter into the fool’s worldview for the purpose of showing him the foolishness of his presuppositions so that he will not think that his he has any arrogant wisdom in finding the truth about reality given his worldview. Philosophers call this reducing to absurdity. When one can demonstrate that a person’s reality, knowledge, and ethics leads to absurdity, then that worldview is invalid and cannot retain the Truth.

One should not misunderstand what the Bible means when it calls a person a ‘fool’. It is not engaging in empty name calling. It is describing someone that is rebellious and dense; whose heart is hard towards God and rejects the capacity of reason that God has given him. It is the fool that refuses to submit to God’s Word and trusts in his own heart (Proverbs 28:26). In all reality, he “does not really want to find the truth; he only wants to be self-justified in his own imaginations.” [4] “A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions”, Proverbs 18:2.

Christianity- the Precondition of Intelligibility

The opposite of the fool, then, is a wise man who seeks and loves the Truth. His starting point is to submit himself to the very source of all wisdom and knowledge, God’s Word (Col 2:2-3). Knowledge and Truth is not an invention by man nor could he ever lay claim to the Truth that he may posses. “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”. [5] Revelation from God is the foundation of knowledge, for “in Your light we see light” (Ps 36:9). God is active in revealing His knowledge and man is passive in receiving His knowledge. Therefore it was necessary for man to be created in the image of God in order for him to be capable to think God’s thoughts after Him. Humility before God must take precedence in order for man’s intellectual pursuit’s to be successful. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding”, Proverbs 9:10.

It is the Christian worldview that is able to account of for the preconditions of intelligibility and make sense out of the human experience. The laws of logic are part of the nature and mind of God. God is Spirit and is not part of this creation (immaterial). [6] God is the creator of all things and everything must submit to His will (universal). [7] God’s nature is eternal and therefore He will never change (absolute). [8] Therefore, the laws of logic presuppose the existence of God because only He can fulfill the all preconditions of intelligibility. God can never be irrational because rationality is measured by the standard of his thinking and His revelation. God is the greatest and most valuable entity in the entire universe, so it is rational to believe that He has the authority to be the self-validating ultimate presupposition of rationality. “One must presuppose the truth of God’s revelation in order to reason at all – even when reasoning about God’s revelation. The fact that the apologist presupposes the word of God in order to carry on a discussion or debate about the veracity of that word does not nullify his argument, but rater illustrates it.”[9] Many philosophers today claim that the Truth is inaccessible and deny that one can be certain of knowing anything. It should be observed, however, that “the Christian’s starting point provides the precondition for intelligible experience and meaningful thought rather then destroying the epistemological enterprise, for it teaches that man was created to think God’s thoughts after Him and thereby know the truth.” [10] While the believer may not know exhaustively, God has given him adequate knowledge.

Therefore the claim must be made that Christianity alone is reasonable for men to hold. And it is utterly reasonable. It is wholly irrational to hold to any other position than that of Christianity. Christianity alone does not crucify reason itself… The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself. - Dr. Cornelius Van Til [11]

Man’s depraved condition- Suppressing the Truth

Some might object to the idea of even trying to pursue the proof the existence of God because the Bible is clear that it is in faith that one comes to know God and please God. Using such things as logic to try to convince someone to believe in God would seem to be a violation of definition of faith itself. This idea comes from the misunderstanding of what faith is. It is commonly thought that faith is that which fills in the gaps where reason falls short. Many people will try to put faith and reason against each other. However, from the Christian perspective, faith does not sit on the foundation of reason but faith itself is the foundation of all reasoning. As was well said centuries ago by Augustine, "Understanding is the reward of faith; therefore, do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.”[12] In other words, in principle, faith in God is the precondition for anyone to reason at all. There is no other worldview that can make sense out of and can account for reasoning. An atheist might promptly object saying, “This cannot be true because I reason and I don’t have faith.” Exactly! All men, including atheists, within their heart of hearts knows the one true God of the Bible. They use the wisdom and knowledge given to them by God, yet fail to give him thanks and the glory for it. Dr. Cornelius Van Til once described this idea stating that every time an unbeliever tries to deny the existence of their creator and claim intellectual independence from God, he is liken to a little boy that must sit on the lap of his father in order to slap his father in the face. That is why those that do not confess Him as Lord and live for Him are guilty before God and is in danger of the judgment.

The Scriptures are very clear that God has made Himself known to all men (Rom 1:19-20) and that He has given His light to all men (John 1:9). The problem is not with God, but with man. Man’s heart, by nature, hates the one true God and take the truth that God has revealed them and “suppress it in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18). As a result, “their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened, although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” because they “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:21-22; 25).

When we say that sin is ethical we do not mean, however, that sin involved only the will of man and not also his intellect. 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. - Dr. Cornelius Van Til [13]

God must sovereignty grant understanding by changing the heart of the unbeliever. It is only then can the unbeliever truly repent from his autonomous intellectual pursuits and foolish thinking and realize the Truthfulness of God’s eternal Word.

Conclusion

The laws of logic are the fundamental and inescapable truths of all wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Yet, the unbelieving worldview cannot make the laws of logic intelligible. TAG argues that “if the unbeliever were correct in his presuppositions, then nothing whatever could be understood or known.” [14] Since the unbeliever is able to understand and reason, he testifies to the revelation that God has given him and thereby knows God in his heart. The unbeliever is self-deceived. The Christian apologist will always be able to interact with the unbeliever because of this common ground that they both share- God’s revelation of Himself to all men.

[1] Although all materialist are atheists, not all atheists are materialist. “An immaterialist atheist who affirms the existence of a non-material entity [like the laws of logic] must answer the question whether any such [things] are universal and authoritative. If they are, then the atheist is really a theist who affirms the existence of an impersonal Deity. If they are not, then he is hard put to explain why we should pay any attention to some of these [things] when other equally non-authoritative immaterial entities are demanding our attention -- Farley's ghost, the fairy queen, and the Contract with America.” - Douglas Wilson
[2] Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Basic Training for Defending the Faith DVD “Introduction to Worldviews”
[3] Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Always Ready pg 68
[4] ibid pg 56
[5] ibid pg 19
[6] John 4:24; 2 Cor 3:17
[7] John 1:3; Eph 1:11
[8] Ps 90:2; 102:26-27; Heb 13:8
[9] Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Always Ready pg 75
[10] ibid pg 69-70
[11] The Defense of the Faith, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955, pp 396
[12] St. Augustine Homilies on the Gospel of John 29.6
[13] The Defense of the Faith. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955, p. 63
[14] Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen Always Ready pg 69

Heart vs. Mind

"The issue of truth is an issue of the heart before it is an issue of the head" – John Piper

For those of us that are searching for truth and meaning in our lives might be taken aback by the above statement. We like to think that if we could use our head to be purely rational that we would find Truth. However, this is an impossibility. What many of us don’t realize is that our mind is a slave to the passions of the heart. We like to think that we are rational, but when we come face to face with the truth, our passions capture our mind to spin the truth to serve our desires in order to not see the obvious truth. If we truly want to know the truth so that we may fulfill our purpose, we must start with examining our hearts and realize that our Heart is in love with sin and darkness. Our infatuation for darkness is extremely powerful and can only be remedied by God’s piercing light into our hearts. Listen to the words of our Lord in John 3:19-20:

This is the judgment, that the Light (or truth) has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

Men will never be committed to the truth until their heart is changed to fall out of love with darkness and in love with the Light of the World. “You must be born again,” are Jesus’ words to the solution to man’s darkness. Only He can save us and change our hearts to follow Him. May the Lord open and continue to open our hearts to see the truth, that He alone is the source of all truth, wisdom, and knowledge.