It has been my experience that this particular argument that the atheist makes has the biggest impact on people. In fact, I know of some who have lost their faith because of it. The reason for this I believe is that we have never examined it fully. The argument fails when all is considered. I ask that you prayerfully consider the information given.
I) The Atheistic Argument
1) The argument
A) God is all-powerful
B) God is all-loving
C) Evil, pain, and suffering exist
D) Since God is all-powerful then He has the ability to eliminate all evil, pain, and
suffering. Since God is all-loving He would eliminate all evil, pain, and
suffering.
E) Since evil, pain, and suffering do exist, then God must either not have the
power to eliminate these things, or He has the ability to do such yet chooses
not to, therefore He is not either all-powerful or not all-loving or both.
F) Therefore God does not exist.
2) This is the only argument that I am aware of that tries to show that God does not
exist. All others allow for the possibility of the existence of God but try to show
that the concept is not plausible or reasonable. This argument makes the
positive knowledge statement that, in fact, God does not exist.
3) First, let us examine the argument for its problems, then explain why these things
have to exist.
4) Premise #1; God is all-powerful
A) The premise is trying to show that God can do anything and everything. That
there are no limits to God’s power.
B) The failure of this point is the fact that although God is all-powerful
(creation ex niliho or out of nothing Gen. 1&2, destruction off all material
things 2 Peter 3:9-13; etc...) He does have limitations to this power.
1) God cannot do something contrary to His divine nature. For example,
God cannot, by nature, exist and not exist at the same time. This is
a logical contradiction. By nature, God is logical, therefore He cannot
create a logical contradiction
2) God cannot create a married bachelor. This is not logically possible.
God has the power to change a man from a bachelor to a married man
just by His will. Yet, He cannot make the man both at the same time.
3) Again, God cannot make a perfectly square circle. It is just not
logically possible.
4) This is not to say that God is limited in His power in the sense that
He cannot do something that is logically possible to do. It is to say
that He is limited to do that which is only logically possible. God
has the power to do any and all things that are logically possible. In
this sense, He is all-powerful.
5) This point will become extremely important when we discuss the
reasons why evil, pain, and suffering exist.
5) Premises #2; God is all-loving
A) This premise is trying to show that God, being all-loving, would not allow
bad things to happen to the ones He loves.
B) The failure of this premise is a misunderstanding of what actual love is and
does. True love allows bad things to happen.
1) The love of a parent to a child is a great example of how actual love
acts.
a) A parents sole responsibility to their child is to prepare them for
life outside of their home. The pain and suffering that the child
may have to endure are for a greater good which is life outside
the protection of the parents.
b) Johnnie turns 16 and wants a car. The parent has two options
to choose from, 1) buy the car for him or, 2) Let Johnnie pay
for the car himself. If the parent chooses #1, they are not
allowing Johnnie to learn the values that are essential to life
outside of the home. Things such as responsibility, value of
the item, etc... These values are essential for the child to learn
in order for the child to cope with life outside of the home.
c) If the parent chooses #2, the parent is showing genuine love for
the child. Yes, the child will suffer some pain either emotional
or physical. The parent will allow this to happen to the child
in order for a greater good to come about, namely, the ability to
cope in the world. Does this show that the parent does not love
the child, no, it actually shows the love of the parent for the
child. The parent realizes the greater good that should come
about as a result of their actions.
d) Side note. In choosing #2 the parent also feels pain and
suffering. Yet the love that the parent has is greater than the
pain that they will endure. One important thing to remember
here is that the parent will be their when the child is
experiencing the suffering. They will be their to comfort,
counsel, understand, etc... The child is not left in the dark.
2) Another great example is the suffering and death of Jesus on the cross.
This was done out of love (Romans 5:5-10). It was done in order to
accomplish a greater good, that being the salvation of mankind.
3) The importance of this distinction will be seen later.
6) Premise #3 and #4
A) These two premises are false due to the fact that the concept of all-powerful
and all-loving are misunderstood by the atheist.
B) In having this misunderstanding, the premises are unfounded.
7) Conclusion is false
A) The conclusion is false since premise #3 and #4 are false.
B) Therefore the argument does not logically follow.
II) Reasons why God allows evil, pain, and suffering to exist.
1) Evil
A) Evil, to exist requires intent, purpose, and will. Pain, suffering, etc.
in and of itself is not evil, only will or intention behind the cause of
suffering can make it evil. Should you fall off your bike and break your
arm, the pain that you experience cannot be called evil. However, should
I break your arm, that can be called evil because of the evil intent I put
behind it.
B) Evil is actually a mental and spiritual act. My holding thoughts of murdering
my mother is evil, even if I do not act upon them. (Matt. 5:20-42)
C) When presented with this, the proponent of the argument will usually
concede this fact. Once done the argument usually changes. They will
eliminate evil and focus upon the pain and suffering.
2) Free will
A) This has to do with the power that mankind has to choose
to follow after good or not.
B) The primary focus of this line of reasoning is in defense of the
all-powerful God.
C) Remember what was stated under item #4, in which we saw that God
cannot act contrary to His logical nature.
D) The force in this reasoning is in the fact that God cannot create a universe
that is free from all pain, and suffering and still give mankind freewill.
1) If God created a universe that could not have these things as a part of
it then mankind could not choose to do them and thus we would not
have free will.
2) This would necessitate a logical contradiction which God cannot
create.
E) The fall of mankind illiterates this concept.
1) When God created the universe and the earth it is stated that it was
good. This implies perfection at the beginning. There was no such
thing as pain and suffering.
2) As the story unfolds we find God giving commands to Adam. He was
to dress the garden, name the animals, to name Eve, and probably
some others that we are not told of. One of the commands included
a stipulation. Namely Gen. 2:17 in which God command Adam not to
eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The stipulation
that came with this command was the fact that if Adam disobeyed it
he would surely die.
3) If the universe was created in such a way that pain and suffering could
not exist, then the command could not have been given. If the
command could not be given, then Adam could not have the choice
to follow the command or not to follow the command. This would
thus eliminate free will.
4) The only way that free will can exist is if the possibility of pain and
suffering to come into existence exists. God cannot create a married
bachelor.
F) Some do in fact argue that the concept of free will is illusionary at best.
1) Some claim that we really do not have free will since we cannot choose
to become God.
a) This is contradictory.
b) It is contradictory since a created being cannot become an
uncreated being (one that has existed eternally). In order for
a being to be God it must, of necessity, be eternal in nature
(without a cause). A created being must, of necessity, have a
cause. A being cannot be both caused and uncaused at the
same time.
c) Yet we can make the decision to be God and believe it with
all our might. Yet it does not make it fact simply because
we choose to become God. The choice is there, the realization
of that choice is not.
2) Still others say that what we think is free will is really some type of
determinism.
a) An example such as the act of eating shows that free will does
not exist. We have to eat in order to survive.
b) It is true that we must eat in order to survive. This is not a
matter of choice. Yet we, as humans, still have a choice to
make. This choice is one of the things that separates us from
the rest of creation. The choice to survive or not.
c) People choose not to eat all the time, it is called fasting. A
conscious choice is made whether to eat or not to eat. While
fasting, the choice is made not to eat. When the time of
fasting is over, a choice is made to eat. A person has the
ability to starve themselves to death if they so desire. Martin
Luther is an example of such a case. On one occasion he
fasted for three weeks in an attempt to purify his soul. He
would have died had not one of the monks entered into his
cell and found him near death and nursed him back to health.
G) This fact also shows that God is an all-loving God
1) Since God cannot create a universe that allows for free will and at the
same time create a universe without pain and suffering, God created
it anyway. He created the universe to allow free will to exist instead
of disallowing it.
2) Read Eph. 3:8-11
3) There are several things which we can glean from this section of
Scripture:
a) There was an eternal purpose 3:11.
b) This purpose was that the manifold wisdom of God was to
shown to all mankind by the church 3:9&10.
c) This was to be done by the church 3:10
d) In essence, the ETERNAL purpose of God was to be shown
to all mankind by the CHURCH.
4) This indicates that the church was in God’s eternal purpose.
5) What is the church comprised of? It is comprised of those who saved
from their sins by believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized.
6) This indicates that God (being all-knowing) knew that mankind would
revolt against Him from eternity. God has always known that mankind
would disobey His commands. This is of primary importance. If God
knew that mankind would act in such a way and cause Him pain
(Matt.23:37-39), why would He create it in the first place.
a) It was out of love.
b) Why do parents plan on having children? We all know that they
will rebel, disobey, and even sometimes revolt toward them.
We see this in every day experience. It is because of the love
that we have for them. They know that these things will
happen, yet they have them anyway.
c) This concept is the same for God. He knew we would rebel,
revolt, and disobey. He could have chosen not to create the
universe on those grounds. Yet the love of God toward His
creation was, I believe, a major factor in His actions.
7) God, creating mankind with free will shows His love.
a) The only possible universe that God could create in order
for free will to exist has to, of necessity, include pain and
suffering.
b) If God had created a universe void of pain and suffering, he
would have had to have created mankind without free will.
c) Therefore mankind would be mere robots.
d) This would seem to indicate a cruel creator instead of a loving
one. Friedrich Nietzsche stated that given the choice between
existence with free will or nonexistence he would choose
existence every time.
e) This concept seems intuitively true in that free choice is
always best for the being. It is what is best for them. Just
ask someone who has had that taken away from them.
H) Free will explains most of the pain and suffering that exists in the world.
1) Free will is either directly or indirectly responsible for most of the
pain and suffering we see today. Examples of this abound.
a) Free will is directly responsible for things such as lung cancer,
obesity, psoriasis of the liver, the majority of heath problems
mankind experiences today. Also it is responsible for many
emotional pains as well.
b) Free will is indirectly responsible for things such as 9/11,
casualties of war, the sober person who is involved in an
accident with a drunk driver, etc...
2) In all these examples, and many more could be listed, an incorrect
choice was made, and because of that choice pain and suffering
was felt by someone.
3) Greater good or the perfect world
A) There are some arguments from the point of the greater good
1) Pain and suffering brings about the greater good by allowing
mankind to identify that something is wrong.
a) Pain in the chest is a warning sign that something is wrong
and we should get it checked out. This pain and suffering
results in a greater good. The prolonging of life.
b) The pain and suffering that we feel when we realize that our
actions have caused this (free will). You are involved is a
relationship with an individual that has a shaky past. They
cheat on you and you feel emotional pain. Because of this
you will be more likely to be cautious in selecting the next
time. The pain you felt was for a greater good.
2) There are many more examples that we could discuss. They all show
the same thing. Sometimes pain and suffering are a good thing.
3) These can explain most of the pain and suffering that we see in the
universe. But what about the pain and suffering that is brought on by
natural events. Why does not God stop these from happening.
B) God, in creating a universe with pain and suffering, created the perfect
universe.
1) The real issue at the center of this argument is their seems to be
purposeless pain and suffering in the world. The proponents of
this argument will generally concede to the free will argument since
it shows that most of the pain and suffering we see is the result of
bad choices made. The real argument is in the pain and suffering that
comes about by way of hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, etc. One
atheistic philosopher stated it this way, there is no reason or purpose
the deer to suffer a broken leg from a falling tree. It seems that things
such as this have no purpose. Since they have no purpose, then why
does God allow them to happen? Why did Katrina have to happen?
Why did the tsunami have to happen? These are all questions that are
valid and need to be addressed.
2) The answer, I believe, is that God created the perfect world for
FALLEN MAN to exist in.
a) When we see these things happen, I believe that it should create
in us a longing for something better. The better being Heaven
as described in Rev. 21. A place where these things do not
exist.
b) If fact it should almost force us to search for God and that better
place. Remember our moral argument and the fact that we can
measure something only if something perfect exists. We
measure the cold, cruel world against the perfection of heaven.
We know intuitively that there is a perfect place to live and we
should long to be there. This longing should create in us the
drive to get there and it is only possible to get there by
obeying God.
c) Also, this place is where God wants us to be (I Timothy 2:4).
It is God’s desire for us to reside in heaven with him. By
creating a universe that would spark our longing for the better,
God has given mankind the greatest incentive to follow Him
without compromising free will.
d) Also, think about this, if mankind sees the pain and suffering
that exists in this world and thinks that it is bad, what about
hell. This place called hell is 1,000,000 times worse than
anything that we could witness in this life. If mankind does
not like it now, he will surely hate it then. Again we see
that pain and suffering seems to have a purpose.
e) That purpose is to make us long for the better and despise
the worst.
f) In fact I believe that this is what the Bible teaches on the matter.
1) Paul desired this; Philippians 1:23; II Cor. 5:2
2) Jesus indicated this in John 14:1-4
3) Peter indicated this in II Peter 3:12-14
4) I Thess. 4:13-18; I Cor. 1:7; etc...
g) The song “This world is not my home” seems to summerize my
thoughts is this aspect.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
The Argument from Contingency, Expounded
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Dick Sztanyo
January 24, 2010
Revised May 4, 2010
The question of God is one of the “perennial questions” which men cannot help asking
(Baumer 11-20). In one form or another, the question of God has been present in all stages of
human history. Is there really a God? If so, what is He like? If no, then where do I look for
answers to life’s most perplexing questions? If yes, then what are my obligations? How can the
case for God be argued? These are the kinds of questions that have baffled men for thousands of
years. So I will attempt, in this series of essays, to shed some light on this all-encompassing
question. In so doing, I intend to set forth evidence sufficient to warrant the conclusion: God
exists.
When I speak of proving the existence of God, I do not mean that one proves the case in the
same way as a door is proven to be solid, a desk is shown to weigh two hundred pounds, or a
certain book is seen as blue. Given the modern mind-set, many have concluded that the only way
anything at all can be known (or proven) is through the five senses (hearing, tasting, smelling,
seeing, and touching). As an example, consider the attitude of Bertrand Russell, who stated:
“Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods, and what science
cannot discover, mankind cannot know” (243). Russell’s argument can be reduced to a three-line
syllogism with reference to God’s existence, as follows:
1. If God cannot be discovered by scientific methods, then God cannot be known by
mankind.
2. God cannot be discovered by scientific methods.
3. Therefore, God cannot be known by mankind.
But, neither revelation nor reason require an acceptance of the empiricist’s thesis (i.e., nothing
can be known except through, or by means of, the senses)! The Bible indicates that one can
reason from the creation to a Creator, or from the world of facts to the ultimate origin of these
facts (Romans 1:19-20; Psalm 19:1-6; etc.). The Bible also demands that we put every
conclusion to the test, proving or disproving it by means of adequate evidence (1 Peter 3:15; 1
John 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Isaiah 41:21, etc.). In 1 John 4:1, a specific test is required,
namely, a test for false prophets. But, in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Paul insists that all things be put
to the test. In Isaiah 40-46, a specific test (predictive prophecy) is used to vindicate the God of
Israel as over against the false gods of the pagans. And, this test was given to us by God
Himself! The challenge issued to the false prophets is likewise a challenge the atheist issues to us
today. “Produce your cause” (or, “Present your case”).
Russell is wrong, for many things are known by men, which are not subject to scientific
investigation at all. For instance, all ideas are intuitively known, and are not subject to empirical
investigation in any sense. None of us deny that ideas exist. Neither would we argue that ideas
are based on scientific study. Instead, it is precisely the other way around; scientific theories are
based upon ideas! Now, let us expose the fallacy in Russell’s argument.
1. If ideas cannot be discovered by scientific methods, then ideas cannot be known
by mankind.
2. Ideas cannot be discovered by scientific methods.
3. Therefore, ideas cannot be known by mankind.
The second premise above is true. But, the major premise (no. 1) is false! In fact, the argument
itself is built upon ideas, thus exposing Russell’s fallacy with double force.
To be perfectly clear about things, the study of origins is not strictly speaking, a scientific
study at all. Scientific study can give us information from any number of different disciplines
(astronomy, physics, biology, etc.), but science deals with existing material, and seeks to explain
how things in the known universe function. God authorized scientific exploration when He told
Adam and Eve to have dominion over things on the Earth. But, science does not really tell us
how these things came to be at all. The study of origins is primarily a philosophical investigation.
With these preliminary thoughts in mind, let us turn to various arguments for God’s existence.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
Arguments which are termed “cosmological” rest upon one central concept: the existing
cosmos (the universe and all that is within it) is undeniable evidence that there is a Creator. I will
briefly sketch the premises, which have been developed for an argument from contingency.
A Contingent Being Exists. To be contingent means that such a being cannot account for its
own existence. It is as possible for such a being not to exist as it is for it to exist at all. As such, a
contingent being is dependent upon something or someone other than itself for its own existence.
And, this holds true for its coming into existence and remaining in existence from one moment to
the next. As a matter of fact, I myself am such a being, for I can not account for my own
existence, nor can I explain how I continue to exist from one moment to the next. My existence
was originated from outside myself, and my existence continues from outside myself. But, what
exactly is a “contingent being.” Winfried Corduan explains:
. . . [O]rdinary things have causes. Or, to be more precise, finite things have causes. It is
here that metaphysics becomes important because I have to clarify what I mean by a
finite thing. A finite thing is something that meets any one of the following conditions:
1. It is restricted by time and space.
2. It can be changed by something other than itself.
3. It has a beginning in time.
5. Its attributes, whether essential or accidental, are to some extent influenced by
other things.
Another term that we can use for a finite thing is that it is a contingent being. It is a
contingent being simply because it could not exist without all of the factors that bring
about its existence, sustain its existence, and shape its nature. To say that a thing is
contingent is to say that it is finite and dependent. (204)
This Contingent Being Depends on Something Else for Its Existence. From what has been
said thus far, this seems obvious, since any being is either (1) self-caused, (2) caused by another,
or (3) uncaused. I am not uncaused, which is synonymous with necessary existence, and a Being
which exists necessarily is what theists mean by God. Neither am I self-caused, since to be selfcaused,
I would have to exist prior to my own existence in order to bring myself into being. But,
this is clearly absurd! Therefore, I (as a contingent being) am caused by another.
That Which Causes (Explains) the Existence of a (or any) Contingent Being Must be
Either (1) Another Contingent Being, or (2) a Non-Contingent Being. But, if explanation is
given in terms of another contingent being, then since any contingent being also requires a cause
outside itself, one only postpones the question until it is framed in terms of (3) an infinite series
of contingent causes. As a result, the following premise emerges:
That Which Causes (Explains) the Existence of a (or any) Contingent Being is Either (1)
an Infinite Series of Contingent Beings (Either a Transitive or an Intransitive Series), or (2)
a Non-Contingent Being. Now, a non-contingent being is one that does not depend upon any
other being for its existence. Thus, it is self-existent. Furthermore, since it could neither come
into existence nor pass out of existence, such a being is eternal. Moreover, since such a noncontingent
being not only explains a single contingent being, but also all contingent beings
(including the universe itself which is also contingent), then such a being must be omnipresent.
It goes without saying that such a being must also be infinite in power, for such a being’s causal
efficacy is such that it explains all contingent reality. In other words, one means by a noncontingent
being, what the Judeo-Christian theist calls God. Indeed, the first chapter of Genesis
makes the same claim I am now making: “In the beginning [when nothing contingent at all
existed], God [a non-contingent Being] created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, emp.
added).
It is also necessary to explain what is meant by “transitive” and “intransitive” in the
proposition just stated. A “transitive causal series” does not require that each member be in such
close contact with another member. As far as existence is concerned, my parents explain my
immediate existence, and theirs in turn by their parents, and so on. The causal series, in effect,
has each member of the series is explained by looking at previous causes in the chain, whether or
not they are intricately connected together. My parents caused me, and I, in turn, caused my
children to be born, and they will continue the chain of cause and effect in this same way. Adam
is not in close proximity to me, however, if the Biblical record is correct (and I hold that it is), I
am in the causal chain that began with Adam and Eve. A “transitive causal series” has to do with
sequential cause and effect, and is the main consideration of Arabic philosophers and what has
come to be known as the Kalamic Cosmological Argument (cf. Craig).
An “intransitive causal series,” is one in which every cause in the series causes a succeeding
effect only insofar as it is itself being caused. Each cause depends upon a prior cause precisely
for its own act of causing, for instance, that a stone is moved by a stick, the stick is moved by a
hand, and so on, to infinity. It is only that each member’s existence can be explained only by
considering the foundation (or ground) of existence. Put another way, an “intransitive causal
series” is not as interested in sequential cause and effect, but rather, in foundational cause and
effect. Perhaps an illustration would help to explain what is meant here. Suppose a brick mason
wants to build a series of pillars. He begins by attempting to support the first row of bricks.
However, there is simply no foundation (or ground) on which to place the bricks. Consequently,
the bricks simply fall without being supported. Now, he may try again by mortaring bricks
together, including a second row set upon the first. But, when he attempts to support this second
attempt, precisely the same thing occurs as happened with the first try. The bricks simply fall.
He tries again and again with the same results. In this case, it doesn’t make much difference
whether or not the bricks are sequentially ordered. What matters is whether they have a
foundation on which to be placed. If not, then no matter how many are mortared together, there
will be no pillar (wall or any other structure). All of the causes in the chain of cause and effect
are “touching” each other, in order for the final effect to occur. This is the notion of a causal
series understood by philosophers who, in the Western tradition, follow the thinking of Thomas
Aquinas. Each cause and effect in the series necessarily touches each of the others in the series,
or else the final effect does not occur. Whether or not a sequential series can be infinite does not
matter here. In fact, one may assume such an infinite series, and still offer this argument, for it
has to do with the foundation of existence (“be-ing” or “is-ness) per se (cf. Reichenbach).
A “transitive causal series” has to do with origination of existence, and, as such, is concerned
with temporal, or, sequential causality. An “intransivitive causal series,” on the other hand, has
to do with continuation of existence, and, as such, is concerned with the hierarchy of being, or
existential causality. One can sometimes express the first as dealing with becoming while the
second focuses on being. These represent two very different ways of looking at the question of
existence. The question is, can there be an infinite causal series in one, or both, of these cases. I
maintain that there can be no infinite causal series in either sense. Such an infinite causal series
simply does not exist!
But, it is False that that Which Causes (Explains) the Existence of a (or any) Contingent
Being is an Infinite Series of Contingent Beings (Either a Transitive or an Intransitive
Series). Space allows me only the opportunity to state this premise here without elaboration. So,
at this point, I will not take time to prove the fifth premise to you. Suffice it to say that this is the
crucial premise of the entire argument. I will have more to say on this subject a little later when
objections to the argument are being considered. But, assuming that this premise is true, I am
able to conclude the argument.
Therefore, that Which Causes (Explains) the Existence of a (or any) Contingent Being is a
Non-Contingent Being. Since one means by “non-contingent being” what one means by God, it
is therefore the case that God exists. Now, the argument just advanced appeals to a form of the
“principle of sufficient reason.” This simply means that there must be some explanation as to
why contingent beings exist. Since they cannot account for their own existence, they must have
been caused by something external to themselves. Perhaps we have gone over all this a little too
quickly. If so, then an illustration may possibly be of some help.
Suppose you were strolling in the woods and, in addition to the sticks, stones, and other
accustomed litter of the forest floor, you one day came upon some quite unaccustomed
object, something not quite like what you had ever seen before and would never expect to
find in such a place. Suppose, for example, that is it a large ball, about your own height,
perfectly smooth and translucent. You would deem this puzzling and mysterious,
certainly, but if one considers the matter, it is no more inherently mysterious that such a
thing should exist than that anything else should exist. . . . Now whatever else you might
wonder about it, there is one thing you would hardly question; namely, that it did not
appear there all by itself, that it owes its existence to something.
Consider again the strange ball that we imagine has been found in the forest. Now we
can hardly doubt that there must be an explanation for the existence of such a thing,
though we may have no notion what that explanation is. It is not, moreover, the fact of its
having been found in the forest rather than elsewhere that renders an explanation
necessary. It matters not in the least where it happens to be, for our question is not how it
happens to be there but how it happens to exist at all. If we in our imagination
annihilate the forest, leaving only this ball in an open field, our conviction that it is a
contingent thing and owes its existence to something other than itself is not reduced in
the least. If we now imagine the field to be annihilated, and in fact everything else to
vanish into nothingness, leaving only the ball to constitute the entire physical universe,
then we cannot for a moment suppose that its existence has thereby been explained, or the
need of any explanation eliminated, or that its existence is suddenly rendered self explanatory.
If we now carry this thought one step further and suppose that no other
reality ever has existed or ever will exist, that this ball forever constitutes the entire
physical universe, then we must still insist on there being some reason independent of
itself why it should exist rather than not. (Taylor 105-06)
The point seems obvious enough. Contingent beings need an explanation outside themselves,
both for their original existence and also their continuing existence! And, the sum total of
contingent beings (which comprises the universe itself) is nothing more than contingent in
nature, anymore than a hundred pieces of wood are anything other than wood when they are
glued together to form a table. The accidental collection of wooden objects, which form a table,
or contingent beings, which form a universe, does not alter their essential nature! Since
contingent beings require an explanatory cause outside themselves, and since the universe is a
contingent being (comprised of the sum total of contingent beings in existence at any given
time), it follows that the universe must have a cause outside itself. But, this explanatory cause
cannot be contingent, or it would also require an explanatory cause! We must finally come to the
foundational explanation, and this is what the theist (and the Bible) calls God (cf. Genesis 1:1;
Psalm 19:1-6, etc.).
OBJECTIONS TO COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTATION
It hardly needs to be pointed out that atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and the like, do not
merely “roll over and play dead” when confronted with the case for God’s existence. Indeed,
they are quick to formulate counter-arguments and objections to the positive case one makes for
God. In some cases, theists do a poor job of arguing their case, and we are actually indebted to
those who demonstrate the weakness of those arguments. In fact, I have frequently objected to
fallacious arguments presented by theists as well as atheists. The conclusion of an argument must
rest on adequate evidence! There is simply no substitute for this!
One may argue, as I have, that since every effect must have an explanatory cause, and since the
universe is an effect, the universe also must have an explanatory cause! God, who is not an effect
Himself (what I identified as a “non-contingent Being”), is that cause. Therefore, God is the
uncaused cause of the universe and all that is within it.
The atheist’s counter-argument is as follows:
1. Theists conceive of God as a self-caused being.
2. But, a self-caused being is irrational.
3. Therefore, the very concept of God is irrational.
But, this objection is based on a “straw man” argument. It attempts to refute what theists do not
even believe. We do not claim that God is self-caused (which is clearly absurd, as I mentioned
earlier), but rather, that He is uncaused. A self-caused being is impossible, but an uncaused
being is not!
The atheists are not finished yet. They may (and often do) argue that it is also irrational to
suggest that God is uncaused. Instead, they assert, it is reasonable to ask, “Who made God?” I
once heard Carl Sagan pose this question to Phil Donahue, to which no adequate response was
given (are you surprised?). But, let us allow an atheist to make this case for himself. Gordon
Stein states: “If everything must have had a cause, then God must have had a cause. If God had a
cause, then He was not the first (or uncaused) cause. If God did not have a cause, then not
everything must have a cause. If not everything needs a cause, then perhaps the universe is one
of those things, which also does not need a cause” (2). This is another “straw man” argument,
since theists do not agree with the first premise, namely, “if everything must have had a cause,
then God must have had a cause.” Theists do not believe that God is self-caused; they believe
that He is uncaused. Furthermore, we do not believe that everything must have a cause, but
rather, only that every effect must have a cause. Everything that begins to exist, and which
cannot otherwise account for its own existence, must have a cause! Atheists say, “Everything has
a cause.” Theists say, “Everything that begins has a cause.” Theists believe that God is an
uncreated (i.e., uncaused) Creator (i.e., cause). God is the first uncaused cause of the universe
and all that is within it!
Now, if it is irrational to believe that God, who has no beginning needs no cause, then atheism
is also irrational. Since many atheists believe that the universe needs no cause because
(according to them) it had no beginning, the real question becomes, which is eternal: God or the
universe? If it is rational to believe that the universe could be eternal without a cause, then there
can be no real argument against theists who argue that God is an eternal Being without cause! If
it is irrational to accept this about God, then it is equally irrational to accept the same idea about
the universe. In other words, this objection cuts both ways!
Some atheists argue that, in spite of the fact that each particular part of the universe is
dependent (or contingent), the universe as a whole can be independent (or non-contingent) and,
therefore, eternal. Thus, the universe itself would function as the cause of all things that exist.
The atheist is accusing the theist of committing the fallacy of composition. It is an older work,
but one author dismissed the argument for God from the contingency of the world as follows:
It may be admitted . . . that nothing in Nature contains its own reason for being, and that
therefore things and events are indeed contingent. But to infer from the contingency of
things and events, taken individually, that Nature as a whole is contingent, and thus
dependent upon another being, is to commit the fallacy of composition. This fallacy
consists in arguing from the properties of the parts, taken separately, to a property of the
whole, taken together. Because sodium and chlorine are poisonous, it does not follow that
table salt, which is composed of these elements, is equally poisonous. Although any part
of Nature, taken singly, may be contingent or dependent for its existence on something
else, it does not follow that Nature, taken as a whole, is also contingent. In other words,
there is no reason why Nature cannot be considered to be the ultimate ground of all
existence, even though its parts depend for their existence on other parts. (Brennan 267-
68)
There is confusion in the author’s statement between properties and existence. It is plain that
he means by contingent the dependence of something upon something else for its existence, and
yet in his statement of the fallacy of composition, he refers not to existence, but to properties.
We commit the fallacy of composition when we ascribe to a collection or group as a whole,
properties which belong only to the individual things themselves. The example of table salt was a
good illustration of this, because sodium and chlorine, taken by themselves, are poisonous,
whereas sodium chloride (common table salt) is not! But, existence is not a property, and to be
contingent is not to possess contingency as a property. Instead, the contingency of a thing is
simply the fact that the thing in question, with its properties, depends upon something else for its
existence.
Insofar as nature is composed of really existing individual things, this is the only kind of real
existence it has. It does not also really exist as a whole in distinction from the existence of its
parts. Nature exists bit by bit in time; the whole of nature includes not only what is, but also what
was and no longer is, and what will be yet in the future. At no time in its history is the whole of
nature in existence. How then could a partially non-existent whole confer existence upon the
contingent parts of that whole?
Furthermore, it is obvious that, if each part of the universe would cease to exist, that the
universe itself would also cease to exist. For instance, let us suppose that you cease to exist.
Every other human being, every animal, every plant, and the galaxy also cease to exist. Not only
this, but also all the stars, asteroids, planets, and other celestial bodies suddenly cease to exist. In
fact, everything in the universe suddenly ceases to exist (cf. 2 Peter 3:10ff.). Would the universe
itself still exist with everything that comprises it no longer existing? Obviously, the universe
itself would no longer exist under such conditions. And, if the universe could cease to exist under
such conditions, then it is not independent (or, non-contingent). Instead, it too is dependent for
its existence on the existence of its parts. So, even if the universe could be considered as a
completed whole, it would still be contingent and therefore, dependent for its existence on
something else. Thus, the atheist’s counter-argument is shown to be insufficient.
Then, atheists will sometimes argue that there does not need to be a “first cause.” They suggest
that contingent causes can go on eternally. In other words, they opt for an infinite series of
contingent causes to explain the existence of any (and all) contingent beings. I have already
suggested that no such infinite series exists, and that this is the crucial premise in my argument.
So, it is time to attend to this question here. Richard Purtill offers a quite useful illustration that
will help the reader to see that there is no infinite series in reality (and never has been).
It seems to be logically possible for A to be caused by B, for B to be caused by C, and
so on, backward ad infinitum. There is, however, a very serious objection to this sort of
“infinite regress,” as it is called. . . .
For example, if A tries to borrow a lawnmower from B, and B replies, “I don’t have
one, but I’ll borrow one from my friend C,” and C says, “I don’t have one but, I’ll borrow
one from my friend D,” and so on, this is a case of the kind we are concerned with. Or if
A asks B, his supervisor, for permission to take the afternoon off and B says, “I can’t give
you permission without asking my supervisor C,” and C says, “I can’t give you
permission to give A permission unless I ask my supervisor, D,” and so on, we have a
case of this sort. Now in these ordinary cases two things are clear:
1. If the series of things that don’t have the property in question goes on to infinity,
the first individual never gets that property. If everyone asked says, “I don’t have
a lawnmower, but I’ll ask,” A never gets his lawnmower. If every supervisor
asked says, “I can’t give you permission, but I’ll ask,” then A never gets his
afternoon off.
2. If the first thing does get the property in question, then the series comes to an end,
and does not go on to infinity. If A gets his lawnmower, someone along the line
had a lawnmower without having to borrow one. If A gets his afternoon off,
some supervisor could give permission without having to ask someone else. (83-
84)
The cosmological argument is concerned with existence! Consequently, if no member of the
series had existence in itself, then each member would be constantly explaining its existence in
terms of another member of the series. In other words, if no one has the quality in question, then
the first individual never gets the quality. No one would ever get “existence” if no member had
that quality to give! Therefore, the crucial question again becomes, “How can my existence
ultimately be explained apart from an independently existing (or, non-contingent) Being?
Plainly, it cannot!
Now, infinite set theory is a useful mathematical construct, and it enables one to do some
incredible mathematical calculations. But, no such infinite set exists in reality. The fact that we
can construct an infinite series in mathematics has no bearing on the question of whether or not
there can have existed an infinite series of real causes.
Aristotle distinguished sharply between a “potential infinite” and an “actual infinite.” A
“potential infinite” may be indefinitely divided or indefinitely extended, but so long as one
decreases or increases the series by finite increments, the series remains finite! It never becomes
infinite! The ancient philosopher Zeno offered up a series of interesting paradoxes in reference to
space, time, and motion. For instance, he suggested that an archer could release an arrow toward
a particular target. Since that arrow travels along a certain distance, Zeno argues, the arrow will
never get to its target. Why? Because at each point along the line, one can divide that distance in
two. Since, he argues, one can divide such a line infinitely, it follows that the arrow can never
reach its target! We all know that the arrow does reach its target, so, Zeno presented what he
thought was an irreconcilable paradox. But, from the fact that a line can be divided indefinitely,
it does not follow that it can be divided infinitely! And, the fact that a series can be extended
indefinitely does not prove that the series can be extended infinitely! If you add to an incredibly
long series by finite amounts, you just have a longer series. It never adds up to an infinite series.
An infinite set contains all the possible members of that set. An infinite set cannot be changed!
It can be neither added to nor subtracted from; neither can it be multiplied or divided, because it
contains all the possible members that could ever exist. A finite set can be added to or subtracted
from, and it can be multiplied or divided. It can always be changed! Thus, there is no infinite
series of contingent causes that is responsible for those contingent beings that now exist. In fact,
there is no infinite series at all! For, if there were an infinite number of moments (for example)
from an eternal past, then there would be no way to experience a “next” moment! And, if there
are an infinite number of contingent causes in existence, then there can be no further contingent
causes of anything! But, if we take a trip to the local hospital, we will likely find a woman
delivering a baby or we will find a human being dying, thus, ceasing to exist in that sense. What
could possibly explain the numbers of contingent causes that continue to produce various effects
in the world, if all the possible contingent causes already exist as an infinite set? There would be
no explanation at all, so, I argue that we never have more than a potential infinite in reality.
Therefore, the atheistic objection that posits an infinite series of contingent causes fails, precisely
because they can never point to such a really existing infinite series!
Another objection that is frequently pressed against the cosmological argument is that the
contingency argument fails precisely because a non-contingent being would exist (since such a
Being exists necessarily, and cannot not exist) whether or not contingent things exist! So, the
objection goes, no legitimate inference can be made from the existence of contingent things to a
non-contingent Being. B. C. Johnson advances the argument as follows:
The attempt to base an argument for the existence of a necessary being on the existence
of contingent objects and events is a misguided venture. A necessary being is defined as a
being that exists necessarily. It follows that a necessary being would exist regardless of
the existence of contingent beings. Whether or not there are contingent beings a
necessary being would exist, since it could not fail to exist. It follows that no argument
from the existence of contingent beings can have any thing to do with whether a
necessary being exists. This point can be illustrated as follows. If it is claimed that John is
home only when his house lights are on, then the fact that the lights are on will be the
basis on which we decide that he is home. But if it is claimed that John is home
regardless of whether his lights are on then the fact that his lights are on is not the basis
on which we decide that John is home. Similarly, if God would exist regardless of the
existence of contingent beings, then one cannot base an argument for His existence on the
existence of contingent beings. (66-67)
Johnson’s point seems to be well made. I will freely grant him the initial point—that a non contingent
(or necessary) Being would exist whether or not contingent beings existed! This is
merely to grant that, before the creation occurred, God existed from eternity past (cf. Genesis
1:1; etc.). But, the theistic argument moves in a different direction than that indicated by Mr.
Johnson. To change his illustration slightly: suppose that we argue that the reason lights are on in
John’s house is that he has turned them on (assuming that he is the only person in the house).
That is, the fact that the lights are on (an effect) is explained in terms of John’s activity (a cause).
John could be home whether or not the lights were in the home at all. But, if there are lights in
the home, and if they are on, then we know that John is responsible for that which is observed.
Similarly, if contingent beings exist at all, and if contingent beings can be explained (in terms of
their existence) only by a non-contingent Being, then we know that a non-contingent Being
exists. Briefly put, the cosmological argument proceeds from the world of our experience to the
only rational explanation for those experienced objects! Once again, the atheist’s argument does
not hold, and the theist’s case is vindicated.
Another counter-argument pressed by atheists is that theists commit the fallacy of
equivocation. Quentin Smith, in a debate with William Lane Craig, sought to rebut Craig’s
argument in the following:
Bill’s basic argument is this: his first premise is: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Second premise: The universe began to exist. And the conclusion is: The universe had a
cause. Now this argument commits the fallacy of equivocation, and what that means is
that the word “cause” is used in a different sense in the premise, Whatever begins to exist
has a cause, than it is in the conclusion, The universe has a cause. For when we examine
“things that begin to exist have causes,” what we really are examining are rearrangers of
preexistent materials. Anything we point to in our daily life that we say has a cause, say,
a statue, is a rearrangement of, say, a slab of marble. And even a human being is a
rearrangement ultimately of chemicals and atoms and quarks and so on. And so insofar as
“Whatever begins to exist has a cause” has any support at all, it would have to mean
“Whatever begins to exist has a rearranger of its preexistent materials.” Now given that,
and given the second premise, The universe began to exist, we cannot infer that (the)
universe has a rearranger of its preexistent materials, for if the universe began to exist,
there are no preexistent materials, so that if “cause” has any meaning at all in the
conclusion, it has to mean something that creates the materials from nothing, and we have
absolutely no experience of that in any of our lives, in any of science, anywhere. It’s just
an idea that appears solely in theism. So I see no evidence for it based on empirical
observation, scientific evidence, or anything. It seems to me a proposition of supernatural
theology. So I don’t think that that is an argument that a rational person should accept.
(reasonable faith.org)
Bill Craig’s response to Smith’s rebuttal is, in part, as follows:
Now Quentin attacks both of my premises. First he accuses me, with regard to the first
premise, of equivocating on the word “cause” because he thinks it must mean material
cause in the one case, but in the conclusion it doesn’t mean material cause. I don’t think
it’s an equivocation at all. I’m using the word cause here simply to mean something that
produces something else, and in terms of which that other thing, call the effect, can be
explained. Whether it’s an efficient cause or material cause is simply left out of account.
So I’m not specifying in the first premise what kind of cause it has to be, but simply that
there must be a cause. (reasonablefaith.org)
The response given by Smith suggests that an important term is used in two different ways in the
premises and, therefore, it renders the argument invalid. If the argument is invalid, then it could
not possibly be sound, so, this is by far the most critical objection to the cosmological argument.
If the objection is true, then one will have to find other grounds to make the case for God’s
existence.
First, by way of response, I will tell the reader that Smith does not agree with theists, but
neither does he agree with most atheists. This is so because he believes (counter-factually, I
believe) that the universe is actually “self-caused.” That is, the normal atheist’s argument that the
universe is just there, and that’s all (viz., that the universe itself is uncaused) is rejected by
Smith. He argues that, the universe created itself from the Big Bang. It would take us too far
away from this discussion to respond to this idea here, so let me return to Smith’s actual
objection.
Second, my premises refer to “cause” in the sense of “explanation.” In other words, I am using
the term to refer to a “causal explanation” for the existence of a (any) contingent being, since no
contingent being can explain its own existence! No contingent being can explain its own
existence. Neither can a collection of contingent beings explain their own existence. And, the
universe of contingent beings (which is, in fact, a finite collection of contingent beings, never
fully constituted at any given moment) likewise cannot explain its own existence. We are
searching for an ultimate (or metaphysical) explanation for the existence of contingent reality.
And, we simply cannot ultimately explain the existence of any contingent being(s) apart from
appealing to a non-contingent ground of that existence. Contingent reality is the same in essence,
viz., existentially dependent reality, and non-contingent reality is the same in essence, viz., nonexistentially
dependent reality (i.e, independently existing reality). Thus, no equivocation at all
occurs in this argument.
Given the argument advanced at the beginning of this essay, and the inability of objectors to
make their case against the argument, I am entitled to advance the conclusion: “Therefore, God
exists.” I do this, precisely because the argument commits no mistakes either in form or
language, and the premises are true. Thus, the evidence warrants the conclusion! A noncontingent
Being, explaining the existence of all contingent reality, must exist. And, this is what
theists mean by God!
Works Cited:
Baumer, Franklin L. Modern European Thought: Continuity and Change in Ideas 1600-1950. New York:
Macmillan, 1977.
Brennan, Joseph Gerard. The Meaning of Philosophy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953.
Corduan, Winfried. “The Cosmological Argument.” Reasons for Faith: Making a Case for the Christian Faith. Eds.
Norman L. Geisler and Chad V. Meister. Wheaton: Crossway, 2007.
Craig, William Lane and Quentin Smith. “Craig-Smith Debate on the Existence of God.” Reasonable Faith. Web.
N.d.
Johnson, B. C. The Atheist Debater’s Handbook. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1981.
Purtill, Richard. Reason to Believe. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Reichenbach, Bruce R. The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment. Springfield: Thomas, 1972.
Russell, Bertrand. Religion and Science. 1935. London: Oxford UP, 1980.
Stein, Gordon. How to Argue with a Theist (and Win). Culver City: Free Thought Assoc., 1979.
Taylor, Richard. Metaphysics. Foundations of Philosophy Series. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963.
Dick Sztanyo studied Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics under Dr. Thomas B. Warren at Harding University
Graduate School of Religion. He has done additional study at the International Academy of Philosophy and
Andrews University as well as doctoral work in Philosophy at the University of Dallas.
This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.win2pdf.com.
The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.
This page will not be added after purchasing Win2PDF.
Dick Sztanyo
January 24, 2010
Revised May 4, 2010
The question of God is one of the “perennial questions” which men cannot help asking
(Baumer 11-20). In one form or another, the question of God has been present in all stages of
human history. Is there really a God? If so, what is He like? If no, then where do I look for
answers to life’s most perplexing questions? If yes, then what are my obligations? How can the
case for God be argued? These are the kinds of questions that have baffled men for thousands of
years. So I will attempt, in this series of essays, to shed some light on this all-encompassing
question. In so doing, I intend to set forth evidence sufficient to warrant the conclusion: God
exists.
When I speak of proving the existence of God, I do not mean that one proves the case in the
same way as a door is proven to be solid, a desk is shown to weigh two hundred pounds, or a
certain book is seen as blue. Given the modern mind-set, many have concluded that the only way
anything at all can be known (or proven) is through the five senses (hearing, tasting, smelling,
seeing, and touching). As an example, consider the attitude of Bertrand Russell, who stated:
“Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods, and what science
cannot discover, mankind cannot know” (243). Russell’s argument can be reduced to a three-line
syllogism with reference to God’s existence, as follows:
1. If God cannot be discovered by scientific methods, then God cannot be known by
mankind.
2. God cannot be discovered by scientific methods.
3. Therefore, God cannot be known by mankind.
But, neither revelation nor reason require an acceptance of the empiricist’s thesis (i.e., nothing
can be known except through, or by means of, the senses)! The Bible indicates that one can
reason from the creation to a Creator, or from the world of facts to the ultimate origin of these
facts (Romans 1:19-20; Psalm 19:1-6; etc.). The Bible also demands that we put every
conclusion to the test, proving or disproving it by means of adequate evidence (1 Peter 3:15; 1
John 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Isaiah 41:21, etc.). In 1 John 4:1, a specific test is required,
namely, a test for false prophets. But, in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Paul insists that all things be put
to the test. In Isaiah 40-46, a specific test (predictive prophecy) is used to vindicate the God of
Israel as over against the false gods of the pagans. And, this test was given to us by God
Himself! The challenge issued to the false prophets is likewise a challenge the atheist issues to us
today. “Produce your cause” (or, “Present your case”).
Russell is wrong, for many things are known by men, which are not subject to scientific
investigation at all. For instance, all ideas are intuitively known, and are not subject to empirical
investigation in any sense. None of us deny that ideas exist. Neither would we argue that ideas
are based on scientific study. Instead, it is precisely the other way around; scientific theories are
based upon ideas! Now, let us expose the fallacy in Russell’s argument.
1. If ideas cannot be discovered by scientific methods, then ideas cannot be known
by mankind.
2. Ideas cannot be discovered by scientific methods.
3. Therefore, ideas cannot be known by mankind.
The second premise above is true. But, the major premise (no. 1) is false! In fact, the argument
itself is built upon ideas, thus exposing Russell’s fallacy with double force.
To be perfectly clear about things, the study of origins is not strictly speaking, a scientific
study at all. Scientific study can give us information from any number of different disciplines
(astronomy, physics, biology, etc.), but science deals with existing material, and seeks to explain
how things in the known universe function. God authorized scientific exploration when He told
Adam and Eve to have dominion over things on the Earth. But, science does not really tell us
how these things came to be at all. The study of origins is primarily a philosophical investigation.
With these preliminary thoughts in mind, let us turn to various arguments for God’s existence.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
Arguments which are termed “cosmological” rest upon one central concept: the existing
cosmos (the universe and all that is within it) is undeniable evidence that there is a Creator. I will
briefly sketch the premises, which have been developed for an argument from contingency.
A Contingent Being Exists. To be contingent means that such a being cannot account for its
own existence. It is as possible for such a being not to exist as it is for it to exist at all. As such, a
contingent being is dependent upon something or someone other than itself for its own existence.
And, this holds true for its coming into existence and remaining in existence from one moment to
the next. As a matter of fact, I myself am such a being, for I can not account for my own
existence, nor can I explain how I continue to exist from one moment to the next. My existence
was originated from outside myself, and my existence continues from outside myself. But, what
exactly is a “contingent being.” Winfried Corduan explains:
. . . [O]rdinary things have causes. Or, to be more precise, finite things have causes. It is
here that metaphysics becomes important because I have to clarify what I mean by a
finite thing. A finite thing is something that meets any one of the following conditions:
1. It is restricted by time and space.
2. It can be changed by something other than itself.
3. It has a beginning in time.
5. Its attributes, whether essential or accidental, are to some extent influenced by
other things.
Another term that we can use for a finite thing is that it is a contingent being. It is a
contingent being simply because it could not exist without all of the factors that bring
about its existence, sustain its existence, and shape its nature. To say that a thing is
contingent is to say that it is finite and dependent. (204)
This Contingent Being Depends on Something Else for Its Existence. From what has been
said thus far, this seems obvious, since any being is either (1) self-caused, (2) caused by another,
or (3) uncaused. I am not uncaused, which is synonymous with necessary existence, and a Being
which exists necessarily is what theists mean by God. Neither am I self-caused, since to be selfcaused,
I would have to exist prior to my own existence in order to bring myself into being. But,
this is clearly absurd! Therefore, I (as a contingent being) am caused by another.
That Which Causes (Explains) the Existence of a (or any) Contingent Being Must be
Either (1) Another Contingent Being, or (2) a Non-Contingent Being. But, if explanation is
given in terms of another contingent being, then since any contingent being also requires a cause
outside itself, one only postpones the question until it is framed in terms of (3) an infinite series
of contingent causes. As a result, the following premise emerges:
That Which Causes (Explains) the Existence of a (or any) Contingent Being is Either (1)
an Infinite Series of Contingent Beings (Either a Transitive or an Intransitive Series), or (2)
a Non-Contingent Being. Now, a non-contingent being is one that does not depend upon any
other being for its existence. Thus, it is self-existent. Furthermore, since it could neither come
into existence nor pass out of existence, such a being is eternal. Moreover, since such a noncontingent
being not only explains a single contingent being, but also all contingent beings
(including the universe itself which is also contingent), then such a being must be omnipresent.
It goes without saying that such a being must also be infinite in power, for such a being’s causal
efficacy is such that it explains all contingent reality. In other words, one means by a noncontingent
being, what the Judeo-Christian theist calls God. Indeed, the first chapter of Genesis
makes the same claim I am now making: “In the beginning [when nothing contingent at all
existed], God [a non-contingent Being] created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, emp.
added).
It is also necessary to explain what is meant by “transitive” and “intransitive” in the
proposition just stated. A “transitive causal series” does not require that each member be in such
close contact with another member. As far as existence is concerned, my parents explain my
immediate existence, and theirs in turn by their parents, and so on. The causal series, in effect,
has each member of the series is explained by looking at previous causes in the chain, whether or
not they are intricately connected together. My parents caused me, and I, in turn, caused my
children to be born, and they will continue the chain of cause and effect in this same way. Adam
is not in close proximity to me, however, if the Biblical record is correct (and I hold that it is), I
am in the causal chain that began with Adam and Eve. A “transitive causal series” has to do with
sequential cause and effect, and is the main consideration of Arabic philosophers and what has
come to be known as the Kalamic Cosmological Argument (cf. Craig).
An “intransitive causal series,” is one in which every cause in the series causes a succeeding
effect only insofar as it is itself being caused. Each cause depends upon a prior cause precisely
for its own act of causing, for instance, that a stone is moved by a stick, the stick is moved by a
hand, and so on, to infinity. It is only that each member’s existence can be explained only by
considering the foundation (or ground) of existence. Put another way, an “intransitive causal
series” is not as interested in sequential cause and effect, but rather, in foundational cause and
effect. Perhaps an illustration would help to explain what is meant here. Suppose a brick mason
wants to build a series of pillars. He begins by attempting to support the first row of bricks.
However, there is simply no foundation (or ground) on which to place the bricks. Consequently,
the bricks simply fall without being supported. Now, he may try again by mortaring bricks
together, including a second row set upon the first. But, when he attempts to support this second
attempt, precisely the same thing occurs as happened with the first try. The bricks simply fall.
He tries again and again with the same results. In this case, it doesn’t make much difference
whether or not the bricks are sequentially ordered. What matters is whether they have a
foundation on which to be placed. If not, then no matter how many are mortared together, there
will be no pillar (wall or any other structure). All of the causes in the chain of cause and effect
are “touching” each other, in order for the final effect to occur. This is the notion of a causal
series understood by philosophers who, in the Western tradition, follow the thinking of Thomas
Aquinas. Each cause and effect in the series necessarily touches each of the others in the series,
or else the final effect does not occur. Whether or not a sequential series can be infinite does not
matter here. In fact, one may assume such an infinite series, and still offer this argument, for it
has to do with the foundation of existence (“be-ing” or “is-ness) per se (cf. Reichenbach).
A “transitive causal series” has to do with origination of existence, and, as such, is concerned
with temporal, or, sequential causality. An “intransivitive causal series,” on the other hand, has
to do with continuation of existence, and, as such, is concerned with the hierarchy of being, or
existential causality. One can sometimes express the first as dealing with becoming while the
second focuses on being. These represent two very different ways of looking at the question of
existence. The question is, can there be an infinite causal series in one, or both, of these cases. I
maintain that there can be no infinite causal series in either sense. Such an infinite causal series
simply does not exist!
But, it is False that that Which Causes (Explains) the Existence of a (or any) Contingent
Being is an Infinite Series of Contingent Beings (Either a Transitive or an Intransitive
Series). Space allows me only the opportunity to state this premise here without elaboration. So,
at this point, I will not take time to prove the fifth premise to you. Suffice it to say that this is the
crucial premise of the entire argument. I will have more to say on this subject a little later when
objections to the argument are being considered. But, assuming that this premise is true, I am
able to conclude the argument.
Therefore, that Which Causes (Explains) the Existence of a (or any) Contingent Being is a
Non-Contingent Being. Since one means by “non-contingent being” what one means by God, it
is therefore the case that God exists. Now, the argument just advanced appeals to a form of the
“principle of sufficient reason.” This simply means that there must be some explanation as to
why contingent beings exist. Since they cannot account for their own existence, they must have
been caused by something external to themselves. Perhaps we have gone over all this a little too
quickly. If so, then an illustration may possibly be of some help.
Suppose you were strolling in the woods and, in addition to the sticks, stones, and other
accustomed litter of the forest floor, you one day came upon some quite unaccustomed
object, something not quite like what you had ever seen before and would never expect to
find in such a place. Suppose, for example, that is it a large ball, about your own height,
perfectly smooth and translucent. You would deem this puzzling and mysterious,
certainly, but if one considers the matter, it is no more inherently mysterious that such a
thing should exist than that anything else should exist. . . . Now whatever else you might
wonder about it, there is one thing you would hardly question; namely, that it did not
appear there all by itself, that it owes its existence to something.
Consider again the strange ball that we imagine has been found in the forest. Now we
can hardly doubt that there must be an explanation for the existence of such a thing,
though we may have no notion what that explanation is. It is not, moreover, the fact of its
having been found in the forest rather than elsewhere that renders an explanation
necessary. It matters not in the least where it happens to be, for our question is not how it
happens to be there but how it happens to exist at all. If we in our imagination
annihilate the forest, leaving only this ball in an open field, our conviction that it is a
contingent thing and owes its existence to something other than itself is not reduced in
the least. If we now imagine the field to be annihilated, and in fact everything else to
vanish into nothingness, leaving only the ball to constitute the entire physical universe,
then we cannot for a moment suppose that its existence has thereby been explained, or the
need of any explanation eliminated, or that its existence is suddenly rendered self explanatory.
If we now carry this thought one step further and suppose that no other
reality ever has existed or ever will exist, that this ball forever constitutes the entire
physical universe, then we must still insist on there being some reason independent of
itself why it should exist rather than not. (Taylor 105-06)
The point seems obvious enough. Contingent beings need an explanation outside themselves,
both for their original existence and also their continuing existence! And, the sum total of
contingent beings (which comprises the universe itself) is nothing more than contingent in
nature, anymore than a hundred pieces of wood are anything other than wood when they are
glued together to form a table. The accidental collection of wooden objects, which form a table,
or contingent beings, which form a universe, does not alter their essential nature! Since
contingent beings require an explanatory cause outside themselves, and since the universe is a
contingent being (comprised of the sum total of contingent beings in existence at any given
time), it follows that the universe must have a cause outside itself. But, this explanatory cause
cannot be contingent, or it would also require an explanatory cause! We must finally come to the
foundational explanation, and this is what the theist (and the Bible) calls God (cf. Genesis 1:1;
Psalm 19:1-6, etc.).
OBJECTIONS TO COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTATION
It hardly needs to be pointed out that atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and the like, do not
merely “roll over and play dead” when confronted with the case for God’s existence. Indeed,
they are quick to formulate counter-arguments and objections to the positive case one makes for
God. In some cases, theists do a poor job of arguing their case, and we are actually indebted to
those who demonstrate the weakness of those arguments. In fact, I have frequently objected to
fallacious arguments presented by theists as well as atheists. The conclusion of an argument must
rest on adequate evidence! There is simply no substitute for this!
One may argue, as I have, that since every effect must have an explanatory cause, and since the
universe is an effect, the universe also must have an explanatory cause! God, who is not an effect
Himself (what I identified as a “non-contingent Being”), is that cause. Therefore, God is the
uncaused cause of the universe and all that is within it.
The atheist’s counter-argument is as follows:
1. Theists conceive of God as a self-caused being.
2. But, a self-caused being is irrational.
3. Therefore, the very concept of God is irrational.
But, this objection is based on a “straw man” argument. It attempts to refute what theists do not
even believe. We do not claim that God is self-caused (which is clearly absurd, as I mentioned
earlier), but rather, that He is uncaused. A self-caused being is impossible, but an uncaused
being is not!
The atheists are not finished yet. They may (and often do) argue that it is also irrational to
suggest that God is uncaused. Instead, they assert, it is reasonable to ask, “Who made God?” I
once heard Carl Sagan pose this question to Phil Donahue, to which no adequate response was
given (are you surprised?). But, let us allow an atheist to make this case for himself. Gordon
Stein states: “If everything must have had a cause, then God must have had a cause. If God had a
cause, then He was not the first (or uncaused) cause. If God did not have a cause, then not
everything must have a cause. If not everything needs a cause, then perhaps the universe is one
of those things, which also does not need a cause” (2). This is another “straw man” argument,
since theists do not agree with the first premise, namely, “if everything must have had a cause,
then God must have had a cause.” Theists do not believe that God is self-caused; they believe
that He is uncaused. Furthermore, we do not believe that everything must have a cause, but
rather, only that every effect must have a cause. Everything that begins to exist, and which
cannot otherwise account for its own existence, must have a cause! Atheists say, “Everything has
a cause.” Theists say, “Everything that begins has a cause.” Theists believe that God is an
uncreated (i.e., uncaused) Creator (i.e., cause). God is the first uncaused cause of the universe
and all that is within it!
Now, if it is irrational to believe that God, who has no beginning needs no cause, then atheism
is also irrational. Since many atheists believe that the universe needs no cause because
(according to them) it had no beginning, the real question becomes, which is eternal: God or the
universe? If it is rational to believe that the universe could be eternal without a cause, then there
can be no real argument against theists who argue that God is an eternal Being without cause! If
it is irrational to accept this about God, then it is equally irrational to accept the same idea about
the universe. In other words, this objection cuts both ways!
Some atheists argue that, in spite of the fact that each particular part of the universe is
dependent (or contingent), the universe as a whole can be independent (or non-contingent) and,
therefore, eternal. Thus, the universe itself would function as the cause of all things that exist.
The atheist is accusing the theist of committing the fallacy of composition. It is an older work,
but one author dismissed the argument for God from the contingency of the world as follows:
It may be admitted . . . that nothing in Nature contains its own reason for being, and that
therefore things and events are indeed contingent. But to infer from the contingency of
things and events, taken individually, that Nature as a whole is contingent, and thus
dependent upon another being, is to commit the fallacy of composition. This fallacy
consists in arguing from the properties of the parts, taken separately, to a property of the
whole, taken together. Because sodium and chlorine are poisonous, it does not follow that
table salt, which is composed of these elements, is equally poisonous. Although any part
of Nature, taken singly, may be contingent or dependent for its existence on something
else, it does not follow that Nature, taken as a whole, is also contingent. In other words,
there is no reason why Nature cannot be considered to be the ultimate ground of all
existence, even though its parts depend for their existence on other parts. (Brennan 267-
68)
There is confusion in the author’s statement between properties and existence. It is plain that
he means by contingent the dependence of something upon something else for its existence, and
yet in his statement of the fallacy of composition, he refers not to existence, but to properties.
We commit the fallacy of composition when we ascribe to a collection or group as a whole,
properties which belong only to the individual things themselves. The example of table salt was a
good illustration of this, because sodium and chlorine, taken by themselves, are poisonous,
whereas sodium chloride (common table salt) is not! But, existence is not a property, and to be
contingent is not to possess contingency as a property. Instead, the contingency of a thing is
simply the fact that the thing in question, with its properties, depends upon something else for its
existence.
Insofar as nature is composed of really existing individual things, this is the only kind of real
existence it has. It does not also really exist as a whole in distinction from the existence of its
parts. Nature exists bit by bit in time; the whole of nature includes not only what is, but also what
was and no longer is, and what will be yet in the future. At no time in its history is the whole of
nature in existence. How then could a partially non-existent whole confer existence upon the
contingent parts of that whole?
Furthermore, it is obvious that, if each part of the universe would cease to exist, that the
universe itself would also cease to exist. For instance, let us suppose that you cease to exist.
Every other human being, every animal, every plant, and the galaxy also cease to exist. Not only
this, but also all the stars, asteroids, planets, and other celestial bodies suddenly cease to exist. In
fact, everything in the universe suddenly ceases to exist (cf. 2 Peter 3:10ff.). Would the universe
itself still exist with everything that comprises it no longer existing? Obviously, the universe
itself would no longer exist under such conditions. And, if the universe could cease to exist under
such conditions, then it is not independent (or, non-contingent). Instead, it too is dependent for
its existence on the existence of its parts. So, even if the universe could be considered as a
completed whole, it would still be contingent and therefore, dependent for its existence on
something else. Thus, the atheist’s counter-argument is shown to be insufficient.
Then, atheists will sometimes argue that there does not need to be a “first cause.” They suggest
that contingent causes can go on eternally. In other words, they opt for an infinite series of
contingent causes to explain the existence of any (and all) contingent beings. I have already
suggested that no such infinite series exists, and that this is the crucial premise in my argument.
So, it is time to attend to this question here. Richard Purtill offers a quite useful illustration that
will help the reader to see that there is no infinite series in reality (and never has been).
It seems to be logically possible for A to be caused by B, for B to be caused by C, and
so on, backward ad infinitum. There is, however, a very serious objection to this sort of
“infinite regress,” as it is called. . . .
For example, if A tries to borrow a lawnmower from B, and B replies, “I don’t have
one, but I’ll borrow one from my friend C,” and C says, “I don’t have one but, I’ll borrow
one from my friend D,” and so on, this is a case of the kind we are concerned with. Or if
A asks B, his supervisor, for permission to take the afternoon off and B says, “I can’t give
you permission without asking my supervisor C,” and C says, “I can’t give you
permission to give A permission unless I ask my supervisor, D,” and so on, we have a
case of this sort. Now in these ordinary cases two things are clear:
1. If the series of things that don’t have the property in question goes on to infinity,
the first individual never gets that property. If everyone asked says, “I don’t have
a lawnmower, but I’ll ask,” A never gets his lawnmower. If every supervisor
asked says, “I can’t give you permission, but I’ll ask,” then A never gets his
afternoon off.
2. If the first thing does get the property in question, then the series comes to an end,
and does not go on to infinity. If A gets his lawnmower, someone along the line
had a lawnmower without having to borrow one. If A gets his afternoon off,
some supervisor could give permission without having to ask someone else. (83-
84)
The cosmological argument is concerned with existence! Consequently, if no member of the
series had existence in itself, then each member would be constantly explaining its existence in
terms of another member of the series. In other words, if no one has the quality in question, then
the first individual never gets the quality. No one would ever get “existence” if no member had
that quality to give! Therefore, the crucial question again becomes, “How can my existence
ultimately be explained apart from an independently existing (or, non-contingent) Being?
Plainly, it cannot!
Now, infinite set theory is a useful mathematical construct, and it enables one to do some
incredible mathematical calculations. But, no such infinite set exists in reality. The fact that we
can construct an infinite series in mathematics has no bearing on the question of whether or not
there can have existed an infinite series of real causes.
Aristotle distinguished sharply between a “potential infinite” and an “actual infinite.” A
“potential infinite” may be indefinitely divided or indefinitely extended, but so long as one
decreases or increases the series by finite increments, the series remains finite! It never becomes
infinite! The ancient philosopher Zeno offered up a series of interesting paradoxes in reference to
space, time, and motion. For instance, he suggested that an archer could release an arrow toward
a particular target. Since that arrow travels along a certain distance, Zeno argues, the arrow will
never get to its target. Why? Because at each point along the line, one can divide that distance in
two. Since, he argues, one can divide such a line infinitely, it follows that the arrow can never
reach its target! We all know that the arrow does reach its target, so, Zeno presented what he
thought was an irreconcilable paradox. But, from the fact that a line can be divided indefinitely,
it does not follow that it can be divided infinitely! And, the fact that a series can be extended
indefinitely does not prove that the series can be extended infinitely! If you add to an incredibly
long series by finite amounts, you just have a longer series. It never adds up to an infinite series.
An infinite set contains all the possible members of that set. An infinite set cannot be changed!
It can be neither added to nor subtracted from; neither can it be multiplied or divided, because it
contains all the possible members that could ever exist. A finite set can be added to or subtracted
from, and it can be multiplied or divided. It can always be changed! Thus, there is no infinite
series of contingent causes that is responsible for those contingent beings that now exist. In fact,
there is no infinite series at all! For, if there were an infinite number of moments (for example)
from an eternal past, then there would be no way to experience a “next” moment! And, if there
are an infinite number of contingent causes in existence, then there can be no further contingent
causes of anything! But, if we take a trip to the local hospital, we will likely find a woman
delivering a baby or we will find a human being dying, thus, ceasing to exist in that sense. What
could possibly explain the numbers of contingent causes that continue to produce various effects
in the world, if all the possible contingent causes already exist as an infinite set? There would be
no explanation at all, so, I argue that we never have more than a potential infinite in reality.
Therefore, the atheistic objection that posits an infinite series of contingent causes fails, precisely
because they can never point to such a really existing infinite series!
Another objection that is frequently pressed against the cosmological argument is that the
contingency argument fails precisely because a non-contingent being would exist (since such a
Being exists necessarily, and cannot not exist) whether or not contingent things exist! So, the
objection goes, no legitimate inference can be made from the existence of contingent things to a
non-contingent Being. B. C. Johnson advances the argument as follows:
The attempt to base an argument for the existence of a necessary being on the existence
of contingent objects and events is a misguided venture. A necessary being is defined as a
being that exists necessarily. It follows that a necessary being would exist regardless of
the existence of contingent beings. Whether or not there are contingent beings a
necessary being would exist, since it could not fail to exist. It follows that no argument
from the existence of contingent beings can have any thing to do with whether a
necessary being exists. This point can be illustrated as follows. If it is claimed that John is
home only when his house lights are on, then the fact that the lights are on will be the
basis on which we decide that he is home. But if it is claimed that John is home
regardless of whether his lights are on then the fact that his lights are on is not the basis
on which we decide that John is home. Similarly, if God would exist regardless of the
existence of contingent beings, then one cannot base an argument for His existence on the
existence of contingent beings. (66-67)
Johnson’s point seems to be well made. I will freely grant him the initial point—that a non contingent
(or necessary) Being would exist whether or not contingent beings existed! This is
merely to grant that, before the creation occurred, God existed from eternity past (cf. Genesis
1:1; etc.). But, the theistic argument moves in a different direction than that indicated by Mr.
Johnson. To change his illustration slightly: suppose that we argue that the reason lights are on in
John’s house is that he has turned them on (assuming that he is the only person in the house).
That is, the fact that the lights are on (an effect) is explained in terms of John’s activity (a cause).
John could be home whether or not the lights were in the home at all. But, if there are lights in
the home, and if they are on, then we know that John is responsible for that which is observed.
Similarly, if contingent beings exist at all, and if contingent beings can be explained (in terms of
their existence) only by a non-contingent Being, then we know that a non-contingent Being
exists. Briefly put, the cosmological argument proceeds from the world of our experience to the
only rational explanation for those experienced objects! Once again, the atheist’s argument does
not hold, and the theist’s case is vindicated.
Another counter-argument pressed by atheists is that theists commit the fallacy of
equivocation. Quentin Smith, in a debate with William Lane Craig, sought to rebut Craig’s
argument in the following:
Bill’s basic argument is this: his first premise is: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Second premise: The universe began to exist. And the conclusion is: The universe had a
cause. Now this argument commits the fallacy of equivocation, and what that means is
that the word “cause” is used in a different sense in the premise, Whatever begins to exist
has a cause, than it is in the conclusion, The universe has a cause. For when we examine
“things that begin to exist have causes,” what we really are examining are rearrangers of
preexistent materials. Anything we point to in our daily life that we say has a cause, say,
a statue, is a rearrangement of, say, a slab of marble. And even a human being is a
rearrangement ultimately of chemicals and atoms and quarks and so on. And so insofar as
“Whatever begins to exist has a cause” has any support at all, it would have to mean
“Whatever begins to exist has a rearranger of its preexistent materials.” Now given that,
and given the second premise, The universe began to exist, we cannot infer that (the)
universe has a rearranger of its preexistent materials, for if the universe began to exist,
there are no preexistent materials, so that if “cause” has any meaning at all in the
conclusion, it has to mean something that creates the materials from nothing, and we have
absolutely no experience of that in any of our lives, in any of science, anywhere. It’s just
an idea that appears solely in theism. So I see no evidence for it based on empirical
observation, scientific evidence, or anything. It seems to me a proposition of supernatural
theology. So I don’t think that that is an argument that a rational person should accept.
(reasonable faith.org)
Bill Craig’s response to Smith’s rebuttal is, in part, as follows:
Now Quentin attacks both of my premises. First he accuses me, with regard to the first
premise, of equivocating on the word “cause” because he thinks it must mean material
cause in the one case, but in the conclusion it doesn’t mean material cause. I don’t think
it’s an equivocation at all. I’m using the word cause here simply to mean something that
produces something else, and in terms of which that other thing, call the effect, can be
explained. Whether it’s an efficient cause or material cause is simply left out of account.
So I’m not specifying in the first premise what kind of cause it has to be, but simply that
there must be a cause. (reasonablefaith.org)
The response given by Smith suggests that an important term is used in two different ways in the
premises and, therefore, it renders the argument invalid. If the argument is invalid, then it could
not possibly be sound, so, this is by far the most critical objection to the cosmological argument.
If the objection is true, then one will have to find other grounds to make the case for God’s
existence.
First, by way of response, I will tell the reader that Smith does not agree with theists, but
neither does he agree with most atheists. This is so because he believes (counter-factually, I
believe) that the universe is actually “self-caused.” That is, the normal atheist’s argument that the
universe is just there, and that’s all (viz., that the universe itself is uncaused) is rejected by
Smith. He argues that, the universe created itself from the Big Bang. It would take us too far
away from this discussion to respond to this idea here, so let me return to Smith’s actual
objection.
Second, my premises refer to “cause” in the sense of “explanation.” In other words, I am using
the term to refer to a “causal explanation” for the existence of a (any) contingent being, since no
contingent being can explain its own existence! No contingent being can explain its own
existence. Neither can a collection of contingent beings explain their own existence. And, the
universe of contingent beings (which is, in fact, a finite collection of contingent beings, never
fully constituted at any given moment) likewise cannot explain its own existence. We are
searching for an ultimate (or metaphysical) explanation for the existence of contingent reality.
And, we simply cannot ultimately explain the existence of any contingent being(s) apart from
appealing to a non-contingent ground of that existence. Contingent reality is the same in essence,
viz., existentially dependent reality, and non-contingent reality is the same in essence, viz., nonexistentially
dependent reality (i.e, independently existing reality). Thus, no equivocation at all
occurs in this argument.
Given the argument advanced at the beginning of this essay, and the inability of objectors to
make their case against the argument, I am entitled to advance the conclusion: “Therefore, God
exists.” I do this, precisely because the argument commits no mistakes either in form or
language, and the premises are true. Thus, the evidence warrants the conclusion! A noncontingent
Being, explaining the existence of all contingent reality, must exist. And, this is what
theists mean by God!
Works Cited:
Baumer, Franklin L. Modern European Thought: Continuity and Change in Ideas 1600-1950. New York:
Macmillan, 1977.
Brennan, Joseph Gerard. The Meaning of Philosophy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953.
Corduan, Winfried. “The Cosmological Argument.” Reasons for Faith: Making a Case for the Christian Faith. Eds.
Norman L. Geisler and Chad V. Meister. Wheaton: Crossway, 2007.
Craig, William Lane and Quentin Smith. “Craig-Smith Debate on the Existence of God.” Reasonable Faith. Web.
N.d.
Johnson, B. C. The Atheist Debater’s Handbook. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1981.
Purtill, Richard. Reason to Believe. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Reichenbach, Bruce R. The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment. Springfield: Thomas, 1972.
Russell, Bertrand. Religion and Science. 1935. London: Oxford UP, 1980.
Stein, Gordon. How to Argue with a Theist (and Win). Culver City: Free Thought Assoc., 1979.
Taylor, Richard. Metaphysics. Foundations of Philosophy Series. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963.
Dick Sztanyo studied Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics under Dr. Thomas B. Warren at Harding University
Graduate School of Religion. He has done additional study at the International Academy of Philosophy and
Andrews University as well as doctoral work in Philosophy at the University of Dallas.
This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.win2pdf.com.
The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.
This page will not be added after purchasing Win2PDF.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
A Challence to Our Faith Only Freinds on the Essentiality of Baptism
As the title indicates, I have a challenge. I pray that those who hold to the "faith only" doctrine would consider the words here. It has been my experience that when the subject of the essentially of baptism comes up, the debate comes to a head. Those who hold to the doctrine of faith only insist that it is not essential and, when pressed, state that one can live their whole life and never be baptized and have a home in heaven with the Lord.
In this post I wish to challenge this idea. I will not be going about it in the usual way though. Most times the subject of remission of sins is the primary focus. Although it is important to have the proper understanding of that issue, it is not the focus of this challenge. The challenge of this article is to present the Biblical teaching of the importance of baptism from the stand point of being in Christ. The idea is that we find within scripture that there are certain things that a person receives from being in Christ and more importantly, how one gets into Christ. As we begin, I wish to focus on a number of items that a person receives when they are in Christ as opposed to being outside of Christ.
These are simple verses that I feel really need no extravagant amount of elaboration on my part.
1) II Timothy 2:10;
"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in
Christ Jesus with eternal glory."
Here we find Paul indicating to Timothy, and us by application, where on finds salvation. As stated it
is found IN CHRIST JESUS. Salvation cannot be found outside of Christ Jesus.
2) II Corinthians 5:17;
"Therefore is any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things
all things become new."
Here again. Paul indicates an important part of those who are in Christ Jesus, they are a new man.
It is clear that one cannot be a new man outside of Christ, one must be in Christ to be the new man.
In order to understand the significance of this on only has to look at Eph. 2:11-13 in which Paul
describes the condition of those of the old man. In it he states that they are without God and more
importantly, they are still in the WORLD. What a sad condition for one to find themselves in, yet
those who are outside of Christ find themselves in this position.
3) Romans 8:1;
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after
the flesh, but after the Spirit."
In order not to be condemned, on must be in Christ Jesus. Those who are outside of Christ Jesus
are in the condition of condemnation.
4) Romans 3:24;
" Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"
The word redemption is translated from the Greek word "apolutrosis" which has the meaning
of "forgiveness and justification, redemption as the result of expiation, deliverance from the quilt
of sins." (Vines Expository Dictionary pg.935). This redemption is found in Christ Jesus and not
outside of Him. Therefore it is only those that find themselves in Christ Jesus have this blessing.
5) Colassians 1:13-14;
" Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of his dear
Son; In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"
From this text we find that it is only those who are in His dear Son who enjoy the forgiveness of sins.
Those who find themselves outside of His dear Son do not have the forgiveness of sins.
6) Ephesians 1:3;
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual
blessings in heavenly places in Christ:"
All spiritual blessing are only found in Christ. Every spiritual blessing we recieve are ours only
through our fellowship with Christ. Without that fellowship, there are no spiritual blessings. These
blessings would include those items that we have already mentioned. This is important for us to
understand in light of our discussion. If I am outside of Christ then I do not have fellowship with Him.
If I do not have fellowship with Him I cannot partake of the spiritual blessings that He offers, the
forgiveness of sins, salvation, hope, peace, etc... I am without God and I am still apart of the world.
From this short list we find that it is essential for one to be in Christ Jesus. It is only the person who finds themselves in Christ Jesus that can actually say that they have these things we have mentioned. Those who are outside of Christ Jesus do not have these items. It is essential to be in Christ Jesus.
So the question must be asked at this time, "How does one get into Christ Jesus in order to have the items discussed?" Let us let the Word of God answer this question for us. Romans 6:3-4;
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised form the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
I chose this verse because every resource that I have investigated this (personal contact or via documentation) understands that Paul is speaking of the water baptism. I refer you to the Southern Baptist Convention web site that proclaims this to be true. It states,
"Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.
The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.
Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12." http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
This being the case, we find our answer, we must be baptized into Christ in order to get into Christ and enjoy all the spiritual blessings that are found their. Baptism is not just symbolic in nature, it is much, much more. It is the act that puts one into Christ Jesus where one finds the forgiveness of sins, redemption, salvation, to become that new creature, etc... Galatians 3:27 confirms this when Paul wrote, "For as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ." To be baptized into is a transition into some one or something. Paul identifies that someone, it is Christ. One must pass through the waters of baptism to get into Christ.
So what does this mean for those that accept the "faith only" doctrine? It means that it is false. If faith only gave us all the spiritual blessings that are in Chris Jesus (no verse in scripture makes this statement) then Paul lied about how one gets into Christ Jesus. If Paul lied, then the Holy Spirit of God lied since He was the one that inspired Paul to write Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27. If the Holy Spirit lied to Paul then God is a liar and cannot be trusted. If fact, if this be true, Christianity is a false religion and should be abandoned for the lie that it is. Or could it be that those who profess this doctrine be wrong in their interpretation of scripture.
So this is my challenge, if all the items that have been discussed here are only found in Christ Jesus and baptism is the only way to get into Christ Jesus, can one have salvation, forgiveness of sins, redemption, (which are only found in Christ Jesus) without being baptized? Is baptism essential to salvation?
I would like to leave you with something that I found on a local website for your consideration. It comes from the First Baptist Church of Richmond Hill's web site under the title of "How to become a Christian".
http://www.richmondhill.org/about-fbc-richmond-hill/how-to-become-a-christian/
In it you will find the phrase;
"So, now you know the basic steps to become a Christian. As a result, if you desire God’s gift of eternal life and fellowship with Him, you are as close as a sincere act of faith".
I have questioned the wording of this statement since it flies in the face of those who profess salvation by faith only and have not had a response as to why it is their. I would declare that that act of faith is submission to baptism so that one may have the forgiveness of sins, redemption, salvation that is found only in Christ Jesus. Baptism in water puts us in Christ Jesus.
In this post I wish to challenge this idea. I will not be going about it in the usual way though. Most times the subject of remission of sins is the primary focus. Although it is important to have the proper understanding of that issue, it is not the focus of this challenge. The challenge of this article is to present the Biblical teaching of the importance of baptism from the stand point of being in Christ. The idea is that we find within scripture that there are certain things that a person receives from being in Christ and more importantly, how one gets into Christ. As we begin, I wish to focus on a number of items that a person receives when they are in Christ as opposed to being outside of Christ.
These are simple verses that I feel really need no extravagant amount of elaboration on my part.
1) II Timothy 2:10;
"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in
Christ Jesus with eternal glory."
Here we find Paul indicating to Timothy, and us by application, where on finds salvation. As stated it
is found IN CHRIST JESUS. Salvation cannot be found outside of Christ Jesus.
2) II Corinthians 5:17;
"Therefore is any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things
all things become new."
Here again. Paul indicates an important part of those who are in Christ Jesus, they are a new man.
It is clear that one cannot be a new man outside of Christ, one must be in Christ to be the new man.
In order to understand the significance of this on only has to look at Eph. 2:11-13 in which Paul
describes the condition of those of the old man. In it he states that they are without God and more
importantly, they are still in the WORLD. What a sad condition for one to find themselves in, yet
those who are outside of Christ find themselves in this position.
3) Romans 8:1;
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after
the flesh, but after the Spirit."
In order not to be condemned, on must be in Christ Jesus. Those who are outside of Christ Jesus
are in the condition of condemnation.
4) Romans 3:24;
" Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"
The word redemption is translated from the Greek word "apolutrosis" which has the meaning
of "forgiveness and justification, redemption as the result of expiation, deliverance from the quilt
of sins." (Vines Expository Dictionary pg.935). This redemption is found in Christ Jesus and not
outside of Him. Therefore it is only those that find themselves in Christ Jesus have this blessing.
5) Colassians 1:13-14;
" Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of his dear
Son; In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"
From this text we find that it is only those who are in His dear Son who enjoy the forgiveness of sins.
Those who find themselves outside of His dear Son do not have the forgiveness of sins.
6) Ephesians 1:3;
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual
blessings in heavenly places in Christ:"
All spiritual blessing are only found in Christ. Every spiritual blessing we recieve are ours only
through our fellowship with Christ. Without that fellowship, there are no spiritual blessings. These
blessings would include those items that we have already mentioned. This is important for us to
understand in light of our discussion. If I am outside of Christ then I do not have fellowship with Him.
If I do not have fellowship with Him I cannot partake of the spiritual blessings that He offers, the
forgiveness of sins, salvation, hope, peace, etc... I am without God and I am still apart of the world.
From this short list we find that it is essential for one to be in Christ Jesus. It is only the person who finds themselves in Christ Jesus that can actually say that they have these things we have mentioned. Those who are outside of Christ Jesus do not have these items. It is essential to be in Christ Jesus.
So the question must be asked at this time, "How does one get into Christ Jesus in order to have the items discussed?" Let us let the Word of God answer this question for us. Romans 6:3-4;
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised form the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
I chose this verse because every resource that I have investigated this (personal contact or via documentation) understands that Paul is speaking of the water baptism. I refer you to the Southern Baptist Convention web site that proclaims this to be true. It states,
"Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.
The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.
Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12." http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
This being the case, we find our answer, we must be baptized into Christ in order to get into Christ and enjoy all the spiritual blessings that are found their. Baptism is not just symbolic in nature, it is much, much more. It is the act that puts one into Christ Jesus where one finds the forgiveness of sins, redemption, salvation, to become that new creature, etc... Galatians 3:27 confirms this when Paul wrote, "For as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ." To be baptized into is a transition into some one or something. Paul identifies that someone, it is Christ. One must pass through the waters of baptism to get into Christ.
So what does this mean for those that accept the "faith only" doctrine? It means that it is false. If faith only gave us all the spiritual blessings that are in Chris Jesus (no verse in scripture makes this statement) then Paul lied about how one gets into Christ Jesus. If Paul lied, then the Holy Spirit of God lied since He was the one that inspired Paul to write Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27. If the Holy Spirit lied to Paul then God is a liar and cannot be trusted. If fact, if this be true, Christianity is a false religion and should be abandoned for the lie that it is. Or could it be that those who profess this doctrine be wrong in their interpretation of scripture.
So this is my challenge, if all the items that have been discussed here are only found in Christ Jesus and baptism is the only way to get into Christ Jesus, can one have salvation, forgiveness of sins, redemption, (which are only found in Christ Jesus) without being baptized? Is baptism essential to salvation?
I would like to leave you with something that I found on a local website for your consideration. It comes from the First Baptist Church of Richmond Hill's web site under the title of "How to become a Christian".
http://www.richmondhill.org/about-fbc-richmond-hill/how-to-become-a-christian/
In it you will find the phrase;
"So, now you know the basic steps to become a Christian. As a result, if you desire God’s gift of eternal life and fellowship with Him, you are as close as a sincere act of faith".
I have questioned the wording of this statement since it flies in the face of those who profess salvation by faith only and have not had a response as to why it is their. I would declare that that act of faith is submission to baptism so that one may have the forgiveness of sins, redemption, salvation that is found only in Christ Jesus. Baptism in water puts us in Christ Jesus.
External Evidences For The Inspiration of the Bible
Thomas Bart Warren
February 2, 2011
There can be no question that the religion of Christianity is based upon
the Bible. Christians use the Bible as their guide to moral and virtuous
living, church organization, worship, and as their guide to heaven. Thus
it is indeed crucial that this book rise above and beyond mere human
production. It must be the very words of God.
The Bible makes very bold claims for itself as it does in fact profess to be from the mind of the
One True and Living God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21; Jeremiah 1:9; Malachi 1:1; et. al.).
But simply to claim inspiration does not make it so. Skeptics such as Voltaire and Ingersoll have
for centuries attacked the validity and genuineness of the book. The charge is often levied that
the Bible believer uses unsound and circular reasoning in their attempts to explain why they
adhere to the tenants and commands contained therein. As Geisler and Nix wrote:
The internal evidence of inspiration is mostly subjective in nature. It relates to what the
believer sees or senses in his experience with the Bible. With the possible exception of
the evidence from the unity of the Bible, the internal evidences are available only inside
Christianity…This is where the external evidence plays a crucial role. It provides
signposts indicating where the “inside” really is. It is public witness to something very
unusual, which serves to draw attention to the voice of God in Scripture. (195)
J. P. Moreland acknowledges that there is a three-fold test to determine whether or not a
document is historically reliable (134). First, the bibliographical test seeks to determine how
many manuscript copies we have of the document and how far removed they are in time from the
originals. The New Testament has a staggering quantity of manuscript attestation (135). Second,
the internal test asks whether the document itself claims to be actual history written by
eyewitnesses. The Bible certainly claims this (Luke 1:1-4). Third, the external test asks whether
material external to the document (i.e. archaeology or the writings of early church fathers, etc.)
confirms the reliability of the document (134-35). Thus it must be shown that belief in the Bible
as the infallible and inerrant Word of God is a rational concept and can be demonstrated via
evidence and proof outside of the Bible. The idea of being rational and logically defending one’s
faith is itself a biblical idea (1 Peter 3:15; Acts 17:1-4; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; et. al.).
The thesis of this paper is that one can prove that the Bible is the inspired Word of God by
examining and testing what is known as external evidences. The general argument formulated by
Thomas B. Warren will here be used to defend the claim of this paper:
1. If it is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C…
property Z (where the total situation involved in having such properties makes it
clear that the Bible is beyond mere human production) then the Bible is the word
of God.
2. It is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C…
property Z.
3. Therefore, the Bible is the word of God. (qtd. in West 17-18)
In dealing with these external evidences of inspiration, the scope of this paper will be limited to
what is commonly referred to as scientific foreknowledge and the relationship between
predictive prophecy and archeology. Each of these traits are recognized as being sufficient to
prove that the Bible is, as it claims, the word of God.
While it is conceded that the Bible is not a science textbook, it is maintained that any and all
references that are scientific in nature are completely accurate. In fact, this must be the case as
our contention is that the Bible is the inspired word of God and it makes the claim that God can
not lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). Concerning this topic, James Jauncey stated that, “the science
of the Bible is mostly in embryonic form. It was not the purpose of the writers to talk about
science as such, but only to elaborate to the extent to which it involved any questions on hand.
What they did say was accurate” (30). In fact, Jauncey boldly stated, “it can be said here that
there is nothing in science which is intrinsically opposed to even the most conservative view of
Biblical interpretation” (25).
What makes scientific foreknowledge such a powerful argument for the supernatural origin of
the Bible is the fact that mere mortals drawing upon the most advanced science of their ancient
times could not have produced such a book as this. Thus the specific argument advanced by
Shelly will here be used:
1. If the particular characteristics of the Bible’s treatment of science transcend mere
human invention, then the Bible is of divine origin.
2. The particular characteristics of the Bible’s treatment of science do transcend
mere human invention.
3. Therefore, the Bible is of divine origin. (What? 41)
When examining these cases of science in the Bible, if one were to isolate one or two by
themselves, the event and explanation may appear to be mere coincidence. But upon examination
of the whole body of evidence, there can be no other conclusion than that the information
contained therein is the result of supernatural direction.
As is often the case in scientific research, some test cases are stronger than are others. One of
the most often cited examples comes from Isaiah 40:22 which states, “It is He that sits above the
circle of the earth. . . .” Some will claim that Isaiah “made two points: (1) God is sovereign and ;
(2) the Earth is a sphere (khug). How could Isaiah have known either, unless God had revealed
them both?” (Thompson 229). This would be impressive indeed as Isaiah’s contemporaries
contended that the earth was flat and it was not until the fifteenth century that the earth was held
to be spherical on a wide or popular level. Yet others claim that there is no scientific
foreknowledge to be found in this verse. Commenting on Isaiah 40:22, Jack W. Sears stated that
“it is unwise, to put it mildly, to attempt to read into the Scriptures things not intended, just to
make them conform to some ‘fact’ or theory of science” (qtd. in West 192). Thus this verse from
the prophet, while intriguing, would not appear to be one about which to be dogmatic, though the
position grows stronger when further evidence is considered.
Later in Isaiah chapter 40 and verse 31, we read, “But those who wait on the LORD shall
renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles, they shall run, and not be weary;
and they shall walk, and not faint.” The obvious import and spiritual truth imparted by the
passage is that strength and aid would be provided to those who fear and follow God. But why is
there an illustration about eagles included here? How does such a statement have application in
this context? Edward F. Blick suggests:
In addition to the obvious spiritual truth, this Scripture implies a unique quality in the
eagle’s wings of being able to fly without becoming weary. That is exactly what we
discovered in the wind tunnels of the University of Oklahoma while conducting
aerodynamic research on birds during the spring of 1971. The eagle has six slotted
feathers at the tip of each wing which curve upward in gliding flight. Our wind tunnel
measurements indicated these upward-curved slotted-tip feathers reduce the size of the
vortex emanating from each wing tip. This in turn reduces the drag on the wings, thus
allowing the eagle to soar large distances in air currents without the need of beating his
wings. Thus 2,700 years after the Scripture in Isaiah was written, science has stumbled
onto the same truth. (2-3)
Dr. Blick also sheds some scientific light upon Genesis 17:12 where God is recorded saying to
Abraham, “He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your
generations. . . .” It is only within the last one hundred years that medical science has discovered
three important factors. One, circumcision greatly reduces the occurrence of penile cancer in
males and cancer of the cervix in their female counterparts. Two, it is now known that vitamin K
is a vital blood-clotting element. Further, we now know that this vitamin is not manufactured in
the baby’s intestinal tract until sometime between the fifth to seventh day after birth. Third, we
know that the element prothrombin is also vital to clotting of the blood. When a baby is born, the
amount of prothrombin in his blood is much lower than normal and even dips lower by day three.
But by day eight, the prothrombin levels skyrocket to a level ten percent above normal, only to
level off by day nine (4). Thus one observes from the concentration of vitamin K and
prothrombin that the perfect day to perform a circumcision is the eighth day. This was a fact not
widely recognized by the medical community until the 1940s, but was recorded in the Bible
nearly four thousand years ago.
God promised Israel, “. . .If you diligently heed the voice of the LORD your God and do what
is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of
these diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals
you” (Exodus 15:26). Thus, if they would follow His directives and ordinances they would not
fall victim to the plagues and sicknesses that afflicted the ancient Egyptians. Following is a small
sample of some of the commands they were given that greatly exceeded the scientific and
medical knowledge of the day. First, ancient people had no idea that invisible and deadly
microscopic germs could exist on eating and cooking utensils. In light of this, God commanded,
“But the earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken. And if it is boiled in a bronze pot, it
shall be both scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:28). Thus all broken pottery was to be
discarded because the cracks could contain harmful germs and metal pots should be disinfected
by being scoured and rinsed in water. According to Grant Jeffery, “these instructions certainly
saved hundreds of thousands of Jews from infections over the centuries at a time when the rest of
the world didn’t even know that germs existed. How could Moses have known of the dangers of
infectious germs in cooking and eating utensils thousands of years ago unless God actually
inspired him to write these words?” (144).
Second, in passages like Numbers 19:14-17 and Leviticus 15:13, God provided the Israelites
with wise and beneficial laws to protect their health including advanced sanitation laws to
prevent the spread of infections. It was actually during the twentieth century that doctors finally
realized the immense value of sterilization and cleaning with running water. Before this, either
no washing of hands or instruments was done, or at best a bowl of water (which would obviously
only trap the germs) was used (Jeffrey 145-47).
Third, in Deuteronomy 23:12-14, Moses instructed the Israelites to bury human waste outside
of the camp. Today this seems like an obvious choice, but the common course of action in the
time of Moses was to dump waste products in any convenient place. This disturbing and
disgusting practice carried on for centuries. During the Middle Ages, on two different occasions,
Europe had a plague ravage the continent and kill more than thirteen million people total. This
was the result of Europeans routinely dumping waste products of all kinds out their windows and
into the public streets. As decomposition began to take place, a variety of harmful
microorganisms began to flourish (Thompson 237).
In this area of scientific foreknowledge, many more items could be investigated at length, but
just a few more shall be noted. Even though the water cycle (rain, collection, evaporation) was
not fully understood until the sixteenth century, the Bible seems to teach just that in passages like
Ecclesiastes 1:7; 11:3 and Amos 9:6 (Boyd 58-62). God told Noah to build an ark that measured
300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in width, and 30 cubits in height (Genesis 6:15). This ratio of 30
to 5 to 3 is the perfect set of dimensions for a huge boat built for seaworthiness. The same ratio
continues to be used today as it can not be improved upon (Thompson 232-33). The Bible is even
in harmony with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The First Law states that
neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. Genesis 2.1 states that “the heavens and
the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” The Second Law states that as time progresses,
things become more disorderly and everything is becoming less available for work. This seems
to harmonize with the biblical teaching that the Earth is wearing out in passages such as Hebrews
1:11; Isaiah 51:6; and Psalm 102:26 (Blick 11-16).
From the evidence that has been examined, the premise that “the particular characteristics of
the Bible’s treatment of science do transcend mere human invention” has been proven to be true.
Therefore our conclusion follows that the Bible is of divine origin.
The second and final part of the study is dedicated to predictive prophecy as found in the Bible
and its ability to be confirmed via archeology and history. Similar to that which was stated
above, a skeptic would claim that it would be circular and unsound reasoning to claim belief in
fulfilled prophecies simply because the same book notes both the prediction and the fulfillment.
Thus one must turn to outside sources, or external evidences, to confirm that the prophecies of
the Bible have been legitimately fulfilled.
The Bible itself has placed great emphasis on predictive prophecy as proof of the truthfulness
of the things revealed therein. Note the challenge issued to the false prophets and gods of
Babylon, “Let them bring them forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former
things, what they were, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare
to us things for to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you
are gods . . .” (Isaiah 41:22-23). The clear implication is this: only God can accurately predict the
future.
According to Shelly, true prophecy must be evaluated in light of three definite criteria. First,
the prophecy must deal with nations, people and events that are remote enough in time as to be
incapable of guesswork or logical deduction. Second, the prophecy can not be a matter of vague
generalizations but must involve minutely detailed predictions. Third, the fulfillment of the
prophecy must be clear and unequivocal (“Biblical Prophecy” 30). In other words, for the
predictive prophecy to be legitimate there must be sufficient time lapse between prediction and
fulfillment, the prediction must be specific, and there must be one hundred percent accurate
fulfillment with the impossibility of fraud.
A second specific argument advanced by Shelly will here be used:
1. All predictive prophecies which can be explained solely on the basis of
supernatural influence and which were clearly made known before their
corresponding fulfillments are evidences (proofs) which verify the claims of the
religion involved.
2. All predictive prophecies recorded in the Bible are predictive prophecies which
can be explained solely on the basis of supernatural influence and which were
made known before their corresponding fulfillments.
3. Therefore, all predictive prophecies recorded in the Bible are evidences (proofs)
which verify the claims of the religion involved. (What? 20)
One of the most famous biblical prophecies that can be checked against archeology and history
is that of the fall of the city of Tyre. This was a Phoenician city located on the coast of the
Mediterranean Sea about one hundred miles from Jerusalem and about thirty miles from the Sea
of Galilee. It had two superior harbors: one on the mainland, where the major portion of the city
was built, and a second on an island located less than one mile from the coast (Petrillo 389).
Trevor Major lists seven precise predictive prophecies that were made in Ezekiel 26 and the
corresponding archeological and historical evidence that proves fulfillment:
1. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon shall destroy the mainland portion of Tyre (Ezekiel
26:7-8). Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Tyre for thirteen years beginning in 585-
6 BC.
2. Other nations are to participate in the fulfillment of the prophecy (Ezekiel 26:3).
Alexander the Great besieged and captured the port in 332 BC, and Ptolemies,
Seleucids, Romans, and Muslim Arabs all had their turn at rule.
3. The city is to be flattened, like the top of a rock (Ezekiel 26:4, 14). Alexander
used the building materials of the mainland city, and any other rocks and soil in
the immediate vicinity, to build a causeway to the island.
4. It is to become a place for the spreading of nets (Ezekiel 26:5, 14). The waters
around Tyre were renowned in ancient times for their fishing. This was all the
fame the city could claim after its complete decimation by Alexander.
5. Its stones and timbers are to be laid in the sea (Ezekiel 26:12). As noted in
number 3 above, the building of the causeway came from the remains of the
mainland city.
6. Other cities are to fear greatly at the fall of Tyre (Ezekiel 26:15-18). Many
fortified cities in the region capitulated to Alexander after they saw the genius and
relative ease with which he captured Tyre.
7. The city will not be inhabited or rebuilt (Ezekiel 26:20-21). Alexander sold
almost all of Tyre’s inhabitants into slavery, and the city forever lost its
importance on the world stage. (95)
Peter Stoner and Robert Newman calculated the mathematical probabilities for these seven
predictions. The chance that all seven would prove to be correct is 1 in 75,000,000 (79).
Considering the divine judgment upon Tyre and the accuracy of Ezekiel’s prophecy, this is a
historical event that can be explained solely on the basis of supernatural influence.
Other examples will here only be quickly mentioned. At the time that Babylon was considered
to be the world’s richest and greatest city, Isaiah prophesied that it would become desolate
(Isaiah 13:17-22). As predicted, the Medes under the leadership of Cyrus conquered the city in
539 BC (Free 203). Further, Isaiah predicted more than one hundred and fifty years before his
birth that Cyrus would be the king of Persia (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). Approximately one fifty years
after the preaching of Jonah, Zephaniah 2:13-15 records the prediction that Nineveh will be
destroyed for their great wickedness. As predicted, the combined forces of the Babylonians and
the Medes came against Nineveh in 612 BC and completely destroyed it (Free 187).
The remaining focus will be centered upon Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is replete with
what is known as messianic prophecies and the New Testament appears to record their
fulfillment. For example, it was said that the Messiah would be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15;
Galatians 4:4), of the seed of Abraham (Genesis 22:18; Luke 3.34), of the tribe of Judah
(Genesis 49:10; Hebrews 7:14), of the royal lineage of David (2 Samuel 7:12; Luke 1.32), in
Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2.1), to the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:22). We
further see from study of the Bible that the Messiah would have a forerunner to announce His
arrival (Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:1-3), that He would appear during the days of Roman rule
(Daniel 2:44; Luke 2:41), while Judah still possessed her own king (Genesis 49:10; Matthew
2:22). All of this is simply the tip of the proverbial iceberg as some Bible scholars estimate that
there are well over three hundred prophecies in the Old Testament about Christ (McCord 332).
But how much of this information can be verified via archeology and history? There have been
many who have questioned whether or not the man Jesus ever actually existed (Barnett 16). This
is a most vital question and concept because if Christ was not real, then all Christians are wasting
their time and actually should be pitied by other men (1 Corinthians 15:19).
There are many ancient sources that confirm the existence of the man Jesus Christ. For
example, an individual by the name of Tacitus (AD 55-120) who was considered to be a fine
historian wrote of the events surrounding the AD 64 fire in Rome. According to Gary Habermas,
we learn several important facts from the record of Tacitus. One, Christians were named for their
founder, Christus (from the Latin). Two, this Christus was put to death by the Roman procurator
Pontius Pilatus. Three, these events took place during the reign of emperor Tiberius (AD 14-37).
Four, the death of Christus ended the “superstition” for a short time. Five, the “superstition”
broke out once again, especially in Judaea, where the teaching had its origin. Six, the followers
of Christus took his doctrine to Rome. Seven, when the fire destroyed a large part of the city,
Nero (54-68) placed the blame on the Christians who lived in Rome. Eight, this group was hated
for their abominations. Nine, they were arrested and convicted for “hatred of mankind.” Ten, the
Christians were also mocked, tortured, nailed to crosses, and burned to death. Eleven, because of
the cruel treatment they received, many had compassion on the Christians which led Tacitus to
conclude that such punishments were not for the public good but were simply to “glut one man’s
cruelty” (189). Thus from this one historian, we have the Gospel accounts of Jesus being
confirmed as well as the beginning of the New Testament church as recorded in the book of
Acts.
There are other Roman sources as well as Jewish sources that can be consulted to confirm the
existence of Christ and thus His fulfillment of prophecy. Among them are Pliney who wrote his
letters from Bithynia around AD 112, Suetonius who wrote from Rome around AD 49, the
Jewish prayer known as the Benediction Twelve, Rabbi Eliezer, and Josephus (Barnett 17-28;
Strobel 73-109). All of these writings preserved in history confirm the story of Jesus and His
loyal followers. In reference to biblical prophecy and those who lived before the fulfillment of
the predictions, Henry Morris wrote, “From our perspective today, we can see them more clearly
since they have already been fulfilled, providing strong evidence of the divine inspiration of the
Bible. We today, therefore, have less excuse for ignoring God’s Word than they did and so must
be judged more severely if we do so” (52).
It is clear from our investigation that the Bible contains certain properties where the total
situation involved in having such properties makes it clear that the Bible is beyond mere human
production. Specifically it has been demonstrated that the particular characteristics of the Bible’s
treatment of science do transcend mere human invention and all predictive prophecies recorded
in the Bible are predictive prophecies which can be explained solely on the basis of supernatural
influence and which were made known before their corresponding fulfillments. Therefore, the
Bible must be what it claims to be, which is the inspired word of God.
Works Cited:
Barnett, Paul. Is the New Testament Reliable? Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986.
Blick, Edward F. Correlation of the Bible and Science. Hollywood: Haven of Rest, 1976.
Boyd, Robert T. Boyd’s Handbook of Practical Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997.
Bromling, Brad T. “Prophetic Precision.” Reason & Revelation. 14.12 (1994): 96.
Bruce, F.F. Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.
Burrows, Millar. What Mean These Stones? New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941.
Charlesworth, James H. and Walter P. Weaver. What has Archaeology to do with Faith? Philadelphia: Trinity,
1992.
Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos. Archeology and Bible History. rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. rev. ed. Chicago: Moody, 1986.
Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.
www.warrenapologeticscenter.org 7
Jauncey, James H. Science Returns to God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961.
Jeffrey, Grant R. The Signature of God. Toronto: Frontier Research, 1996.
Lewis, Jack P. Archaeology and the Bible. Abilene: Biblical Research, 1975.
Major, Trevor. “The Fall of Tyre.” Reason & Revelation. 16.12 (1996): 93-95.
Manly Jr., Basil. The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration. rev. ed. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.
McCord, Hugo. “Internal Evidences of the Bible’s Inspiration.” The Holy Scriptures: 1979 Ft. Worth Lectures. ed.
William Winkler. Ft. Worth: Winkler, 1979.
McGarvey, J.W. Evidences of Christianity. Cincinnati: Standard, 1886.
Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Morris, Henry. Defending the Faith. Green Forest: Master, 1999.
Muncaster, Ralph O. Can Archaeology Prove the New Testament? Eugene: Harvest House, 2000.
Petrillo, Dennis. Ezekiel: Truth for Today Commentary. Searcy: Resource, 2004.
Rice, John R. Our God-Breathed Book – The Bible. Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1969.
Shelly, Rubel. “Biblical Prophecy as an Evidence of Inspiration.” The Spiritual Sword. 1.2 (1970): 29-32.
- - -. What Shall We Do With The Bible? Jonesboro: National Christian Press, 1975.
Smith, Gerald B. “Testing the Doctrine of Inspiration.” The Biblical World. 36.3 (1910): 152-65.
Smith, J.M. Powis. “Why I Believe in the Bible.” The Biblical World. 54.6 (1920): 568-70.
Stoner, Peter W. and Robert C. Newman. Science Speaks. Chicago: Moody, 1976.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Tacitus. The Annals. 109 <http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html>
Thompson, Bert. Rock-Solid Faith: How to Build It. Montgomery: Apologetics Press, 2000.
Varghese, Roy Abraham. ed. The Intellectuals Speak Out About God. Chicago: Gateway, 1984.
- - -. The Wonder of the World. Fountain Hills: Tyr, 2003.
West, W. B., Bill Flatt and Thomas B. Warren. eds. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible: 1971 Bible
Lectureship of Harding Graduate School of Religion. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1971.
Witmer, John A. “The Biblical Evidence for the Verbal-Plenary Inspiration of the Bible.” Bibliotheca sacra. 121
(1954): 243-52.
www.warrenapologeticscenter.org 8
February 2, 2011
There can be no question that the religion of Christianity is based upon
the Bible. Christians use the Bible as their guide to moral and virtuous
living, church organization, worship, and as their guide to heaven. Thus
it is indeed crucial that this book rise above and beyond mere human
production. It must be the very words of God.
The Bible makes very bold claims for itself as it does in fact profess to be from the mind of the
One True and Living God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21; Jeremiah 1:9; Malachi 1:1; et. al.).
But simply to claim inspiration does not make it so. Skeptics such as Voltaire and Ingersoll have
for centuries attacked the validity and genuineness of the book. The charge is often levied that
the Bible believer uses unsound and circular reasoning in their attempts to explain why they
adhere to the tenants and commands contained therein. As Geisler and Nix wrote:
The internal evidence of inspiration is mostly subjective in nature. It relates to what the
believer sees or senses in his experience with the Bible. With the possible exception of
the evidence from the unity of the Bible, the internal evidences are available only inside
Christianity…This is where the external evidence plays a crucial role. It provides
signposts indicating where the “inside” really is. It is public witness to something very
unusual, which serves to draw attention to the voice of God in Scripture. (195)
J. P. Moreland acknowledges that there is a three-fold test to determine whether or not a
document is historically reliable (134). First, the bibliographical test seeks to determine how
many manuscript copies we have of the document and how far removed they are in time from the
originals. The New Testament has a staggering quantity of manuscript attestation (135). Second,
the internal test asks whether the document itself claims to be actual history written by
eyewitnesses. The Bible certainly claims this (Luke 1:1-4). Third, the external test asks whether
material external to the document (i.e. archaeology or the writings of early church fathers, etc.)
confirms the reliability of the document (134-35). Thus it must be shown that belief in the Bible
as the infallible and inerrant Word of God is a rational concept and can be demonstrated via
evidence and proof outside of the Bible. The idea of being rational and logically defending one’s
faith is itself a biblical idea (1 Peter 3:15; Acts 17:1-4; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; et. al.).
The thesis of this paper is that one can prove that the Bible is the inspired Word of God by
examining and testing what is known as external evidences. The general argument formulated by
Thomas B. Warren will here be used to defend the claim of this paper:
1. If it is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C…
property Z (where the total situation involved in having such properties makes it
clear that the Bible is beyond mere human production) then the Bible is the word
of God.
2. It is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C…
property Z.
3. Therefore, the Bible is the word of God. (qtd. in West 17-18)
In dealing with these external evidences of inspiration, the scope of this paper will be limited to
what is commonly referred to as scientific foreknowledge and the relationship between
predictive prophecy and archeology. Each of these traits are recognized as being sufficient to
prove that the Bible is, as it claims, the word of God.
While it is conceded that the Bible is not a science textbook, it is maintained that any and all
references that are scientific in nature are completely accurate. In fact, this must be the case as
our contention is that the Bible is the inspired word of God and it makes the claim that God can
not lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). Concerning this topic, James Jauncey stated that, “the science
of the Bible is mostly in embryonic form. It was not the purpose of the writers to talk about
science as such, but only to elaborate to the extent to which it involved any questions on hand.
What they did say was accurate” (30). In fact, Jauncey boldly stated, “it can be said here that
there is nothing in science which is intrinsically opposed to even the most conservative view of
Biblical interpretation” (25).
What makes scientific foreknowledge such a powerful argument for the supernatural origin of
the Bible is the fact that mere mortals drawing upon the most advanced science of their ancient
times could not have produced such a book as this. Thus the specific argument advanced by
Shelly will here be used:
1. If the particular characteristics of the Bible’s treatment of science transcend mere
human invention, then the Bible is of divine origin.
2. The particular characteristics of the Bible’s treatment of science do transcend
mere human invention.
3. Therefore, the Bible is of divine origin. (What? 41)
When examining these cases of science in the Bible, if one were to isolate one or two by
themselves, the event and explanation may appear to be mere coincidence. But upon examination
of the whole body of evidence, there can be no other conclusion than that the information
contained therein is the result of supernatural direction.
As is often the case in scientific research, some test cases are stronger than are others. One of
the most often cited examples comes from Isaiah 40:22 which states, “It is He that sits above the
circle of the earth. . . .” Some will claim that Isaiah “made two points: (1) God is sovereign and ;
(2) the Earth is a sphere (khug). How could Isaiah have known either, unless God had revealed
them both?” (Thompson 229). This would be impressive indeed as Isaiah’s contemporaries
contended that the earth was flat and it was not until the fifteenth century that the earth was held
to be spherical on a wide or popular level. Yet others claim that there is no scientific
foreknowledge to be found in this verse. Commenting on Isaiah 40:22, Jack W. Sears stated that
“it is unwise, to put it mildly, to attempt to read into the Scriptures things not intended, just to
make them conform to some ‘fact’ or theory of science” (qtd. in West 192). Thus this verse from
the prophet, while intriguing, would not appear to be one about which to be dogmatic, though the
position grows stronger when further evidence is considered.
Later in Isaiah chapter 40 and verse 31, we read, “But those who wait on the LORD shall
renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles, they shall run, and not be weary;
and they shall walk, and not faint.” The obvious import and spiritual truth imparted by the
passage is that strength and aid would be provided to those who fear and follow God. But why is
there an illustration about eagles included here? How does such a statement have application in
this context? Edward F. Blick suggests:
In addition to the obvious spiritual truth, this Scripture implies a unique quality in the
eagle’s wings of being able to fly without becoming weary. That is exactly what we
discovered in the wind tunnels of the University of Oklahoma while conducting
aerodynamic research on birds during the spring of 1971. The eagle has six slotted
feathers at the tip of each wing which curve upward in gliding flight. Our wind tunnel
measurements indicated these upward-curved slotted-tip feathers reduce the size of the
vortex emanating from each wing tip. This in turn reduces the drag on the wings, thus
allowing the eagle to soar large distances in air currents without the need of beating his
wings. Thus 2,700 years after the Scripture in Isaiah was written, science has stumbled
onto the same truth. (2-3)
Dr. Blick also sheds some scientific light upon Genesis 17:12 where God is recorded saying to
Abraham, “He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your
generations. . . .” It is only within the last one hundred years that medical science has discovered
three important factors. One, circumcision greatly reduces the occurrence of penile cancer in
males and cancer of the cervix in their female counterparts. Two, it is now known that vitamin K
is a vital blood-clotting element. Further, we now know that this vitamin is not manufactured in
the baby’s intestinal tract until sometime between the fifth to seventh day after birth. Third, we
know that the element prothrombin is also vital to clotting of the blood. When a baby is born, the
amount of prothrombin in his blood is much lower than normal and even dips lower by day three.
But by day eight, the prothrombin levels skyrocket to a level ten percent above normal, only to
level off by day nine (4). Thus one observes from the concentration of vitamin K and
prothrombin that the perfect day to perform a circumcision is the eighth day. This was a fact not
widely recognized by the medical community until the 1940s, but was recorded in the Bible
nearly four thousand years ago.
God promised Israel, “. . .If you diligently heed the voice of the LORD your God and do what
is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of
these diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals
you” (Exodus 15:26). Thus, if they would follow His directives and ordinances they would not
fall victim to the plagues and sicknesses that afflicted the ancient Egyptians. Following is a small
sample of some of the commands they were given that greatly exceeded the scientific and
medical knowledge of the day. First, ancient people had no idea that invisible and deadly
microscopic germs could exist on eating and cooking utensils. In light of this, God commanded,
“But the earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken. And if it is boiled in a bronze pot, it
shall be both scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:28). Thus all broken pottery was to be
discarded because the cracks could contain harmful germs and metal pots should be disinfected
by being scoured and rinsed in water. According to Grant Jeffery, “these instructions certainly
saved hundreds of thousands of Jews from infections over the centuries at a time when the rest of
the world didn’t even know that germs existed. How could Moses have known of the dangers of
infectious germs in cooking and eating utensils thousands of years ago unless God actually
inspired him to write these words?” (144).
Second, in passages like Numbers 19:14-17 and Leviticus 15:13, God provided the Israelites
with wise and beneficial laws to protect their health including advanced sanitation laws to
prevent the spread of infections. It was actually during the twentieth century that doctors finally
realized the immense value of sterilization and cleaning with running water. Before this, either
no washing of hands or instruments was done, or at best a bowl of water (which would obviously
only trap the germs) was used (Jeffrey 145-47).
Third, in Deuteronomy 23:12-14, Moses instructed the Israelites to bury human waste outside
of the camp. Today this seems like an obvious choice, but the common course of action in the
time of Moses was to dump waste products in any convenient place. This disturbing and
disgusting practice carried on for centuries. During the Middle Ages, on two different occasions,
Europe had a plague ravage the continent and kill more than thirteen million people total. This
was the result of Europeans routinely dumping waste products of all kinds out their windows and
into the public streets. As decomposition began to take place, a variety of harmful
microorganisms began to flourish (Thompson 237).
In this area of scientific foreknowledge, many more items could be investigated at length, but
just a few more shall be noted. Even though the water cycle (rain, collection, evaporation) was
not fully understood until the sixteenth century, the Bible seems to teach just that in passages like
Ecclesiastes 1:7; 11:3 and Amos 9:6 (Boyd 58-62). God told Noah to build an ark that measured
300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in width, and 30 cubits in height (Genesis 6:15). This ratio of 30
to 5 to 3 is the perfect set of dimensions for a huge boat built for seaworthiness. The same ratio
continues to be used today as it can not be improved upon (Thompson 232-33). The Bible is even
in harmony with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The First Law states that
neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. Genesis 2.1 states that “the heavens and
the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” The Second Law states that as time progresses,
things become more disorderly and everything is becoming less available for work. This seems
to harmonize with the biblical teaching that the Earth is wearing out in passages such as Hebrews
1:11; Isaiah 51:6; and Psalm 102:26 (Blick 11-16).
From the evidence that has been examined, the premise that “the particular characteristics of
the Bible’s treatment of science do transcend mere human invention” has been proven to be true.
Therefore our conclusion follows that the Bible is of divine origin.
The second and final part of the study is dedicated to predictive prophecy as found in the Bible
and its ability to be confirmed via archeology and history. Similar to that which was stated
above, a skeptic would claim that it would be circular and unsound reasoning to claim belief in
fulfilled prophecies simply because the same book notes both the prediction and the fulfillment.
Thus one must turn to outside sources, or external evidences, to confirm that the prophecies of
the Bible have been legitimately fulfilled.
The Bible itself has placed great emphasis on predictive prophecy as proof of the truthfulness
of the things revealed therein. Note the challenge issued to the false prophets and gods of
Babylon, “Let them bring them forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former
things, what they were, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare
to us things for to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you
are gods . . .” (Isaiah 41:22-23). The clear implication is this: only God can accurately predict the
future.
According to Shelly, true prophecy must be evaluated in light of three definite criteria. First,
the prophecy must deal with nations, people and events that are remote enough in time as to be
incapable of guesswork or logical deduction. Second, the prophecy can not be a matter of vague
generalizations but must involve minutely detailed predictions. Third, the fulfillment of the
prophecy must be clear and unequivocal (“Biblical Prophecy” 30). In other words, for the
predictive prophecy to be legitimate there must be sufficient time lapse between prediction and
fulfillment, the prediction must be specific, and there must be one hundred percent accurate
fulfillment with the impossibility of fraud.
A second specific argument advanced by Shelly will here be used:
1. All predictive prophecies which can be explained solely on the basis of
supernatural influence and which were clearly made known before their
corresponding fulfillments are evidences (proofs) which verify the claims of the
religion involved.
2. All predictive prophecies recorded in the Bible are predictive prophecies which
can be explained solely on the basis of supernatural influence and which were
made known before their corresponding fulfillments.
3. Therefore, all predictive prophecies recorded in the Bible are evidences (proofs)
which verify the claims of the religion involved. (What? 20)
One of the most famous biblical prophecies that can be checked against archeology and history
is that of the fall of the city of Tyre. This was a Phoenician city located on the coast of the
Mediterranean Sea about one hundred miles from Jerusalem and about thirty miles from the Sea
of Galilee. It had two superior harbors: one on the mainland, where the major portion of the city
was built, and a second on an island located less than one mile from the coast (Petrillo 389).
Trevor Major lists seven precise predictive prophecies that were made in Ezekiel 26 and the
corresponding archeological and historical evidence that proves fulfillment:
1. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon shall destroy the mainland portion of Tyre (Ezekiel
26:7-8). Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Tyre for thirteen years beginning in 585-
6 BC.
2. Other nations are to participate in the fulfillment of the prophecy (Ezekiel 26:3).
Alexander the Great besieged and captured the port in 332 BC, and Ptolemies,
Seleucids, Romans, and Muslim Arabs all had their turn at rule.
3. The city is to be flattened, like the top of a rock (Ezekiel 26:4, 14). Alexander
used the building materials of the mainland city, and any other rocks and soil in
the immediate vicinity, to build a causeway to the island.
4. It is to become a place for the spreading of nets (Ezekiel 26:5, 14). The waters
around Tyre were renowned in ancient times for their fishing. This was all the
fame the city could claim after its complete decimation by Alexander.
5. Its stones and timbers are to be laid in the sea (Ezekiel 26:12). As noted in
number 3 above, the building of the causeway came from the remains of the
mainland city.
6. Other cities are to fear greatly at the fall of Tyre (Ezekiel 26:15-18). Many
fortified cities in the region capitulated to Alexander after they saw the genius and
relative ease with which he captured Tyre.
7. The city will not be inhabited or rebuilt (Ezekiel 26:20-21). Alexander sold
almost all of Tyre’s inhabitants into slavery, and the city forever lost its
importance on the world stage. (95)
Peter Stoner and Robert Newman calculated the mathematical probabilities for these seven
predictions. The chance that all seven would prove to be correct is 1 in 75,000,000 (79).
Considering the divine judgment upon Tyre and the accuracy of Ezekiel’s prophecy, this is a
historical event that can be explained solely on the basis of supernatural influence.
Other examples will here only be quickly mentioned. At the time that Babylon was considered
to be the world’s richest and greatest city, Isaiah prophesied that it would become desolate
(Isaiah 13:17-22). As predicted, the Medes under the leadership of Cyrus conquered the city in
539 BC (Free 203). Further, Isaiah predicted more than one hundred and fifty years before his
birth that Cyrus would be the king of Persia (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). Approximately one fifty years
after the preaching of Jonah, Zephaniah 2:13-15 records the prediction that Nineveh will be
destroyed for their great wickedness. As predicted, the combined forces of the Babylonians and
the Medes came against Nineveh in 612 BC and completely destroyed it (Free 187).
The remaining focus will be centered upon Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is replete with
what is known as messianic prophecies and the New Testament appears to record their
fulfillment. For example, it was said that the Messiah would be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15;
Galatians 4:4), of the seed of Abraham (Genesis 22:18; Luke 3.34), of the tribe of Judah
(Genesis 49:10; Hebrews 7:14), of the royal lineage of David (2 Samuel 7:12; Luke 1.32), in
Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2.1), to the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:22). We
further see from study of the Bible that the Messiah would have a forerunner to announce His
arrival (Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:1-3), that He would appear during the days of Roman rule
(Daniel 2:44; Luke 2:41), while Judah still possessed her own king (Genesis 49:10; Matthew
2:22). All of this is simply the tip of the proverbial iceberg as some Bible scholars estimate that
there are well over three hundred prophecies in the Old Testament about Christ (McCord 332).
But how much of this information can be verified via archeology and history? There have been
many who have questioned whether or not the man Jesus ever actually existed (Barnett 16). This
is a most vital question and concept because if Christ was not real, then all Christians are wasting
their time and actually should be pitied by other men (1 Corinthians 15:19).
There are many ancient sources that confirm the existence of the man Jesus Christ. For
example, an individual by the name of Tacitus (AD 55-120) who was considered to be a fine
historian wrote of the events surrounding the AD 64 fire in Rome. According to Gary Habermas,
we learn several important facts from the record of Tacitus. One, Christians were named for their
founder, Christus (from the Latin). Two, this Christus was put to death by the Roman procurator
Pontius Pilatus. Three, these events took place during the reign of emperor Tiberius (AD 14-37).
Four, the death of Christus ended the “superstition” for a short time. Five, the “superstition”
broke out once again, especially in Judaea, where the teaching had its origin. Six, the followers
of Christus took his doctrine to Rome. Seven, when the fire destroyed a large part of the city,
Nero (54-68) placed the blame on the Christians who lived in Rome. Eight, this group was hated
for their abominations. Nine, they were arrested and convicted for “hatred of mankind.” Ten, the
Christians were also mocked, tortured, nailed to crosses, and burned to death. Eleven, because of
the cruel treatment they received, many had compassion on the Christians which led Tacitus to
conclude that such punishments were not for the public good but were simply to “glut one man’s
cruelty” (189). Thus from this one historian, we have the Gospel accounts of Jesus being
confirmed as well as the beginning of the New Testament church as recorded in the book of
Acts.
There are other Roman sources as well as Jewish sources that can be consulted to confirm the
existence of Christ and thus His fulfillment of prophecy. Among them are Pliney who wrote his
letters from Bithynia around AD 112, Suetonius who wrote from Rome around AD 49, the
Jewish prayer known as the Benediction Twelve, Rabbi Eliezer, and Josephus (Barnett 17-28;
Strobel 73-109). All of these writings preserved in history confirm the story of Jesus and His
loyal followers. In reference to biblical prophecy and those who lived before the fulfillment of
the predictions, Henry Morris wrote, “From our perspective today, we can see them more clearly
since they have already been fulfilled, providing strong evidence of the divine inspiration of the
Bible. We today, therefore, have less excuse for ignoring God’s Word than they did and so must
be judged more severely if we do so” (52).
It is clear from our investigation that the Bible contains certain properties where the total
situation involved in having such properties makes it clear that the Bible is beyond mere human
production. Specifically it has been demonstrated that the particular characteristics of the Bible’s
treatment of science do transcend mere human invention and all predictive prophecies recorded
in the Bible are predictive prophecies which can be explained solely on the basis of supernatural
influence and which were made known before their corresponding fulfillments. Therefore, the
Bible must be what it claims to be, which is the inspired word of God.
Works Cited:
Barnett, Paul. Is the New Testament Reliable? Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986.
Blick, Edward F. Correlation of the Bible and Science. Hollywood: Haven of Rest, 1976.
Boyd, Robert T. Boyd’s Handbook of Practical Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997.
Bromling, Brad T. “Prophetic Precision.” Reason & Revelation. 14.12 (1994): 96.
Bruce, F.F. Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.
Burrows, Millar. What Mean These Stones? New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941.
Charlesworth, James H. and Walter P. Weaver. What has Archaeology to do with Faith? Philadelphia: Trinity,
1992.
Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos. Archeology and Bible History. rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. rev. ed. Chicago: Moody, 1986.
Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.
www.warrenapologeticscenter.org 7
Jauncey, James H. Science Returns to God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961.
Jeffrey, Grant R. The Signature of God. Toronto: Frontier Research, 1996.
Lewis, Jack P. Archaeology and the Bible. Abilene: Biblical Research, 1975.
Major, Trevor. “The Fall of Tyre.” Reason & Revelation. 16.12 (1996): 93-95.
Manly Jr., Basil. The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration. rev. ed. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.
McCord, Hugo. “Internal Evidences of the Bible’s Inspiration.” The Holy Scriptures: 1979 Ft. Worth Lectures. ed.
William Winkler. Ft. Worth: Winkler, 1979.
McGarvey, J.W. Evidences of Christianity. Cincinnati: Standard, 1886.
Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Morris, Henry. Defending the Faith. Green Forest: Master, 1999.
Muncaster, Ralph O. Can Archaeology Prove the New Testament? Eugene: Harvest House, 2000.
Petrillo, Dennis. Ezekiel: Truth for Today Commentary. Searcy: Resource, 2004.
Rice, John R. Our God-Breathed Book – The Bible. Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1969.
Shelly, Rubel. “Biblical Prophecy as an Evidence of Inspiration.” The Spiritual Sword. 1.2 (1970): 29-32.
- - -. What Shall We Do With The Bible? Jonesboro: National Christian Press, 1975.
Smith, Gerald B. “Testing the Doctrine of Inspiration.” The Biblical World. 36.3 (1910): 152-65.
Smith, J.M. Powis. “Why I Believe in the Bible.” The Biblical World. 54.6 (1920): 568-70.
Stoner, Peter W. and Robert C. Newman. Science Speaks. Chicago: Moody, 1976.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Tacitus. The Annals. 109 <http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html>
Thompson, Bert. Rock-Solid Faith: How to Build It. Montgomery: Apologetics Press, 2000.
Varghese, Roy Abraham. ed. The Intellectuals Speak Out About God. Chicago: Gateway, 1984.
- - -. The Wonder of the World. Fountain Hills: Tyr, 2003.
West, W. B., Bill Flatt and Thomas B. Warren. eds. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible: 1971 Bible
Lectureship of Harding Graduate School of Religion. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1971.
Witmer, John A. “The Biblical Evidence for the Verbal-Plenary Inspiration of the Bible.” Bibliotheca sacra. 121
(1954): 243-52.
www.warrenapologeticscenter.org 8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)