# Existence of a god to the God of the Bible



## MSH (Mar 10, 2017)

What are some of the better arguments to offer someone who is open to the idea of there being a god, to demonstrating that the god the Bible claims as God is indeed the true God? I'd imagine at the heart of this is an argument for Scripture being what it claims to be- the revealed Word of God. 

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## earl40 (Mar 10, 2017)

I do not waste much time trying to do something God has done, so far as proving His existence.  Now concerning your question of The God of scripture I love speaking of the resurrection and how this proves Jesus is The God of the bible...revealed. My all time favorite "argument" is that men do not lay down their life for what they _know_ is _not_ true. Many people mistake with that argument with the one that says many people lay down their life for what they believe is true. A subtle difference that speaks to the faith of those in the past who were not crazy and died for what they saw with their own eyes.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 10, 2017)

Why not simply begin your side of the conversation by admitting that you are not able _in honesty _to advocate for "god-in-general," whatever that might mean. But that you are happy to advocate for the object of your faith: the one, true and living God, who has revealed himself in the Christian Scriptures, OT & NT.

In other words, you are not prepared to *demote *your robust understanding of God to some kind of _subspecies _of divinity, which (if you are correct in your own view) is a contradiction in terms.

It would be akin to the belief that there are different "orders" of humanity--"racism" is an actual example of such belief. And that someone can "reduce" our perceptions of human nature to a "common denominator" that is something less than according full humanity to certain members of our species; notwithstanding that we might _share _elements of our "lesser nature" with them.

Many today have wisely abandoned the "racist" exhibition of this attitude. And why? Because there aren't subspecies of humanity. No matter the tendency of some fellow humans to maintain some alternate perception, we deny the notion; and we base that denial of various lines of evidence. Evidence that we say is the best; we have the best explanation.

But still, there are those who maintain that "racist" view. We can compare that attitude to a "religious conviction." So, imagine the disconnect in the mind of the person seeking to *reason* that "racist" individual to the view that someone he regards as a member of a lower subspecies is no such thing. How poor the reasoning is, to think he must first get that "racist" to concede shared _lower elements of human nature _between them.

Is it *wise *to grant an "evolutionary" scale of being, from which to try thereafter to raise the "racist" to a superior conviction--one that repudiates the very basis of the argument? No, but the very idea of _subspecies humans _has to be attacked in full, right from the very first word of the argument.​
As Christians, we cannot rightly argue that there is a basal "deistic" concept, out of which is formed both higher and lower, or side-by-side and equal conceptions of god. The premises granted in the beginning for such an argument must (finally) be repudiated, if the true conception of God will be embraced after all that work. That some people are truly converted by this method is no thanks to the method. Because at the end of the stair-step progress, the ladder is kicked away.

So, there is no point in arguing for "god-in-general," or "religion-in-general." In the Christian conception, there is no such thing. We inherit this attitude from the OT Israelite conception, where there was no local-deity in fact for the other nations, but only idols and the One True God.

Argue for God, himself. Argue for a fully-formed concept, that does not partake with the essence of idols. Man has more in connection with the monkeys, who are another species (here I do not advocate any evolutionist notion), than God has with the idols.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## MSH (Mar 11, 2017)

Thanks earl40 and Contra_Mundum! 

What would be some of the better arguments to show that the Bible is how the true God has reveled Himself? Why is it different from any other holy book? 

Thanks! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2017)

WCF 1:5 reads in part, "...the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God;..."

But the Confession goes on to say that ultimately, acceptance of the Word of God as "what it really is" (1Ths.2:13) is no surrender to logical or rhetorical force, but a Spiritual matter, "...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."

If someone thinks he's hunting for the best religion, he's quite likely fooling himself. Because, whatever he finds that "fits" with his predilections is sure to be false. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1Cor.2:14). But that is exactly what the natural man will gravitate to, according to the Bible.

I would be happy to agree with any Mslim who confidently asserted that his religion was the "ideal religion, most perfectly suited to the human condition of any on earth." Islm is a profoundly human religion: sensual, excusing of human sin, legalistic, exalting of human strength (leading to extreme chauvinism); the name really says it all: _submission._ Do what you're told; and tell those below you what to do. Islmic religion accepts as essential what Christianity identifies as broken features of fallen human nature.

Of course, Christianity also has to contest with those who would deform it; either from within, or by those who set up some alternative outside its bounds. Rome brings in the treadmill of works-into-grace sacramentalism; they also establish rival authorities to Scripture in their unwritten tradition and exclusive interpretive claims. Mormonism postures itself as a "second-go" for the Christian religion, JSmith inventing a whole new holy-book to supercede the OT/NT. JWs "retranslate" the NT to conform it to their opinions.

In all such cases (and examples can be multiplied) the key element is _prophecy. _The prophet is the divine spokesman. We can appreciate the need also for human spokesmen (priests) and leaders (kings), but the primary issue is _who speaks for God, _or the Ultimate reality? Some people actually believe that God is just "broadcasting" on the whole *spectrum *of religion, and people tune in wherever to receive more or less, some garbled bit of his revelation. Laying hold of some bit of something, they avow its "truth."

Take your friend to the Bible. Show him what it says. The Bible starts with the God/man relationship. The whole thing is about the reality of what it is (once perfect, soon broken) and how it is repaired. It is an historic story (tied to real history), therefore it cannot be reduced to even one man's genius. It is cosmic in scale, thereby showing that it is God's story of him being Savior, and not simply one human lifetime. It is centered on One figure, promised of old and entering into history in fulfillment. He wraps up all the prophecy and declares his programmatic Word.

Christians now understand him to continue overseeing his kingdom advance--a kingdom not of this world. This world and all its lifetimes could not contain it. The key thing is that he came speaking and fulfilling, but instead of agreeing with the contradictory (to men's inclinations, from beneath, Jn.8:23) Word out of heaven above, man opposed and rejected him. This is the perfect illustration of man's innate perversity.

So, if your friend wishes to read the words of all the rival prophecies, the better to discern between them--that is his business. If he brings their rival claims to you, and asks you to help him judge them, that is an opportunity for you to identify the weakness of those claims. They are of two kinds: 1) in comparison to the truth of the Bible; and 2) internal inconsistencies.

What he really needs is not a clever mind, able to choose the best religious claims, the most truthful prophecies. He needs humility--of a sort only God can create within him--and a pitiful cry for mercy, for enlightenment from the God who does reveal himself, Heb.11:6.


----------



## rickclayfan (Mar 11, 2017)

I think Thomas Goodwin explains it well. Though reason and logic are helpful, they are insufficient to truly persuade; they are merely props and helps, but not foundations.



> _Works (The Unregenerate Man's Guiltiness Before God, in Respect of Sin and Punishment)_, vol. 10, p. 248
> 
> Because these common notions [i.e. the innate knowledge of God's existence] implanted in man's minds, though these sparks be much increased by addition of many reasons and arguments out of God's works and word, and made a great blaze, yet they are not of force to expel the contrary darkness that is in the heart....



He goes on to argue that it is by faith that one is truly persuaded of God's existence. Faith here is not a blind faith, but a subjective organ of vision.


> p. 249
> 
> So as suppose there had been no creature made but himself, no _vestigium _or footstep of God to be seen in anything, yet by faith immediately he would have known and apprehended him.... God intended faith to be, though not the sole yet the great and principal light and means to apprehend these things by, and only added the other as helps, to add some more weight to the balance, when faith had first cast it; that faith might give reason of things, he appointed the other as starlight, to accompany the greater light of faith.... All the light that is or can be added to the common notions in a man's natural estate, all the arguments that are brought into the mind out of God's word and works, are but as so many stars in a dark night. Though there be many of them, yet they dispel not the darkness till the light of faith come.




Here are some arguments that I find compelling to support my belief in the existence of the Christian God.
1. The Bible is pure of superstition. Superstition has pervaded the mind of man since his fall, especially so during the times it was written. Yet, it is free of superstition. It is interesting how later when the church fell into superstition under Catholicism, the cause of it was not Scripture but human nature. Human nature is inclined to superstition, yet the Bible is untainted by the tendencies of that nature (thereby demonstrating that it was not just a human book).
2. The Bible is a highly advanced book. Unfathomable depth is compressed in relatively short books.
3. Astonishing wisdom is observed in the redemptive story of Scripture. I am a student of science and enjoy learning about bodily processes, such as metabolism. You observe great interdependence of various complex metabolic processes. It is an intricate system that is deeply intertwined and yet so harmonious. The fascination I obtain from learning of these complicated processes is parallel to the fascination I get learning of the wisdom of God demonstrated in wisdom—His wisdom in the incarnation of Christ, in the covenantal structures, in the salvation of man, etc. You can see the fingerprints of the same incomprehensibly wise being in nature and in the word.
4. The unity of Scripture is also very compelling. You see various genres, stories, and elements that come together to portray Christ. You have authors of various times, living in different cultures, and possessing different personalities and yet writing a grand library so unified that only one single ultimate author could have been behind it all.


----------



## MSH (Mar 11, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> WCF 1:5 reads in part, "...the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God;..."
> 
> But the Confession goes on to say that ultimately, acceptance of the Word of God as "what it really is" (1Ths.2:13) is no surrender to logical or rhetorical force, but a Spiritual matter, "...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."
> 
> ...



Another home run! Your posts always help me think more deeply about the issue at hand. Thank you sir for your time in contributing to this forum! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MSH (Mar 11, 2017)

rickclayfan said:


> I think Thomas Goodwin explains it well. Though reason and logic are helpful, they are insufficient to truly persuade; they are merely props and helps, but not foundations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great stuff Ricky clay fan! Thank you for your input! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

