# Certainty Bound up in God's Revelation



## Craig (Apr 4, 2009)

This is a blog post I wrote the other day. I've seen a number of Christians say what I have written about below...what pushed me over the edge was seeing a man say this that is seeking a teaching/ministry position within my parents' church:

Consider this quote from a professing believer:



> Think about free will. If science could actually prove the existence of God
> empirically then Free choice would be compromised for a large portion of
> humanity.



_Note: The absurdity inherent to this statement will be largely ignored. For example, the question of why free choice is compromised for only a large portion of society, but not the whole, will be left unaddressed. Also left out of this critique will be a discussion of how it follows that free-will exists when a metaphysical truth remains unproven, but ceases once the truth has been established. If we had a control group testing for free choice and it is demonstrated that free choice is exercised by each within the control group, would free-will then be invalidated by virtue of it having been established? Further demonstrations of absurdity could go on._

Initially I would like to say I agree that, in one sense, God cannot be "proven" as an end result of the scientific method. If he were provable merely as a conclusion, then he would be finite and limited. After all, it would mean God is identical with the world if the Divine Essence could be measured, poked and prodded.

The comment does seem to assert more than this, a far more sweeping generalization stating that God is not apprehended via the natural order. That is to say, God's created order is not revelation. This is an accepted principle from many Christians when they attempt to defend the faith, so I don't want to seem to be picking on this fellow. I've seen the same comment verbatim from other believers. When we do this, at best we are reasoning in a bi-polar fashion, at worst we are displaying the heart of unfaithfulness when we read our bibles one way only to then evaluate the world apart the biblical lens afforded us by the Triune God.

Compare his words from the quote above with what the Apostle Paul says:



> Romans 1:18-20
> 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…



Seems to me that Paul has a crazy notion that God is not only provable by the natural order, but is completely obvious through it. This Christian’s position would wind up affirming (logically) the notion that the unbeliever does have an excuse before God, whereas Paul says the unbeliever is condemned by the revelation found in the natural order.

Now, let’s go ahead and consider this professing believer’s crazy assumption that the inductive method is the most reliable method for acquiring truth:



> 2 Peter 1:16-19
> 16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 And we also have the more sure prophetic, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts



Strangely, the Apostle Peter seems to think revelation from God is more sure than any evidence found in the material world. I wonder why he thinks certainty is built on God’s revelation and not ideas that belong to the Enlightenment? Apparently he wasn't aware of Hume or Kant...oh well.

It may not seem obvious, but the professing believer in question begins with an unbelieving presupposition: namely, that the natural order is not evidence for God (that it isn’t revelational). The New Testament says otherwise as Paul says God shows all men His invisible qualities through the natural order. Certainty can only be found in God's revelation. When we agree with unbelieving notions of certainty built upon a closed, natural metaphysics, fideism will always be the consequence if we should try to remain Christians.

Some will wonder at my saying such. Fideism is the natural consequence of an autonomous view of the natural order. It makes perfect sense. If you first assume that the natural order is not revelational, then what is the logical consequence? A natural order that is an existence to itself. With an epistemology tied up in the autonomous world, and not the transcendent God, you are trapped in that very world. Consider the words of Herman Bavinck:

The true religion which shall satisfy our mind and heart, our conscience and our will, must be one that does not shut us up in, but lifts us high above the world; in the midst of time it must impart to us eternity; in the midst of death give us life; in the midst of the stream of change place us on the immovable rock of salvation. This is the reason why transcendence, supranaturalism, revelation, are essential to all religion. [1]

An epistemology that is not built upon the transcendent God, but is bound up in a tactile world, is one where there is no room for God. We do not live and move and have our being in the God unbounded by the temporal order. Instead, we live, move, and have our being in a closed natural order. Having shown God the exit, the only way to cross the impossible wall back to Him is by way of a radical leap of faith.

[1] The Philosophy of Revelation, Herman Bavinck

Taken from HERE.


----------

