04.01. INESCAPABLE REVELATION

Ultimate Questions 1. INESCAPABLE REVELATION INCOMPREHENSIBLE NONSENSE In his essay, "The Ethics of Belief," W. K. Clifford writes, "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." To many people, this often quoted statement appears to express the essence of good sense and rationality; however, in what follows we will show that this statement is in fact naïve and foolish.

First, we must correctly understand Clifford’s assertion by noting its universality. To say that the principle applies "always" and "everywhere" indicates that it transcends cultures and eras, and to say that it applies to "anyone" and "anything" eliminates any exception. Therefore, the proposed principle applies to every belief without exception. The immediate problem is that the principle fails to justify itself. What evidence do we have that, "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence"? The principle itself is asserted to be a true belief, and thus must satisfy the requirements that it proposes. Unless we have sufficient evidence to say that we must have sufficient evidence to believe anything, the statement self-destructs. In addition, what does Clifford mean by the word "wrong"? He cannot mean factually wrong, since one may believe in something that is factually correct, even if by accident, without having sufficient evidence for the belief. Since his essay discusses the "ethics of belief," we should understand that by "wrong," he means morally wrong. That is, he is saying that it is always morally wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence. But if he means that it is morally wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence, then we must inquire as to the source of his definition of morality, and whether there is sufficient evidence for him to adopt such a definition. Then, unless his definition of morality is absolute and universal, by what authority does he impose this morality on everyone?

What about the word "evidence"? What is Clifford’s definition of evidence, and by what authority does he use and impose such a definition on the rest of humanity? People disagree as to what constitutes evidence to support a belief. During the debate between Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein,1 a question from the audience addressed to Stein asked, "What for you personally would constitute adequate evidence for God’s existence?" Dr. Stein replied:

If that podium suddenly rose into the air, five feet, stay there for a minute, and then drop right down again, I would say that that was evidence of the supernatural, because that would violate everything that we know about the laws of physics and chemistry, assuming there wasn’t an engine under there, or a wire attached to it, to make those obvious exclusions. That would be evidence for a supernatural, violation of the laws . . . or maybe we would call it a miracle, right in front of your eyes. That would be evidence I would accept. Any kind of a supernatural being putting in an appearance, and doing miracles that could not be staged magic would also be evidence that I would accept.

Really? Stranger things have happened than the unexplained levitation of physical objects. Atheists do not call them miracles, but consistent with their presuppositions, they assume these to be natural events explainable by natural causes. Even if they cannot immediately discover the natural causes to these events, they continue to assume that future research would uncover them. According to them, what primitive people believed to be supernatural events, scientists can now explain by natural causes - in the atheist’s worldview, miracles are ruled out from the start.

Stein’s worldview would reject the appearance of a supernatural being as evidence for God or the supernatural, since his presuppositions exclude the existence of such beings; rather, every event is explained on the assumption that there are no such beings. Therefore, all supernatural apparitions are relegated to the hallucinations of the poor deluded victims. Dr. Stein’s answer was not only amateurish, but it was a lie. Jesus says, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

What one regards as conclusive proof seems irrelevant to another. On the basis of Clifford’s statement, one must have sufficient evidence to show that a given piece of evidence is relevant to the claim under examination. Of course, the evidence that endorses the evidence must also be supported by evidence showing that it is relevant. Furthermore, Clifford says that we must believe nothing based on "insufficient" evidence, so if we ignore the irresolvable infinite regress just mentioned, we still have to define what type or amount of evidence is sufficient, which of course, we must also prove by prior sufficient evidence. But if "sufficient" has not yet been defined, and substantiated by previous sufficient evidence - also undefined and without support from previous and sufficient evidence - on Clifford’s principle we cannot accept the evidence that supports his definition of "sufficient" in his principle.

If I prefer to believe that there is a pink unicorn in my backyard, by what authority can Clifford forbid me? By his own authority? By imposing his principle on my epistemology? But I reject his principle. What then can he do? Unless Clifford can justify his principle, I can just as easily say, "It is right always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything without sufficient evidence" - and I indeed would not have sufficient evidence to justify this claim! On the other hand, Jesus says that the word of God is truth (John 17:17). Since God is the ultimate moral authority, he has the exclusive right to define right and wrong, and since he demands that we believe the truth, which is his word, it becomes morally right to believe the Scripture and morally wrong to disbelieve it. Further, he can and he does impose his precepts and commands on everyone, and to resist him is to risk eternal damnation. Thus he has the right to demand belief in the truth, and he has the power to enforce this demand. Christianity is justified by God’s authority, and no authority is prior or higher than him. On my worldview, God Almighty enforces the epistemological principle that he prescribes, but Clifford could merely wish that we accept his self-defeating principle.2

What is the nature of relevant and acceptable evidence? Is it rationalistic or empirical? If it is rationalistic, how do we know it is not arbitrary? What evidence do we have that evidence should be rationalistic? And what kind of evidence would be legitimate to show us that evidence should be rationalistic? If evidence is empirical, it is also inductive, and if it is inductive, then for Clifford to prove his principle, he must use it to verify every possible proposition conceivable by an omniscient mind in order for him to assert it without fallacy. But if he has not shown that his principle is correct by his own principle, then how can he verify any proposition by the same principle? Thus Clifford’s principle destroys itself by generating a viciously circular logical loop.

Therefore, even before appealing to biblical authority, we have shown that Clifford’s principle fails to be the essence of rationality and sound judgment. Rather, it is meaningless; it is utter nonsense. In contrast, the revelational epistemology of Christianity accepts the propositions infallibly given by the almighty omniscient God. No other religion or philosophy can legitimately make the same claim, not even Islam. Contrary to what some people think, Islam’s concept of God is very different from Christianity’s concept of God. In fact, Islam’s concept of God is such that, if one draws out its necessary implications, would make God unknowable. As one writer notes, "If they think at all deeply, they find themselves absolutely unable to know God . . . Thus Islam leads to Agnosticism."3 Of course, non-Christians do not think deeply. In any case, if Islam’s concept of God renders God unknowable, then they could not have any concept of God in the first place, and unless this point is refuted, this alone shows that Islam is self-contradictory, and thus self-destructs.4 Other religions affirm a finite god or gods. Besides pointing out that the polytheistic gods often argue and fight among themselves in the relevant literature, how do these finite gods know what they know? They face the same problem that Clifford fails to answer.

Only the Christian conception of God, as revealed by God himself in Scripture, is consistent with a God that possesses all knowledge, and at the same time makes knowledge possible for man. In God dwells "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3). Since God has all knowledge, he requires no one greater - there is no one greater - to justify his knowledge. His absolute sovereignty implies that he wills what he knows, that he knows what he wills, and that there can be no error in his knowledge.5 At the same time, "the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever" in the words of Scripture (Deuteronomy 29:29), and so we have knowledge as well. God has all knowledge - his knowledge consists of what he wills - and our knowledge consists of what he wills to reveal. On the other hand, since non-Christian religions and philosophies cannot produce an adequate and defensible - not to say infallible - epistemology, on the basis of non-Christian thought, there can be no knowledge at all. If non-Christian systems of thought cannot provide a foundation for knowledge - if they cannot know anything - then they cannot even begin or produce any content. If they cannot begin or have any content, then they can pose no challenge to Christianity. Without an adequate and defensible - and even infallible - epistemology, it remains that no intelligible proposition can be uttered on the basis of non-Christian worldviews, let alone objections against the Christian faith.

Some people may misconstrue what has been said so far to mean that Christianity rejects the use of evidence, or that Christianity has no evidence to support its claims. But this is not what we mean; instead, what we have shown is that someone like Clifford cannot make an intelligible and coherent challenge against Christianity on the basis of reasoning from evidence. He may fail to defend the principle by which he seeks to guide the use of evidence. He may have a definition for evidence, but fails to defend such a definition. Or, he may fail to define evidence altogether. When a non-Christian says that he rejects Christianity because it has insufficient evidence in its favor, he does not know what he is saying; his objection is unintelligible. Likewise, when he demands evidence for the Christian faith, he does not know what he is asking. On the basis of his worldview, his demand - and indeed, every statement that he makes - is complete nonsense.

Nevertheless, a study of classical or evidential apologetics will show that, even on the basis of non-Christian presuppositions, Christianity is the superior worldview.6 That is, even if we assume the principles of verification assumed by many unbelievers, the Christian faith will still triumph in debate.

Now, since all non-Christian first principles are unjustified and false, when the Christian argues for his faith based on these presuppositions, he is only arguing ad hominem. By ad hominem, we do not refer to the fallacy of irrelevant personal attack. Instead, this form of ad hominem argument takes premises espoused by the opponent, and validly deduces from them conclusions contradictory to his position, or conclusions that would be embarrassing or repulsive to him.7 Using the non-Christian’s own premises, the Christian apologist deduces conclusions that favor the biblical worldview and that refute the nonbiblical worldview.

However, since all non-Christian premises are unjustified and false, ad hominem arguments based on these premises do not prove the Christian’s case, but only destroy his opponent’s position. For example, although I have shown elsewhere that the presuppositions and methodologies of scientific investigations make it impossible to discover anything about reality in the first place,8 there are indeed scientific arguments in favor of the Christian position that serve to silence and refute the unbeliever’s objections against the biblical worldview. On the basis of scientific presuppositions, the Christian may successfully argue that it is more rational than not to affirm that the universe was made by an intelligent omnipotent creator. Even so, since science itself is always tentative and fails to discover any truth, on the basis of science, no one can construct a conclusive positive case for Christianity or any other worldview. That is, even if science shows that Christianity is true, there is no way to prove that science itself can discover truth; rather, logical fallacies pervade all scientific procedures, such that science can never discover the truth about anything at all. That is, if scientific plausibility is made the standard of truth, then we can show that Christianity is superior, but scientific plausibility should not be made the standard of truth.

We will consider another example of how the use of evidence vindicates biblical claims, although non-Christian presuppositions cannot even define evidence or make sense of it. Historian C. Behan McCullagh writes that the best explanation to a body of historical facts must satisfy the following six requirements:

1. It must have great explanatory scope.

2. It must have great explanatory power.

3. It must be plausible.

4. It is not ad hoc or contrived.

5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs.

6. It far outstrips any of its rival theories in meeting the previous conditions.9

William Lane Craig argues that the proposition, "God raised Jesus from the dead," meets the above conditions.10 The details of his argument are not relevant here. If his argument is successful, it would seem to vindicate biblical claims concerning the resurrection of Christ, and refute the unbeliever’s objections. However, we rightly wonder whether these tests are reliable, and whether an explanation that satisfies these conditions is in fact true. In the first place, by what authority does McCullagh list and impose these tests upon all historical explanations?

Based on these tests, Craig’s argument cannot be considered a conclusive proof for the resurrection of Christ, because these tests themselves have not been conclusively justified. However, if Craig’s argument indeed successfully argues for the resurrection of Christ relative to these tests, his argument is at least an ad hominem argument that refutes all objections against the resurrection of Christ on the basis of these non-biblical principles. Thus on the basis of the historian’s principles, one cannot conclusively prove anything about a historical event, and this includes the resurrection. But at the same time, based on these same principles, there can be no good argument against the resurrection. Nevertheless, if Craig’s argument succeeds relative to these tests, then if one adopts these tests to be the standard of truth concerning historical matters, he should come to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead.

However, since all non-Christian worldviews (including all non-Christian religions and philosophies) are without any ultimate justification,11 there is really nothing to prevent them from collapsing into total skepticism, but one cannot remain a skeptic because skepticism self-destructs - it is self-contradictory to affirm that we know that we cannot know. Only Christianity rescues the intellect from complete skepticism; therefore, rather than depending on a non-Christian foundation to construct a case for the biblical worldview, the Christian adopts the revelational epistemology of biblical infallibility.

It is not that Christians avoid or reject the use of evidence - the problem is that the non-Christian theories of evidence are defective. Since the non-Christian theories of evidence are complete nonsense and render everything complete nonsense, when non-Christians demand evidence from the Christians, they do not know what they are asking. Unless one secures intelligibility by the proper presuppositions, his demand for evidence is nonsensical and cannot be logically understood.

INESCAPABLE REVELATION As I will explain in what follows, the biblical worldview does affirm the use of evidence. In fact, a necessary implication of biblical teaching is that every conceivable proposition is evidence that Christianity is true. In addition, once we adopt a correct theory of evidence, even the extremely tentative disciplines of science and history can lead only to conclusions consistent with the biblical system.

Now, Romans 1:18-20 says: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Some commentators take a more or less empirical interpretation of this passage, so they think it teaches that from observing the universe, man derives a knowledge of God and some of his attributes, and this evidence in creation renders his denial of God inexcusable. But to think that a blank mind can derive this information from observation is false. It is true that man ought to find evidence for the Christian God by observing nature; however, thinking itself is impossible without the preconditions of intelligibility. Since the only preconditions that preserve intelligibility are the biblical presuppositions, it is untrue that a blank mind can, through empirical methods, derive information about God (or anything at all) from the universe. For empirical data to be intelligible - if empirical data can be intelligible at all - one must presuppose biblical first principles. Paul says that God has built into every human mind such principles, so that one ought to derive Christian conclusions from observing the universe. Man by nature possesses an innate knowledge of God, and it is only when this is presupposed that he may rightly interpret empirical information. This is not to say that reality is subjective, but that it is impossible to gain knowledge of reality in the first place without first adopting the Christian position in full. The point is that man already knows God before he observes the external world; otherwise, no knowledge could be derived from such observation.

Concerning our passage from Romans, Thomas R. Schreiner writes, "God has stitched into the fabric of the human mind his existence and power, so that they are instinctively recognized when one views the created world."12 This approximates our position; however, we are saying more than this - we are saying that the knowledge of God is present in the mind prior to any experience or observation of creation, so that no empirical data is ever required for one to recognize the innate propositions and thought categories given to him at birth. Charles Hodge, although somewhat of an empiricist, admits, "It is not of a mere external revelation of which the apostle is speaking, but of that evidence of the being and perfections of God which every man has in the constitution of his own nature, and in virtue of which he is competent to apprehend the manifestations of God in his works."13 Accordingly, the NLT translates, "For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts."

Even if grammatical arguments surrounding verse 19 are inconclusive,14 Romans 2:14-15 dispels all doubt that God has endowed man with innate knowledge about himself:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law,15 they are a law for themselves,16 even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

These two verses teach that man’s innate knowledge is specific. It is not only a general sense of the divine, or an instinctive propensity to worship; rather, this innate knowledge includes at least the basic moral code of the Christian Bible. Robert Haldane comments, "This natural light of the understanding is called the law written in the heart, because it is imprinted on the mind by the Author of creation, and is God’s work as much as the writing on the tables of stone."17 Therefore, although we may be unable to enumerate every proposition included in this innate knowledge, we know that it is detailed and specific enough to exclude all non-Christian worldviews and religions; only Christianity is compatible with it.

Romans 2:15 mentions "conscience" - contrary to some, we should make clear that it is not a part of the human being distinct from the mind or intellect. Anthropological trichotomy and popular preaching teach that the conscience is the voice of a non-intellectual "spirit" or "heart"; however, "spirit" and "heart" in Scripture are intellectual terms, and are very often synonymous with "mind." The verse says that the people’s consciences are at work when their thoughts are accusing or defending them. Therefore, conscience is a function of the mind, and not a separate and non-intellectual part of man.

J. I. Packer defines conscience as "the built-in power of our minds to pass moral judgments on ourselves, approving or disapproving our attitudes, actions, reactions, thoughts and plans, and telling us, if it disapproves of what we have done, that we ought to suffer for it."18 However, contrary to what some people teach, it is not true that one will always do the right thing if he listens to his conscience. This is because the conscience is merely a moral function of the mind, and not an infallible moral standard - Scripture is the only infallible moral standard. Paul writes that some people’s "consciences have been seared as with a hot iron" (1 Timothy 4:2). The conscience "may be misinformed, or conditioned to regard evil as good," and "may lead a person to view as sinful an action that God’s Word declares is not sinful."19

What the conscience approves is not necessarily good, and although it is not safe to violate one’s conscience, what it disapproves is not necessarily evil (Romans 14:1-2; Romans 14:23). Only God’s moral precepts as revealed in Scripture carry final authority for making moral judgments, and not a subjective evaluation based on this innate function of the mind. Nevertheless, as a person’s conscience is more informed and trained by the words of Scripture, it will become increasingly reliable in making moral decisions.

John Calvin mentions the innate knowledge of God in the mind of man in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Although the following comes from the translation by Battles, I also cite Beveridge’s translation in the footnotes where his rendering is helpful or preferred:

There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty. Ever renewing its memory, he repeatedly sheds fresh drops.20 Since, therefore, when one and all perceive that there is a God and that he is their Maker, they are condemned by their own testimony because they have failed to honor him and to consecrate their lives to his will. . .So deeply does the common conception occupy the minds of all, so tenaciously does it inhere in the hearts of all!21

. . .Men of sound judgment will always be sure that a sense of divinity which can never be effaced is engraved upon men’s minds. . .For the world. . .tries as far as it is able to cast away all knowledge of God, and by every means to corrupt the worship of him. I only say that though the stupid hardness in their minds, which the impious eagerly conjure up to reject God, wastes away, yet the sense of divinity, which they greatly wished to have extinguished, thrives and presently burgeons. From this we conclude that it is not a doctrine that must first be learned in school, but one of which each of us is master from his mother’s womb and which nature itself permits no one to forget, although many strive with every nerve to this end.22 (I, iii, 1 and 3)23 The mind of man is not born a tabula rasa - it is not a blank slate that is without any a priori information. Instead, every human being is born with an innate knowledge and awareness of God. The prerequisites for language acquisition, rational thought, and theological contemplation are inherent in the mind of man. Therefore, no one can think or speak without assuming and using biblical premises that provide the precondition of intelligibility, so that even objections against any aspect of Christianity must first presuppose the entire Christian worldview to be meaningful. But once we presuppose the entire Christian worldview, the force and substance of all objections vanish. No one can make sense of even false religions like Buddhism and Islam without first adopting the biblical presuppositions that allow logic, language, and ethics to be meaningful. It is necessary to presuppose Christianity, but since Christianity rules out other religions from the start, once we presuppose it, other worldviews cannot also be true. Without presupposing Christian premises, we cannot arrive at any truth or any knowledge, but then we cannot know that we can know nothing, and it cannot be true that nothing is true. Thus Christianity is a necessary precondition of intelligibility and knowledge; the whole Bible is true by necessity. This is the basis for the previously stated assertion that every conceivable proposition is evidence, not only for the existence of God, but for the truth of the whole Christian worldview. "Murder is wrong" is a proposition that lacks any authoritative justification unless an omniscient and almighty person has verbally expressed his forbiddance of such an act to creatures who bear his image of a rational mind, and then enforces such a command with a punishment that he considers appropriate, such as everlasting condemnation. Atheism and Mormonism have no basis from which to declare murder as morally reprehensible. On their presuppositions, they cannot even make the word wrong universally applicable. They cannot authoritatively define murder, nor can they authoritatively enforce any rules against the practice.

"Murder is wrong" finds rational justification only within the Christian worldview. Although many non-Christians also think that murder is wrong, if their non-Christian worldviews cannot lead to the conclusion that murder is wrong, and if only Christianity can produce such a conclusion, it can only mean that these non-Christians have presupposed Christianity in arriving at their conclusion. In addition, although "Murder is right" is false according to biblical presuppositions, the proposition itself is intelligible only within the biblical system, because outside of the Christian worldview it is impossible to define or justify the concepts of right and wrong, and any definition of murder. Of course, we are using murder only as an example, and the above really applies to every proposition, so that unbelievers in fact employ biblical presuppositions in every proposition they utter and in every action they perform. Therefore, contrary to the objection that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God or the truth of Christianity, the revelation of God is inescapable, because God has made the truth plain and specific (Romans 1:19).

However, unbelievers refuse to acknowledge or thank God, who has provided every human being with the precondition of intelligibility and knowledge. Paul condemns unbelievers for this when he writes: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. . .For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. . .they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God. (Romans 1:18; Romans 1:21; Romans 1:28) The problem has never been a lack of evidence, but the problem is that the unbelievers "suppress the truth" by their wickedness. They already know about God; the knowledge is so much a part of them that they cannot escape from it. However, because of their foolishness and wickedness, they refuse to admit that they have this knowledge. But although unbelievers vehemently deny God, they remain creatures made in his image, and therefore they must employ biblical premises in whatever they think or say. For the Christian, this fact provides the basis of an invincible strategy of argumentation, which we will further explore later. The evidence is present, but suppressed. Acts 14:17 says, "Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." What appear to be natural and ordinary events such as rain and harvest ought to remind man of what he knows about God, indelibly imprinted on his mind.

Although this knowledge about God is implicit in whatever he says and does, sometimes it more clearly breaks forth. Paul says to the Athenians that even the Greek poets wrote, "For in him we live and move and have our being," and "We are his offspring" (Acts 17:28). But if we are his creation, then how can we justify the worship of idols - that is, serving objects inferior than we? Accordingly, Paul says, "Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone - an image made by man’s design and skill" (v. 29).

Non-Christian worship is incompatible with the innate knowledge of God. What man knows in his mind is substantial and specific enough that it excludes all non-Christian forms of worship. Thus this innate knowledge does not only exclude atheism, but also Buddhism, Islam, and all other non-Christian religions and philosophies. The writings of these false religions and philosophies betray an innate knowledge of Christian presuppositions, but then they refuse to live up to what they know to be true. As Paul says: For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:21-23)

What then is the verdict? Since God’s revelation to man is inescapable, man’s suppression of this revelation is thus inexcusable: "Ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse" (Romans 1:20, NJB). The Greek says that these people have no apologia - no apologetic; their non-Christian positions are indefensible. One aspect of defending our faith involves demonstrating that the unbelievers have absolutely no defense for their own beliefs. Rather, we have caught them red-handed - they deny the Christian faith while continuing to use Christian presuppositions. This inexcusable suppression of truth and evidence leads to their inevitable damnation: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Romans 1:18). God’s wrath is being poured out against the reprobates even in this life, as God gives them over to a depraved mind: "Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done" (Romans 1:28). Their wickedness becomes worse and worse, and their sins become increasingly grotesque and unnatural. As examples, Paul mentions homosexuality and idolatry:

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:24-27) Paul also mentions other sins for which God will punish them with everlasting torment in hell:

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (Romans 1:29-31)

Unbelievers do not do these things in absolute ignorance, but Paul again emphasizes their innate knowledge of God in Romans 1:32 : "Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." They know what God requires, but refuse to acquiesce; moreover, they approve of those who rebel against him. This describes the unbelievers of our generation just as much as any other generation - not only do they defy God’s commands themselves, but they approve of others who do the same, so that they even support and encourage atheists, idolaters, homosexuals, abortionists, and all kinds of detestable and wicked people. In their hearts, they know about God and his commands. Just as God’s revelation to them is inescapable, their damnation is inevitable.

INVINCIBLE ARGUMENTATION

Before outlining a strategy of argumentation against all non-Christian systems of thought, we will first summarize what we have established so far. Although we have already repeated the basis themes several times, much of the above is new to many readers, and it would be helpful to provide additional repetitions and paraphrases before moving forward. So we will again summarize the Christian position.

God created man in his own image. This image consists not in his body or a nonintellectual "spirit," as the term is often mistakenly used; rather, the image of God refers to our rational mind, which is very limited compared to the mind of God, but it is nevertheless similarly structured. This not only separates man from the animals, but it also makes possible meaningful and even extensive verbal communication between God and man. A dog cannot understand the Ten Commandments or the doctrine of predestination.

Man’s mind is not born blank, to be filled with information gained from experience. Without a priori forms and categories already present in the mind, no empirical data can furnish knowledge to man.24 In any case, the Scripture teaches that man is born with an innate knowledge of God, so that apart from any experience, man knows something about God and something about the moral code that God has imposed upon all of humanity. This knowledge is specific and detailed enough to contradict and exclude all non-Christian systems of thought, and to demand the adoption of the complete Christian revelation.

Now, empirical investigations cannot teach man what he does not already know,25 but only the divine logos can convey information to man’s mind, in addition to the innate knowledge he possesses. However, although it is impossible to gain any knowledge by empirical means, man’s observation of nature can remind him about what he already knows about God. Therefore, observation of the universe does not add information to man’s mind; rather, it provides the occasion for one or both of two things to occur. First, observation stimulates the mind to recall what God has already placed into it. Second, observation stimulates the mind to intuit what the logos immediately conveys to it on the occasion of the observation, often about what the person is observing. In both cases, no information comes from the act of observation itself.

Although the innate knowledge in man is specific and detailed enough to exclude all non-Christian systems of thought, and to demand complete adherence to Christianity, it does not contain the entire biblical revelation. That is, it does not contain all the propositions in the Bible. It is enough to render sinful man culpable, but any information that God has placed in man’s mind and in creation is not a saving knowledge.26 This means that this knowledge is sufficient to condemn everyone, but not sufficient to save anyone. It is fully compatible and only compatible with the Christian faith, but it does not contain all the biblical propositions. As the Westminster Larger Catechism says, "The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but His Word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal Him unto men for their salvation."27 The "light of nature in man" here refers to the intellectual illumination or knowledge about God that he has placed in man’s mind.

Since the innate knowledge in man is insufficient for salvation, the doctrine of the necessity of Scripture naturally emerges. But a verbal revelation is necessary also because of the noetic effects of sin, that is, sin’s destructive effects on the mind. As Paul says, "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:21). Man remains the image of God after Adam’s fall; otherwise, he would no longer be human. Thus man still knows about God, but because his mind has been "darkened," he refuses to acknowledge and worship God.

Although it is inescapable that unbelievers implicitly acknowledge God and depend on scriptural premises in their speech and conduct, because of their foolish and wicked thinking, they refuse to explicitly glorify God and affirm Scripture; instead, they give credit to someone or something else. This provokes God to wrath, who then gives them up to increasing filthiness and darkness of mind, resulting in even greater sinfulness in them. Of course, in all of this, God exercises precise control over the mind of every individual, so that their rejection of Christianity has really been decreed by God: "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (Romans 9:18). On this theological basis, we will now construct a strategy for Christian argumentation.

Everyone has a worldview. A worldview consists of a network of interrelated propositions the sum of which forms "a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world."28 A given worldview may be called a "religion" or a "philosophy" because of its specific content, but it is nevertheless a worldview. Thus by worldview, we are referring to any religion, philosophy, or system of thought. Every worldview has a starting point or first principle from which the rest of the system is derived. Some people claim that a worldview can be a web of mutually dependent propositions without a first principle. However, this is impossible, because such a conception of a worldview in itself requires an epistemological justification in the first place, which would probably be its starting point. If this starting point lacks justification, then every proposition in the web lacks justification. The claim that they depend on one another would not help at all, but it only means that all of them would fall together. In a web of propositions, some propositions would be more central to the web, the destruction of which would destroy the propositions farther from the center. But even the most central claims require justification, and a worldview in which the propositions depend on one another in a way that lacks a first principle is in the final analysis exposed as having no justification at all. The claim that a worldview can be a web of mutually dependent propositions without the need of a first principle is really an attempt at hiding the fact that all of the propositions in such a web lack justification.

Therefore, it remains that every worldview requires a first principle or ultimate authority. Being first or ultimate, such a principle cannot be justified by any prior or greater authority; otherwise, it would not be the first or ultimate. This means that the first principle must possess the content to justify itself. For example, the proposition, "All knowledge comes from sense experience," fails to be a first principle on which a worldview can be constructed. This is because if all knowledge comes from sense experience, then this proposed first principle must also be known only by sense experience, but before justifying the principle, the reliability of sense experience has not yet been established. Thus the principle generates a vicious circle and self-destructs. It does not matter what can be validly deduced from such a principle - if the system cannot even begin, what follows from the principle is without justification.

It is also impossible to begin a worldview with a self-contradictory first principle. This is because contradictions are unintelligible and meaningless. The law of contradiction states that "A is not non-A," or that something cannot be true and not true at the same time and in the same sense. One must assume this law even in the attempt to reject it; otherwise, he cannot even legitimately distinguish between accepting and rejecting this law. But once he assumes it, he can no longer reject it, since he has already assumed it. If we say that truth can be contradictory, then we can also say that truth cannot be contradictory, since we have just abandoned the distinction between can and cannot. If we do not affirm the law of contradiction, then dogs are cats, elephants are rats, "See Jane run" can mean "I am married," and "I reject the law of contradiction" can mean "I affirm the law of contradiction," or even "I am a moron." If it is not true that "A is not non-A," anything can mean anything and nothing at the same time, and nothing is intelligible.

Since no legitimate first principle can contradict itself, we must reject epistemological skepticism, because it is self-contradictory. When used in the philosophical sense, a "skeptic" refers to one who maintains that "no knowledge is possible. . .or that there is not sufficient or adequate evidence to tell if any knowledge is possible."29 Both of these expressions of skepticism are self-contradictory - one claims to know that one can know nothing, and the other claims to know that there is inadequate evidence to know anything. If a person claims that one cannot know whether one can know anything, then he is still claiming to know that one cannot know whether one can know anything, and thus contradicts himself.

Self-contradictory first principles are untenable, and total skepticism is self-contradictory, and thus untenable. This means that an adequate first principle must guarantee the possibility of knowledge. But in addition to making knowledge merely possible, it must also yield an adequate amount of knowledge. For example, "My name is Vincent," may be a true statement, but it does not tell me anything about the origin of the universe, or whether stealing is immoral. It does not even give me the concept of "origin" or "morality." In addition, although it may be a true statement, how do I know that it is true in the first place? The proposition, "My name is Vincent," does not prove that my name is really Vincent; it does not justify itself. Therefore, a first principle is inadequate if it fails to provide information concerning epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics, and if it fails to justify itself. For at least the above reasons, a first principle cannot be based on induction, in which the premises do not inevitably lead to the conclusion, such as reasoning from particulars to universals. For example, no amount of empirical investigation can justify the proposition, "Every human being has a brain." To establish a general proposition like this by empirical means, a person must examine every human being who has ever lived, who is now living, and since this is a proposition about human beings, he must also examine every human being who will live in the future. Also, while he is examining the human beings in one part of the world, he must somehow ensure that the nature of man has not changed in those parts of the world whose human beings he has already studied. In addition, how does he prove that he knows a given human being has a brain just because he thinks he is looking at it? He must provide justification for the claim that he knows that something is there just because he thinks he is looking at it. But it would be viciously circular to say that he knows that something is there just because he thinks he is looking at it, because what he thinks he is looking at is really there, and he knows that it is really there because he thinks he is looking at it. Adding to the now already impossible situation, to prove this general proposition about human beings by empiricism and induction, he must also examine his own brain. On the basis of induction, it would be impossible to define a human being in the first place, since the concept of a human being is also a universal. In fact, on the basis of induction, one can never establish any proposition, let alone a universal proposition like, "All men are mortal."

Some people try to rescue induction by saying that, although it cannot conclusively establish any proposition, at least it can establish a proposition as probable. But this is both misleading and false. Probability refers to "the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes."30 Even if we grant that empirical and inductive methods can discover the numerator of the fraction (although I deny that they can do even this), to determine the denominator requires knowledge of a universal, and omniscience is often necessary to establish this.

Since probability consists of a numerator and a denominator, since the denominator is a universal, and since empirical and inductive methods cannot know universals, then to say that induction can arrive at "probable" knowledge is nonsense. Even apart from other insoluble problems inherent in empiricism itself, an epistemology that is based on an empirical principle cannot succeed, since empiricism necessarily depends on induction, and induction is always a formal fallacy. On the other hand, deduction produces conclusions that are guaranteed to be true if the premises are true and if the process of reasoning is valid. Although rationalism is less popular, it is a tremendous improvement over empiricism because it reasons using deduction instead of using empirical and inductive methods. But still, non-Christian rationalism cannot succeed in establishing a true and coherent worldview, and we will briefly examine some of its problems.

Rationalism selects a first principle (or as in geometry, begins with one or more axioms) and deduces the rest of the system from it. If the first principle is true and the process of deductive reasoning is valid, then the subsidiary propositions or theorems would all be necessarily true.

One main problem with non-revelational rationalism has to do with how it selects a first principle.31 If the proposed first principle is self-contradictory, then of course it must be rejected. But even if the proposed principle is not self-contradictory, it must also be self-justifying to avoid the charge of being arbitrary. Although I would say that only the biblical first principle is self-justifying, even if a proposed non-biblical first principle is self-consistent and self-justifying, it must be broad enough to make knowledge possible. It must contain enough content so that one may deduce an adequate worldview from it. Thus to posit the proposition, "My name is Vincent," as the first principle in a rationalistic worldview would result in the failures mentioned earlier.

Still another problem with non-revelational rationalism is that there are various schools of rationalistic systems, and their starting points are all different and incompatible. Which one is correct? A rationalistic worldview with an arbitrary first principle cannot succeed. Although the deductive rationalistic approach is far superior to the inductive empirical approach, it also results in failure. Since any time a person uses either approach, he inevitably introduces the problems of that approach into his worldview, a mixture of rationalism and empiricism would achieve nothing more than combining the fatal flaws of both methods. In addition, the propositions within a worldview must not contradict one another. For example, the first principle of a worldview must not produce a proposition in ethics that contradicts another proposition in science. By this point, having examined the conditions for an adequate first principle, the problems of empiricism and induction, and the problems of non-biblical rationalism, we have already effectively destroyed all existing and possible non-Christian systems. They simply cannot satisfy all the requirements that we have listed. This includes Islam, Mormonism, and other non-Christian religions that claim to be founded on revelation, since upon examination, one will see that their alleged revelations cannot meet the relevant conditions. Our strategy for biblical apologetics begins with the recognition that Christianity is the only deductive system with a self-consistent and self-justifying first principle that has been infallibly revealed by an all-powerful and all-knowing God, and that is broad enough to yield a sufficient number of propositions to construct a comprehensive and self-consistent worldview. Christianity is the only true worldview, and it alone makes knowledge possible. All other systems of thought collapse into philosophical skepticism, but since skepticism is self-contradictory, one cannot remain in such a position, and Christianity is the only way out of the epistemological abyss.

Since knowledge is impossible on the basis of non-Christian principles, but that it is possible only when we presuppose biblical infallibility as the first principle, this means that unbelievers are implicitly presupposing biblical premises whenever they affirm true propositions. Moreover, since biblical infallibility is not only the precondition of knowledge, but also the precondition of intelligibility, in reality the unbelievers are implicitly presupposing biblical premises even when they affirm false propositions. Otherwise, these propositions would be unintelligible, whether true or false, and it would be impossible to affirm any of them.

Even those unbelievers who have never learned the contents of Scripture can and do employ Christian presuppositions because God has implanted a minimal number of them in every person. All unbelievers implicitly presuppose biblical premises whenever they think or speak; however, they refuse to admit this even to themselves. Thus although they cannot escape their implicit knowledge about God, they deny this knowledge in their explicit philosophy.

Among other things, a biblical strategy of apologetics challenges the non-Christians to be consistent with their own worldviews and explicit presuppositions, demanding that they cease using biblical presuppositions in constructing their systems. Since they cannot do this, their intellectual edifices thus collapse into self-contradictory skepticism. The only way out is to repent of their foolishness and sinfulness, and be converted. This strategy of argumentation will succeed not only against secular philosophies, but also against all non-Christian religious worldviews. The question of how it is possible for a person to know anything is sufficient to demolish any non-Christian worldview. Unless a person affirms a comprehensive set of biblical doctrines covering every aspect of life and thought - that is, unless he affirms a complete biblical worldview - his beliefs can be easily exposed as unjustified, arbitrary, and inconsistent. The non-Christian may not even know what is the first principle or ultimate authority of his worldview, but the Christian apologist can search for it by asking the right questions. This will probably involve asking questions that are directly related to the topic under discussion, whatever that may be, and questions related to what the non-Christian thinks about the ultimate issues (such as metaphysics and epistemology), which will include questions about how the non-Christian attempts to justify his beliefs. The Christian who presses the non-Christian to satisfy all the necessary conditions of thought that we have listed earlier will discover that the non-Christian cannot even begin to answer any of the questions posed. On the other hand, the Christian who understands and affirms the complete biblical worldview will find that he can easily answer similar challenges in any field of inquiry. For example, science assumes that nature is uniform and stable, that experiments are repeatable, that physics and chemistry will be the same next year as they are today. But on what basis does science believe that? Empirical observation can never justify such a bold assumption. This is because even if one can gain knowledge by observation, which I deny, it remains that whenever one considers whether nature will remain the same in the future (whether the next day or the next year), it is always true that he has not yet observed the future.

Again, I deny that one can gain any knowledge by observation or experience, but even if we ignore this for now, it is futile to respond that we can affirm that nature is uniform and stable because the future has always been like the past in our previous experience. This is because the "future" in this reply is already in the past, and it is "future" only relative to something further in the past. Nothing in this reply addresses our future; however, the question about the uniformity of nature pertains to the future of our experience relative to our present, not yet observed by any human being.

Thus on what basis can empirical science guarantee that the future will be like the past? If it cannot make this guarantee, then the theories that scientists so diligently formulate and confidently employ in their calculations really have no direct and necessary contact with reality. Rather than having anything to do with reality, scientific theories are only principles that appear to be true relative to the scientist’s unjustified assumptions.

It may seem silly to question something like the uniformity of nature, but this is only because we have assumed it without justification all along. If it is so obviously true that nature is uniform and stable, and that it will stay the same way the next day or the next year, then why is it so difficult for scientists and philosophers to demonstrate this? The truth is that it is not obvious to them, and that by the principles of their worldviews, it is in fact impossible to prove. Yet they continue to illegitimately assume the uniformity of nature, among many other things, and then turn around to accuse Christians of being irrational. The problem is not that Christians are irrational, but that non-Christians are stupid and hypocritical. In any case, there is no conclusive argument for any of the many assumptions of science. At this point, some people may abandon certainty and respond that although by nonbiblical premises it is impossible to know that nature is uniform and stable, it is at least very probable that this is so. However, we have already discussed the problems with such a claim, that knowledge of probability requires conclusive knowledge of a universal, something that science, empiricism, or any non-biblical premise can never obtain. On the other hand, the Christian worldview alone provides the basis for affirming that nature is uniform and stable. As Genesis 8:22 says, "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." Of course, our opponent will then demand justification for this claim, and this eventually, if not immediately, pushes the discussion back to our first principle or ultimate authority. This is not a problem for us at all, since we have already been talking about how to argue for biblical infallibility as the only adequate first principle. Proceeding from the basis that the whole content of Scripture is our infallible first principle, God tells us through Scripture that the operations of nature will remain uniform and stable. Since scientists and adherents of various non-biblical worldviews cannot justify their belief in the uniformity of nature, this means that when they affirm the uniformity of nature anyway, they are in fact presupposing a Christian premise, while refusing to admit it or give thanks to God for it.

If man is a product of evolution instead of creation, then on what basis does the non-Christian oppose genocide or infanticide? But Exodus 20:13 says, "You shall not murder." If morality is founded on mere human convention or the majority’s consent, instead of on divine authority and revelation, then on what basis does the non-Christian approve of a moral reformer? But Acts 5:29 says, "We must obey God rather than men!" Unless evolution can prove (and not just assume) that all of humanity has evolved from one common source, then on what basis does the non-Christian affirm the unity of mankind and the immorality of racism? But Acts 17:26 says, "From one man he made every nation of men."

If the unbeliever rejects our biblical premises, then on what basis does he assert ethical principles similar to ours? And by what authority does he assert principles that differ? If non-Christian presuppositions cannot justify even their most basic beliefs on pivotal subjects such as science and ethics, then their non-Christian worldviews are completely worthless. We have not even asked them about other important things like politics, education, music, and history.

Scripture itself claims that the authority behind every biblical proposition is the authority of God, who demands that everyone believes and obeys all that he says; therefore, once a person uses any biblical premise, he logically commits himself to adopt the entire Christian system. That is, unless a person accepts the infallibility and inerrancy of the whole Bible, he has no right to use any biblical proposition. By what authority does he judge some biblical propositions as true and others false?

If he uses or claims to use a prior non-biblical authority or principle by which he evaluates each biblical proposition, then he is in fact submitting to this authority or principle in his epistemology instead of the Bible, and it is from this authority or principle that he should derive the rest of his system. If he cannot derive a needed or necessary proposition from this authority or principle, and this needed or necessary proposition is only found or justified in Scripture, then this person’s non-biblical worldview fails.

If he has adopted a non-biblical authority or principle by which he should derive the rest of his system, and this authority or principle does not yield the needed or necessary proposition, but that this proposition is only found or justified in Scripture, then he has no rational right to adopt this needed or necessary proposition from Scripture, because that would involve an irrational and illegitimate leap from what is deducible from his authority or principle to a biblical proposition.

Therefore, one who assumes an empirical first principle is consistent with himself when he evaluates Scripture with empirical methods, but he must also produce an account of ethics on this same empirical basis, without borrowing any biblical premises. But of course, he cannot justify his empirical principle in the first place, so that his empirical evaluation of Scripture and anything that he derives from this principle are completely worthless.

Every biblical proposition presupposes the infallibility of Scripture. If one uses any biblical premise, he must accept the self-attesting authority behind that premise, or be left without justification for using it. Since he has no justification for using the biblical premise, the Christian has the rational right to take it away from him in the course of discussion and debate. But if this biblical premise is necessary to maintain our opponent’s worldview, and if he does not have justification to retain it, then his worldview collapses.

Some Christians can confidently argue against atheism, but find it difficult to challenge other religions, especially those that claim to have revelational epistemologies. However, claiming to have a divine revelation is futile unless the revelation is real, and it is the Christian’s contention that all revelations alleged by non-Christian systems are false. Since religious systems of thought are worldviews just as much as secular philosophies, we can argue against non-Christian religions just like we argue against any non-Christian worldview.

Even if a worldview claims to have a revelational epistemology, unless it is a complete and biblical Christian system, it cannot answer the questions and satisfy the requirements that we have discussed. The questions and challenges that we launch against these non-Christian religions are the same in kind as when we argue against other non-Christian worldviews, although the words may differ depending on the content of the opposing system and the context of the debate. Based on the ultimate authority of this non-Christian religion, is any knowledge possible? Are there self-contradictions inherent in the first principle or subsidiary propositions of this religion? Does it borrow biblical premises? If the religion claims to acknowledge or follow the Old and New Testaments, does its content nevertheless contradict them?

Some religions claim to borrow from or add to Christianity, but since their beliefs contradict Christianity, and since Christianity claims to be the only truth, this means that they are in fact non-Christian religions, so that we can argue against them as such. Christianity itself claims to be the final revelation, so that it does not allow for supplements, revisions, or updates. Therefore, if a religion claims to supplement, revise, or update Christianity, it contradicts Christianity and becomes a non-Christian religion.

Sometimes the "prophets" of these religions claim to be the new or final messengers of God after Christ, even revising and updating the teachings of Christ. However, since Christ is God, no prophet can replace or contradict him - there cannot be a superior or more authoritative prophet than Christ. Although God can certainly complete his own revelation, he does not contradict what he has said before with new revelations. The Old Testament predicted the new covenant, and Christ came to institute and confirm it. Then, he directly commissioned his apostles to complete God’s divine revelation to us, and after that the New Testament disallows any additional revelation (Jude 1:3). Since the Scripture is complete, all non-Christian religions have no right to claim biblical support.

Many people who are ignorant about religions think that most or all religions are very similar. Of course, some of them should know better, but because they are stupid and evil (Romans 1:1-32), they refuse to see the clear differences between Christianity and other religions. For example, they may think that Christianity and Islam are very similar, but in fact these two systems of thought contradict each other at the most fundamental level. Christianity affirms the Trinity, but Islam rejects it. What Christianity affirms about God allows for knowledge about God, but what Islam affirms about God makes him an unknowable deity.

After pointing out the major and essential differences, one may proceed to perform an internal critique of this religion. Islam has a hamartiology, or doctrine of sin, so it is relevant to discuss its soteriology, or doctrine of salvation. Does Islam have an adequate and coherent soteriology? Or, does it fail like Catholicism, Mormonism, Buddhism, and Arminianism? Does its soteriology satisfy and answer its hamartiology? Is its hamartiology coherent with its anthropology, or its doctrine of man? Does its anthropology follow from its theology proper, or its view about God? The Christian will soon discover that Islam fails at every point in its system, including the all-important starting point of epistemology. Under examination, it easily collapses just like all non-Christian worldviews, whether secular or religious. In this chapter, I have outlined a strategy of biblical apologetics in which one can use every conceivable proposition and event as evidence for the truth of Christianity and to demolish any non-Christian worldview. Many people will need additional guidance and reflection before they learn to quickly and effectively defeat all non-Christians in debate.32 Nevertheless, this method of argumentation, having been derived from the content and authority of Scripture, allows even a child who has been taught Christian theology to utterly humiliate the greatest non-Christian scientists and philosophers.

Scripture calls all non-Christians stupid and evil, and indeed we were also like this before we were converted by God’s sovereign grace. But even now that we have been enlightened by God, we do not defeat our opponents in argumentation by human wisdom or eloquence, but it is the genuinely superior content of the Christian faith that triumphs over all non-Christian worldviews. As Paul says, "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?…For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength" (1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 1:25). When we follow the biblical strategy for apologetics, we will be confronting the non-Christians with God’s wisdom rather than mere human wisdom, and our victory is certain. Thus the failure of secular philosophies is total; the defeat of non-Christian religions is complete.

Endnotes:

1. Held at the University of California (Irvine); Covenant Media Foundation, 1985.

2. Of course, Clifford tries to justify his principle in the essay, but my point is that he nevertheless fails to answer the questions and objections that I pose here.

3. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999; p. 371.

4. Of course, if our specific purpose is to expose the absurdity of Islam, then we should argue in greater detail, citing the relevant sources.

5. That is, God’s will determines everything, and since he perfectly knows all that he has determined, he also knows everything.

6. See Vincent Cheung, Evidential Apologetics.

7. That is, a reductio ad absurdum.

8. See Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations.

9. C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984; p. 19.

10. William Lane Craig, God, Are You There?; Norcross, Georgia: Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, 1999; p. 48.

11. Several points in my presentation require me to make certain assertions that I will more adequately support elsewhere. For example, I will further argue for the present point in the rest of this chapter and in the next chapter. Thus if you are perplexed or unsure about a certain point, a later part of the chapter or the book will probably make it clear.

12. Thomas R. Schreiner, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Romans; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998; p. 86.

13. Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans; Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1997 (original: 1835); p. 36.

14. Leon Morris, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Romans; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988; p. 78-80.

15. The NJB uses the term "innate sense."

16. This just means that although the Gentiles lacked the explicit revelation of Scripture, their innate knowledge of God’s moral law is sufficient to condemn them (2:12). That is, "They show that in their hearts they know right from wrong. They demonstrate that God’s law is written within them" (NLT).

17. Robert Haldane, Commentary on Romans; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1996 (original: 1853); p. 99.

18. J. I. Packer, Concise Theology; Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1993; p. 96.

19. Ibid., p. 97.

20. Henry Beveridge’s translation reads, ". . .the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally enlarges. . ." (I, iii, 1); John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998; Vol. 1, p. 43.

21. Beveridge: ". . .so thoroughly has this common conviction possessed the mind, so firmly is it stamped on the breasts of all men"; Ibid., p. 43.

22. Beveridge: "For the world. . .labours as much as it can to shake off all knowledge of God, and corrupts his worship in innumerable ways. I only say, that, when the stupid hardness of heart, which the wicked eagerly court as a means to despising God, becomes enfeebled, the sense of Deity, which of all things they wished most to be extinguished, is still in vigour, and now and then breaks forth. Whence we infer, that this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to forget, though many, with all their might, strive to do so"; Ibid., p. 45.

23. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion; Edited by John T. McNeill; Translated by Ford Lewis Battles; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960; p. 43-46.

24. Even with these mental forms and categories, knowledge still cannot come from sensation. See my writings about the problems with empiricism.

25. See Augustine, De Magistro.

26. Those who have never heard the gospel are nevertheless condemned for rejecting what they already know by their innate knowledge of God. Besides the information required for salvation, a number of other biblical doctrines are absent from this innate knowledge, such as biblical teachings about church government and the second coming. Even what is part of this innate knowledge, clear enough to render a person culpable, is often obscured and distorted by the noetic effects of sin. Therefore, although man indeed possesses specific and detailed innate knowledge about God, the Scripture is necessary.

27. The Book of Confessions; Louisville, Kentucky: Presbyterian Church, USA, 1999; p. 195.

28. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition; Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2001; "weltanschauung." The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition: "A worldview constitutes an overall perspective on life that sums up what we know about the world"; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001; "Wilhelm Dilthey," p. 236.

29. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, "Skeptics," p. 850.

30. Merriam-Webster, "probability."

31. Some people consider rationalism an approach that rejects all supernatural revelation from the start, and this is indeed true of some rationalistic systems. But as an approach to knowledge, rationalism does not include an inherent rejection of revelation; rather, whether it accepts or rejects revelation depends on the first principle selected for a particular rationalistic system.

32. For more on biblical apologetics, see Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations.