GOD

     This page is concerned with the Godhead in general, the Trinity, and in particular God the Father.  In any such discussion, one must keep in mind that the Bible starts with God and proceeds to the universe and mankind, and not the other way around which most philosophies naturalistic theologies do.  Mankind through the process of philosophical thinking has never come to a knowledge of the true and living God apart from some Biblical influence.  After an Introduction to Theology Proper, some arguments for Theism, and some of  the antitheistic notions, this writer will consider Biblical Theism, and finally a consideration of  the doctrine of  the Trinity on separate pages.  This latter will consider the doctrine in general and then a brief consideration of  the three persons separately.  You will be able to access those doctrines by clicking on the appropriate word.

INTRODUCTION

       In this section this writer touches upon the existence of  God in a broad sense.  There are basically four sources regarding knowledge of  God.  These four, which are philosophical rather than Biblical are not necessarily exclusive of  one another, but they have some dependence on each other.

1. Intuition.  Intuitive knowledge is a belief that comes from the nature of  the mind, and are ideas which are basic assumptions.  There are those who would deny intuition, but generally such thinking is not regarded as valid.  The universality of  belief in God shows that it is intuitive.  It is true that some deny any such belief or at best say that it is impossible to know.  However, such thinking is not a natural result of  the mind, but an attempt to think away any divine being.  Thus, it only is required to test whether an idea is or is not intuitive.  Three factors will provide this test, namely:  a) Are they universal, that is, common to all men? b) Are they necessary, that is, are they a very part of  every normal person? c) Are they self-evident, that is, not dependent on some other idea?  A careful thinking on the matter of  the existing of  a divine being will show that all three factors hold true.  It is conceivable that a group might be found that has no belief in such a being, but if  one were to examine the underlying beliefs of  such a group, one would find either some sort of  god or the exaltation of  some leader.

2. Tradition.  Although in general tradition may not be reliable, it is nevertheless a possible source for a knowledge of God.  Such tradition is twofold:  a) Remote, in which a knowledge of  the true God was (according to Scripture) of  the highest quality.  This knowledge though--again according to Scripture--tainted by the fall of  man was passed from generation to generation, but was corrupted by that very fall  so that in at least some cases it resulted in the worst of  idolatry (Cf. Romans 1:19-32); b) Present, in which children are being taught by their parents a faith or no faith.  Whether a child is taught about the true and living God depends on the parents. Nevertheless, a child cannot learn what he has no ability to receive.  Herein is the interdependence of  intuition and tradition.  A child may more readily believe in God than an adult due to non-exposure to evil rather than due to immaturity.  Their natural intuition leads to such a readiness.      

3. Reason.  Reason apart from revelation is the highest ability in man to gain a knowledge of  God.  Such reasoning may be first a) Intrinsic:  if God is a rational being (and He is), and if  He has created man as a reflection of  Himself, then man has the ability to reason the existence of  God.  The actual arguments that reason would follow will be considered later. Reasoning is in the second place, b) Accomplished:  the very achievements of  reason in spite of  human limitations and imperfections can lead one to conclude that such a infinite being as God exists.  Of  course, due to those limitations and imperfections (due as will be seen to sin) does not prevent men from going into polytheism, pantheism, or any other antitheistic idea.  This concept is aptly expressed in Romans 1:18-32.  There are generally three methods for coming to truth concerning God.  The one is by negatives--the removal of  imperfections one finds in mankind.  The second is eminence--the postulating of  all human excellencies to God.  The third is by deduction--the setting forth of  all qualities which reason can rationally determine would be true of  deity.

4. Revelation.  "God has spoken to man through nature, through the manifestation of  Himself in His Son, and through the Scriptures of  Truth." (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, I:135)  It is the last of  these that really gives light to the dimness of the first three.  God has revealed Himself to be a spirit being (cf. John 4:24) and, therefore, non-material.  On the other hand, because of  His very nature, He has revealed Himself in what is called "anthropomorphic" terms.  This word simply means "in the form of  man."  The objection to anthropomorphism by many modern philosophers (Cf. Creager, Theodynamics, who also makes this objection) is wrong, for the common man (intelligentsia, not withstanding) bests understands God in those terms.   Likewise, to explain His being, one need to use terms such as substance (used in a  non-material sense) and person.  Again, the objection to these terms is a fallacy in the light of  the fact that the Bible is for common mankind living common lives in everyday common situations.  It is this Book that is the main source of  revelation in its written form.  The truth of revelation was set forth on the page dealing with the Bible.  If  you wish to review it, more detail is given there.

ARGUMENTS FOR THEISM

      Before one gets into what the Bible teaches about God, there are basically four philosophical (or as some call them, naturalistic) arguments for the theism.  The fact that this writer is discussing these is not contrary to Paul's statement in Colossians 2:8--"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of  men, after the rudiments of  the world, and not after Christ."  Philosophical arguments are not wrong in themselves, but the warning here is that kind of philosophy that leads to "vain deceits." This writer will consider some of  those when he touches briefly on some of  the antitheistic ideas.  As just stated there are four philosophical arguments for the existence of  God.  It is obvious that these are rational arguments rather than revelational (This does not imply that revelation is irrational, but rather to state that these are apart from revelation.).

1. The Cosmological Argument.  This argument starts with this present world and traces its existence back to its Maker. It is basically the idea that everything in our universe has a cause.  This writer's watch did not just happen.  Something (or someone) caused it to be.  There are four ideas that have been prevalent in this argument.

     The first is that nature in its forms (as opposed to actual substance) is eternal.  Few if  any hold that idea today; it was what was called idealism in its basic position.

     The second notion is that matter itself is eternal, but its present constitution is subject to self-development.  This notion was held by Epicurus whose disciples one reads of  in the New Testament (Cf. Acts 17:18) and is--at least in some circles--held by evolutionists.

     The third idea is that matter is eternal but its present day form is the work of  God.  This view was held by Plato, Aristotle, and many others.  Many philosophies today have some elements of  this in their cosmology.

     The final concept is that of  Biblical revelation which basically states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1--bold type for emphasis).  The Bible, thus, affirms that God made matter out of  nothing.  That, of course, needs to be clarified.  From present day understanding of  the nature of  matter (which will not be gone into at this time), it is a form of  energy.  That God has energy is intuitively perceived.  Thus, all God had to do was speak, and it was so.  Whether God took of  His energy and form matter, or whether He made it out of  absolutely nothing, is a matter (no pun intended) of  speculation.  The Bible does not say, and it is useless to argue the point.  This writer happens to prefer the former rather than the latter.  You may wish to consult "A Biblical Philosophy" for further study on this idea.

     The cosmological argument is based on three notions:  a) every effect must have a cause;  b) an effect is dependent upon a cause for its existence;  and c) an effect cannot produce itself.  These three ideas lead directly to the self-existence of  the eternal Cause.
          In examining each of these, we see that the first statement underlies the very concept of  speech.  The effect of  these words on this page are due to this writer causing them to be typed.  Thus, statement a) above is clearly evident.
          The second statement b)--is equally evident and follow directly from the first.  To use an illustration, the words that this writer is typing are dependent upon his hitting the right keys on the board before him.  If  he were to hit the letter b when he meant to hit the letter t, he would end up with bhe, which in our language is nonsensical, instead of  the, the definite article.
          Finally, the third concept c)--is also self-evident.  To use the illustration, the word that was just typed did not produce itself.  Nothing can produce itself, for as Chafer notes, "To assert that anything has caused itself to exist is to assert that it acted before it existed, which is an absurdity." (Systematic Theology, I:144).  

     Thus, philosophically one is reduced to one of two ideas, a) the universe has existed forever either in its present form (which obviously is not so) or has developed from its original form (which underlies all theories--however stated--of evolution); or b) the universe has been designed by God for His own reasons and created by Him.  The self-existence of God logically follows from this argument.  This is, of  course, what the Bible assumes in Genesis 1:1.  There are many statements of  this self-existence even by non-Christian philosophers.  These statements can be boiled down to the concept that the ultimate cause--which the Bible calls God--is  a) self-existent, b) eternal,  c) all wise, d) powerful, e) unlimited, f) self-active, and g) living and the source of  all life.  

2. The Teleological Argument.  This argument considers the rational purposes in creation.  The key verses in this regard are Psalm 94:9, 10--"He that planted the ear, shall he not hear?  He that formed the eye, shall He not see?  He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not He correct?  He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not He know?"  Thus, this becomes an argument from design and shows that the universe has a purpose.  That idea, therefore, is for there to be design and/or purpose, there must be One Who has designed or purposed.  Though this argument is close to the cosmological one, it is not the same.  This can be readily illustrated  in that the universe is mathematical.  This writer is not necessarily following Plato in this regard although he said that "God geometrizes."  Even science today tries to reduce its theories to mathematical relations.  It is rather absurd to think that what has produced intelligibility and rationality is itself unintelligible and irrational. This is one of  the basic philosophical problems with evolution.  It is trying to establish definite ends by chance.  If  the model does not permit enough time, then they posit more time.  There has been an attempt to get around this problem by some espousing the idea that evolution  is God's method of  design and/or purpose, even to the extent of  God controlling the process.  This writer, however, discussing purpose as pointing to One Who purposed.  This basically is the  teleological argument.

3. The Anthropological Argument.  This argument discusses the makeup of  man and draws from that evidence for the existence of  God.  Again Psalm 94:9, 10 could be used as a basis. There are qualities in mankind that set him above the animals.  Since man did not create himself (procreation not being a self-creation), he must have been created by a being greater than himself.  These qualities are immaterial and constitute thought, reasoning ability, sensibility, consciousness, and will.  It is not unreasonable, therefore, to think that man's Creator must also have those qualities.  The argument is basically three-fold:  "1. Man's intellectual and moral nature must have had for its author an intellectual and moral Being." (Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 45, 46, as cited in Chafer, Systematic Theology, I:157-8);  "2. Man's moral nature proves the existence of  a holy Lawgiver and Judge." (Ibid.); and "3. Man's emotional and voluntary nature proves the existence of  a Being who can furnish in himself a satisfying object of  human affection and an end which will call forth man's highest activities and ensure his highest progress." (Ibid.)  Thus, the anthropological argument reasons from the nature of man to the nature of God.  

4. The Ontological Argument.  This argument is the reverse of  the other three, and it really begins with God as the absolute First Cause.  This discussion centers around  the fact that the human mind conceives of  God's existence.  "God is that Being than whom none greater can be conceived." (Anselm (1033?-1109), in Encyclopaedia Britannica, as cited by Chafer, Systematic Theology, I:159)  It is certainly clear that the human mind cannot entirely get rid of  the notion of  the absolute even if  it by direct denial as do atheists.  Now, it is granted that this is only a product of  the mind; but it is strange that such an idea could even exist in the mind apart from some such being.  This argument, therefore, is the weakest of  the four.                                                

       Thus, it is obvious that something more is needed to reach a knowledge of  God.  That something is the revelation of God by God Himself.  Nevertheless, these arguments are useful to understand at least the possibility of  such a Being from a purely rationalistic, human viewpoint.

ANTITHEISTIC NOTIONS

       There are several antitheistic notions that have been propounded down through the ages of  mankind.  Paul recognized this rejection in Romans 1:18ff.  This writer will look at several of  these in this section.  Atheism and agnosticism have been dealt with on separate pages which may be consulted by clicking on those words.                                                                         

1. Evolution.  Evolution in itself means "change."  With that meaning this writer has no argument.  The very fact that this writer has had brown hair, but now it is white, is evidence of  "change."  When it comes, however, to applying the theory of evolution (and in spite of  what many say, it is still a theory) to origins and the supposed development of  this complex universe from one (or as this writer recently read in a work, several or many simple organisms), he does take exception to it. Perhaps, the late Dr. Leander Keyser's definition is as good as any:  "In general evolution is the theory that the cosmos has been developed from crude, homogeneous material to its present heterogeneous and advanced status by means of resident forces." (Cited in Chafer, Systematic Theology, I:166). Some may argue about some of  the terminology he used, but basically he stated it well without any definite commitment to any particular viewpoint.  
     Some may argue that evolution is not antitheistic.  This writer grants that it can be theistic in which case it recognizes God as the Creator, but insists that evolution is the method that God used.  However, much of  evolutionary thinking has been antitheistic which rejects God and His work of  creation and insists that matter is eternal and self-developing.  It is this idea that is being addressed here.
     Evolution for the most part does not concern itself with origins, but from some beginning that the evolutionist assumes. That this theory has invaded practically every field of  study (including Theology) is quite evident to anyone who has done any reading in these fields.  The science world has taken this theory as nearly fact, although its proofs are weak to say the least.  Every proof to the contrary is ridiculed or ignored even if  set forth by competent scientists.  The disagreement on a cosmology among these is astonishing.  
     The Bible, on the other hand, has a well-developed cosmology which can be reasonably demonstrated.  The main reason for non-acceptance of  this cosmology is not a matter of  lack of  evidence nor of  rational thinking, but rather because of a heart (not that which pumps blood) matter.  Someone who realized that evolution is far from the best solution has well said (and he is not being quoted verbatim), "We must accept evolution, because the only alternative [namely, creationism] is unthinkable."  This writer has found this same rejection in a recent book he has been reading.  The departure of  man's thinking from scientific fact to an unproven theory is fundamentally because such have no choice, for "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 2:14).  Our purpose here is not refute the various aspects of the theory, but simply to point out its questionable basis.  
See also an excellent article on Naturalism and its relationship to evolution.

2. Materialism.  This notion tries to explain all activities, reality, laws, etc. solely on the basis of material.  Science tends to be materialistic, but it does not need to be.  It is natural for materialism to accept evolution.  The problem with this notion, among other things, is its difficulty in reducing the ideas of justice, love, mercy, honesty, etc., to a material level.  For the most part, this notion has been rejected previously by philosophers and in general by science.  There has been, however, a revival of it in recent years.

3. Polytheism.  This idea is that there is more than one God.  It is the favorite theme of evolutionists that religion evolved from a crude animalism to the idea of many gods.  Extra-Biblical evidence is quite abundant that the contrary is true. Mankind began with a belief in one God and then departed from that to polytheism, and on down.  Romans 1:18ff. gives testimony to this. However, in most so-called primitive tribes a supreme being is acknowledged (it is conceivable that a tribe could be found that does not have the concept).  Polytheism has no similarity to the Trinity which is firmly set forth in terms of the one  God.  This Trinity will be discussed in it appropriate place. 

4. Idealism and Realism.  These two ideas are often considered opposites.  Idealism tries to explain the universe in terms of  ideas.  In other words, reality is solely in the mind.  In its extreme form, it negates any external reality.  Realism takes almost the opposite tack.  The most extreme form would negate any thought apart from some sort of  objects.  The Word of  God avoids both extremes by its triune viewpoint.  Nevertheless, the Bible leans more to realism than idealism.  

5. Pantheism.  This notion implies that God is all and all is God.  One viewpoint tends to materialism by making matter as origin of  all things and thus God; the other tends  toward idealism affirming that spirit is everything and matter has no real existence.  In both cases, God is considered to be all.  This has led to the transmigration of  souls in Brahamanism and Buddhism. This viewpoint is contrary to all that the living God of  the Bible is.  It is just one step above animalism which make gods of  all the animals.

 6. Deism.  The term deism is from the Latin term for God.  This notion held that God created all things and was a personal being; but after creation, He left it to itself.  Thus, it rejected any  Biblical idea that God was working providentially since He created the universe.  It may surprise some people that some (but not all by any means) of  the founding fathers of  this country were deists, or at least inclined that way.  In a sense it was a religion of  nature contending that all one could know of God were deductions from creation.  In effect He was "an absentee God."  

7. Others.  There are a few notions that are antithetical which, though minor, still have influence upon religious thought.  
     One of these is based on the philosophy of  Auguste Comte (1798-1857) known as Positivism.  He restricted all knowledge to phenomena and rejected any arguments for a First Cause.  Though there are not many (if  any) today who adhere to this position, some of  its elements can be see modern viewpoints. 
     Another one was known as Monism.  Basically, it reduced everything to one principle or substance.  There were generally three types:  idealistic, materialistic, and pantheistic.  Thus, it combined its singleness with other more prevalent philosophical ideas.  
     A third fairly common system was Dualism.  This notion proposed a twofold quality of  being, nature, and most everything.  That there are dualistic elements in our world is evident to any thinking person.  Simple examples are "yes or no"; "up or down"; etc.  This notion had four aspects which were interdependent to some extent:  theological, philosophical, psychological, and ethical.  The first was amplified by Zoroaster (6th cent. B. C.)  and some gnostics who proposed two eternal beings, one good and the other evil.  The philosophical dualism thought the ultimate being was twofold and entirely independent.  The third, psychological (sometimes called psychophysical), proposed the body and mind as being two distinct existences. The fourth, ethical, was a system of  morals which had one conduct toward those in their group and another toward others.  Sad to say that there are many such groups today even in some churches.  
     Finally, there is the notion of  Pluralism.  Basically, this idea denied the unity of  the world.  Thus, each mind makes its own world.  The problem with this notion is immediately obvious.  No human discourse could take place if  this were the case.  That is one of  the reasons why this concept fell apart.  

       It is most obvious that none of  these positions are valid in any Biblical sense.  Moreover, they are largely ivory-tower thinking  and not down to earth where the common man lives and dies. This writer does believe that there is  A Biblical Philosophy which he takes up on another web page.  It is thus a relief to the heart and mind to turn to the God Who has revealed Himself to mankind.