Please help me with the following:
1. Defining Theology, and the necessity for the study of God
2. Supporting the argumment scripturally that God exists.
Thank you
Hi Ceron,
i am not a preacher or seminary student, but in your Logos4 library you may find one of the following books which might help you with your 2 questions.
Welcome to the forums Ceron.
The most basic definition is "the science or study of God and the relations between God and the universe." Do you use Logos Bible Software? If so, look for theology books in your package and you will find definitions on all theological docrines. If no base package, theology is a broad term for defining and we need more info on what you are asking.
As far as supporting the argument scriptually that God exists, look in your Bible. I would focus on Genesis, Psalms, the Gospels, Acts, and some of Paul's writings. If you need to be inspired, go outside and take in the existence of God from nature. Your second point is something you need to study from the scriptures. There is nothing stronger than your own study to get your own answers.
1. Definition of theology-Theos=God, Logos=Word-theology=Words about God
Necessity for study-Westminster Shorter Catechism Q & A 1-
Q-What is the chief end of man
A-Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.
We cannot enjoy Him if we don't know Him
We cannot know Him if we do not know about Him
We cannot know about Him if we do not study Him
2. I don't think you meant exactly what you said but if you did this is easy
Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God..."
Are there any resources in Logos I can review?
Please help me with the following: 1. Defining Theology, and the necessity for the study of God 2. Supporting the argumment scripturally that God exists.
I'm sure you will get a lot of good answers to your first question (two three already) but your second question is problematic. Believers forget sometimes that non-believers do not hold the Scriptures in high regard. They will, in fact, hold the Bible in lower regard than extra-Biblical sources. To attempt to convince someone that God exists by showing how the Bible states it as fact assumes they believe the Bible is inspired (by a deity they do not believe in? [:O]
Apologetics deals with arguments relating to God's existence, the question of sin and suffering, origins and so on. I thoroughly enjoy apologetics for the argument's sake, but unless someone is seeking truth I don't think you can argue someone into placing faith in God. There is a book that I found as a free PDF download : Apologetics in Conversation that gives a good perspective on the use of apologetics. The rest of this web site has other interesting books. Logos offers lots of good material in the apologetics vein. Some is in all the base packages while other add-on collections focus entirely on apologetics (i.e. Norman Geisler.).
If someone already believes in God's existence and wants to see what God says in the Bible your approach is with good Bible doctrine. Logos also has a lot of material to instruct the non-combative seeker. After reading Vincent Cheung's Apologetics in Conversation, I think you will appreciate both methods for answering a skeptic. There is a time and place for apologetics. It plants seeds for future consideration but only God can quicken a lost soul and the truth in the scriptures is how He does it.
Lots of good stuff. What Logos package do you have?
Logos has one website (the WBSA link at the top of this page) that is freely available to everyone.
WBSA = What the Bible Says About is handy for giving Bible based answers. Don't expect someone hostile to the idea of God's existence to give as much credence to Bible verses.
Silver edition
You have Strong and Hodge Systematic Theology. I cannot recall but I think one of them has several definitions on theology; ie. Biblical Theology, Christian Theology, Systematic Theology, etc.
You also have Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. This a theology book from Calvin and may help you.
You have Packer's Concise Theology.
And there is Shedd's Dogmatic Theology.
Any of these will help you define theology.
In any theology book when you read about the doctrine of God's existence it will give you bible verses.
Apologetics is defense of the faith. It's different than theology, but we must have sound doctrine to defend the Christian faith. I hope this helps you.
(I am sure there are some that escape me for the moment.)
Books NOT in your base package:When it comes to doctrine & theology, I hesitate to make a list because I will invariably leave out a very important work and possibly include one that other users will say is worthless. I like reading theology so my favorites include authors I do not agree with 100% and frequently oppose each other's views. That said, I find a few authors so well-written and so understandable they ought to be read by everyone. Here are
A good first read for your second question would be: God Doesn't Believe in Atheists. by Ray Comfort. Be sure to look at related resources on the description pages. You can often save money by buying a collection of the same author or subject. This will also start you on a never ending discovery of new books you think you just "gotta have." I hope you find something that meets your needs.
The problem of scripturally supporting the argument that God exists has already been indicated. It should also be noted that one cannot prove that God exists. On the other hand, neither can one prove that God does not exist. In fact, to say that God exists is actually contradictory if one understands God in the Christian sense. This is because there is no necessary link from the creation to God. In Christianity it is held that God is completely separate from the creation and calls it into being. To say that God exists is therefore to say that God is a part of creation (a pagan view). That there is or is not God who created the universe is therefore a presupposition with which one comes to the scriptures. The scripture may say that the fool says that there is no God, but that does not indicate that one can prove God. God is "wholly other" and can only be accepted as he is when God himself lays it upon one's heart.
George, I think your comments "To say that God exists is actually contradictory if one understands God in the Christian sense" and "To say that God exists is therefore to say that God is a part of creation" need some important qualification, perhaps by adding the phrase "in the same way that we exist" in each case. God is certainly not "a being among other beings" and if that was your point, I completely agree. Traditional Christianity holds to classical theism, which posits that we are contingent beings whose existence is derived from God who is Being Itself, who exists necessarily etc. For Catholics, that there are sound arguments for classical theism is a tenet of Vatican I. Many, perhaps most, Protestants also hold that there are sound arguments for classical theism. It may well be that a person can only accept those arguments through an act of grace operating upon the person's will. But that does not negate their being sound arguments for classical theism which the human intellect can comprehend.
Faith seeking understanding.etc. from Anselm
Such arguments are usually circular. Presuppositional apologeticsis the only thing I know of that might try.
While I appreciate what you're saying George (truly); I like a simpler method.
Look at a painting. Does it or does it not prove the existence of a painter?
Now look at creation.
While I appreciate what you're saying George (truly); I like a simpler method. Look at a painting. Does it or does it not prove the existence of a painter? Now look at creation.
What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Or, what has the creation to do with the creator? You cannot reason from the composition of water to that of earth. There must be some necessary connection between the two. Unless you wish to say that creation is of the nature of the diety, there is no necessary connection. To the pagans the dieties were of the nature of the world. Such is not the case with the Christian faith.
2. Supporting the argumment scripturally that God exists. Such arguments are usually circular. Presuppositional apologeticsis the only thing I know of that might try.
Agreed. My first response to this question offered Vincent Cheung's books because he is a Presuppositionalist. If a person spent lots of time delving into this branch of apologetics I would recommend they balance it with extensive reading of Cornelius Van Til.
I think Ravi Zacharias is a synthesis of the two. I really wish we had his works in Logos.
While I am a fan of natural theology, I think the issue is a bit more complex than that. We might suggest a Logos search on "natural theology".
Look at a painting. Does it or does it not prove the existence of a painter? While I am a fan of natural theology, I think the issue is a bit more complex than that. We might suggest a Logos search on "natural theology"
While I am a fan of natural theology, I think the issue is a bit more complex than that. We might suggest a Logos search on "natural theology"
I would start that search in these resources:
And if we are in dialogue with someone who will consider scripture:
disclosure: in case it has not become obvious already; I'm a Presuppositionalist too. [C]
Sometimes I am even a Prepositionalist! [*-)]
Those you recommend are those which seek to reason from the creation to the creator and who think they have succeeded. This involves the legitimacy of general revelation. Karl Barth was most emphatic in denying that there was any legitimate knowledge of God to be derived by human reason from general revelation so, if you wish to examine the contrary view, read Barth. Some would start with Rom 1:18-23
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
They would claim that Paul indicates that a natural theology based on general revelation is possible. Note, however, that it is not something which is clearly deducible by man by his own efforts unaided "because God has shown it to them." Without God implanting it in his heart, man cannot mount Jacob's ladder to attain a knowledge of God.
Those you recommend are those which seek to reason from the creation to the creator and who think they have succeeded.
I know. (I did give disclosure, didn't I?) Any good Presuppositionalist would exclude other approaches because they are unsustainable. I do have Barth's Church Dogmatics but intentionally did not list it for that reason. Both Van Til & Cheung are Presuppositionalists. One must presuppose truth exists before they can reason; anything less is indefensible.
I agree with MJ's original answer to question 2:
I think Clark, Van Til, Cheung, & Ray Comfort all succeed at answering this objective when the others fail. [:D]
Any good Presuppositionalist would exclude other approaches because they are unsustainable.
Precisely. To maintain that man can reason from creation to the creator is to argue that those who find evidence for the creator in the creation are simply more intelligent than those who do not. Yet, we find that many who do not find evidence of a creator are at least equally as intelligent as those who do. The failure to come to agreement based upon the same set of facts supports the proposition that it is God's action implanting it in man's heart which is the difference — election, if you care to put it in theological terms.
Thomas, the problem with the painter argument is that the painting points to the painter (not counting George's technical arguments, but just for average people).
Marcion's practical solution (as you know) was to dispense with the painter. But every Sunday arrives and pastors must explain the most recent obnoxious event with what amounts to tightly strained logic (not being critical).
But that does not negate their being sound arguments for classical theism which the human intellect can comprehend.
Are you aware of the work of Toulmin? He makes a strong argument that there is a distinction between an argument as we normally use the term (argument in favor of or argument against) and a logical proof. What George is saying is that a logical proof is logically impossible (true). What you are saying is that a strong argument can be made (true).
Thomas, the problem with the painter argument is that the painting points to the painter
Not to mention just
average people
If the question what God can do forces theology to be humble, the question what is commanded of us forces it to concrete obedience. God may speak to us through Russian Communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub, or a dead dog. We do well to listen to Him if He really does. But, unless we regard ourselves as the prophets and founders of a new Church, we cannot say that we are commissioned to pass on what we have heard as independent proclamation. God may speak to us through a pagan or an atheist, and thus give us to understand that the boundary between the Church and the secular world can still take at any time a different course from that which we think we discern. Yet this does not mean, unless we are prophets, that we ourselves have to proclaim the pagan or atheistic thing which we have heard. Finally, we may truly and rightly think that we have heard the Word of God in the worship and active love and youth education and theology of the Church known to us. This does not mean, however, that we have received a commission to pursue these things as proclamation. However it may stand with the undoubted possibilities of God outside the Church or in a new Church; however it may stand with the greater sphere, perhaps unknown to us, of the visible Church, or even with the real, if involuntary, proclamation by other elements of Church life within the Church perceived by us, there can be no doubt that, together with the commission which it may seek to obey by listening and responding in these other functions, the Church known to us has a special commission of proclamation, and therefore not merely of listening and response but decisively of talk about God both to men and for them, and that it neglects this commission if it seeks to proclaim what it has no commission to do or where it has no commission to do so.
Karl Barth,Church Dogmatics I, i, 55-56
As Barth so colorfully notes, God may speak to us through a dead dog. I might add, to keep it biblical, through a braying donkey. What is important is that God speaks to us and that God speaks to us and that God speaks to us.
