Yonder Tree

Steven Lester 

On fallen morn came disease, death and thorn

On yonder tree, sin broke and bent man to his knee

In the garden an echo sends shivers and the cold corps quivers

Grace! Grace! for sinful ears have heard, God's redemptive word

Salvation's seed, responding to depraved need

Planted by sacred quill, on parchment of Holy Will

Nestled, warm, and glowing through prophet's pen a growing

Seed watered by form, types, and shadows like dew on holy meadows

Thousands of years gone, promises nearly grown

Faith seeing the accomplishment, of the Son Heaven sent.

On night divine, while the star did shine

a mother lay in the hay, the divine appointed way

A promise from scripture, now being held closely against her

Christ from David's root, bearing sacred fruit

On black noon dooms, yet God's seed blooms

There on yonder tree, redemption unfolded for all to see

Sovereignty

Steven Lester 12/12/13

All around, knowledge as light spills down

Warm ember of Heaven a comforting blanket found

That King and Father merged to violently the darkness purge

Revealing glorious inconsistency, that Grace sovereignly snatched me

All creatures and roles and fates, measured and squared within Heaven's gates

Rise and fall, kingdoms tall and cultures small, the ordering omniscient seals all.

Freedom slave to his aim, yet will exposed to no abuse, trespass or shame.

A sentence new and all the way through until my end carefully punctuated with Holy pen.

Paternal providence not unrelated chance fuels life with song and dance

Goodness fixed in orbit seen, unfolds herself like leaves of green

Observations collide with anticipations leaving foundations for building nations

Alas, atop the glassy sea, my Father's careful caress of me, through gentle hands of sovereignty.

Thoughts on the Broad and Straight 

If there is no God....we are biological machines subject to a natural predetermination (far worse than any religious fatalism) and can only function in a subjective universe without the capability of transcending to any objective reasoning. If one says we can, its only the chemical explosions in the brain that causes them to think and behave this way. After all, can randomness create order as the naturalist supposes? No, because order is subjective to each person; there is no truth. Why, even these words may not be real. My thinking is an illusion. Your thinking, in response to this, is an illusion. There is no possibility or good or hope. These are illusions only created to serve biological needs. There is no right, wrong or purpose. My friend, don't make a truth claim, for then you place yourself in the arena of the theologians; you elevate naturalism to a belief, now you don't want to do that do you?

If there is a God....we are created beings with a purpose. Reality can be affirmed. Reason, logic and senses are given that we may know him who created us and navigate reality. Our duty is to acknowledge him and pledge ourself to him with our love and life. Science and natural order can have knowable outcomes. There is good and there is evil, because the transcendent one establishes the standard that distinguishes between the two. Therefore, there is law. If so, there is a lawgiver. If there is a lawgiver, there is a judge and it stands to reason there is judgment. If there is a God, then he is sovereign, he does not have to justify himself to anyone. It would be perfectly just to judge and punish all who break his law to eternal punishment. Yet, Gospel tells us that he made a way of salvation. It is this reason I am profoundly and eternally thankful.  

A Study of Theophanies: Appearances of God in the Old Testament  

By Steven Lester

In this paper I will examine certain Old Testament passages that deal with appearances of God or theophanies. Theophany is constructed from two Greek words: theos meaning God and phaino meaning “to appear.” (John M. Baze—The Angel of the Lord) Lewis Chafer more accurately defined a theophany as, “a manifestation of God in visible and bodily form before the incarnation.” [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology 4 Vols., (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1993) 3:31] According to Chafer’s definition certain phenomena such as the Shekinah glory would not be considered a theophany since God did not appear in visible, bodily form. (John M. Baze—The Angel of the Lord) At any rate, a careful study of Old Testament theophanies will reveal important themes that are repeated throughout scripture. These themes provide the substance of God’s overarching plan for humanity.

Through out the paper I will examine theophanies and their significance by referring to the Biblical record. The format of examination will include elements such as: the historical context, possible theological meanings, relationships between theophanies, and theophanies value in regard to New Testament doctrine. I hope to weigh in on the academic debate regarding theophanies and intelligently establish my opinion based upon careful research of scripture and relative theological material. Due to space limitations I will not be able to consider all theophanies in the Old Testament. The ones I have chosen will be an appropriate representative sampling so that the theology of theophanies may be established.

The first consideration I want to explore is the issue of the Jesus Christ as the substance of Old Testament theophanies. In considering this possibility we need to be aware of the academic debate regarding this subject. James C. Moyer says in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology:

Various interpretations have been suggested including an appearance of God himself, an appearance of a messenger, or of God’s many angels, or the appearance of the incarnate Christ. Each interpretation has difficulties and there is no consensus. Walter Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), P. 1087.

There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. This paper, however, shall suppose that Christ is the substance of Old Testament theophanies. If Christ is subject of Old Testament theophanies then how does this affect the theology of theophanies? Having this presupposition puts a unique perspective of the entirety of scripture: scripture takes on more of a Christocentric disposition. Having Christ active only in the New Testament does not, in my opinion, bind the scripture together as coherently as having Christ active in the Old Testament via theophanies. This is an important issue as Christ is the theme of Scripture.

Christ is suited to be the substance of Old Testament Theophanies by reason of scripture witness. John 8:56-58 declare:

“Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad. The Jews said unto him you are not yet fifty years old, and you seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, most assuredly I say unto you, before Abraham was I AM.”

Jesus stated that he was present, visible and interacting with humanity in the Old Testament. Which reference was Christ speaking of? Scripture records no less that eight times from Genesis chapter12-22 that Abraham experienced an appearance of God. Some of these appearances may not be considered a bona-fide theophany according to Lewis Chafer’s definition as mentioned above for the reason that there was no visible body appearance. Many times the Lord spoke to Abraham such as in chapter 12:1-3; 13:14-17; 22:1-2. These passages reveal that God simply spoke to Abraham; there is no mention of appearance. Genesis 15: declares that God appeared in a vision to Abraham. Other passage such as 12:7; 15:17-18; 17:1-22; 18:1-33 speak of God actually appearing to Abraham in visible form. In fact Chapter 18 gives a description of God:

“Then the Lord appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. So he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him: and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the ground.” Genesis 18:1-2

God is described as appearing in the form of a man. Later in verse 8 scripture tells us that the men ate with Abraham. John Baze notes that out of the eight occurrences of the phrase “and the Lord appeared,” this account is only time that supporting details are given. (Baze 272) The point is that Christ is among these appearances to Abraham. I submit that the tenor of scripture suggest that Christ is the only member of the Godhead that appeared to Abraham.

John 8:58 gives mention of Christ associating himself with the title, “I AM”. Of course this title was applied to The Angel of Jehovah appearing to Moses in the burning bush. The fact that Christ applies this title to himself directly associates him to the Angel of Jehovah (a subject we will discuss in detail later) and to an Old Testament theophany.

Another passage that deals with Christ’s appearance in the Old Testament is John 12:41. The passage says, “These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.” Of course the context of the Old Testament passage that John was referring to is found in Isaiah chapter 6. This account declares Isaiah’s throne room encounter with God. The scripture plainly testify that Isaiah encountered Christ sitting on the throne in glory.

The characteristics of this particular theophany resemble other God-appearances throughout the Old Testament. Jeffery Niehaus mentions several areas of similarities between the Isaiah 6 account and other theophanic appearance in the Old Testament. For instance the terms used to portray Yahweh resemble both Mount Sinai and subsequent theophanies. (Niehaus 251) Niehaus gives further similarities:

We read that the temple was filled with smoke…and that the door posts and thresholds shook (Isaiah 6:4). The phraseology resembles Amos 9:1…. It also anticipates Isaiah 24:20, which portrays the earth (which, if not God’s temple, is at least his footstool, Mt 5:35) shaken by Yahweh in judgment theophany.

Niehaus goes on to say:

Granted its eschatological implications, there is also a clear terminological parallel between this account and the account of the original dedication. The parallel is no accident. Yahweh appeared in Solomon’s day to seal his promise to David that his son would sit upon his throne and build the Yahweh temple and that Yahweh would cause his name to dwell there. (Niehaus 251)

There fact that Yahweh is seated on a throne gives further detail for comparison. Niehaus says the verb “seated” is also the term used in Psalm 2:4 where God is pictured being enthroned and ready to judge the nations. The term is also used in Psalm 29:10 where God is “enthroned” above the flood waters. (Niehaus 252) Given the similarities mentioned above between the Isaiah 6 theophany and others throughout the Old Testament, it stands to reason that Christ is the one appearing in all theophanies.

The problem of sin has introduced many evils into the human race. One of the most prolific situations facing man is the inability to come face to face with God. Man would be destroyed if God was seen in all of his glory. Exodus 33:20 declares, “You cannot see my face; for no man shall see me and live.” Therefore, an objective of the incarnation is to allow man the opportunity to “meet” God. Christ declared in John 14:9: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” The incarnation was the highest revelation of God to man. Hebrews 1:1-2 says, “God who at various times and in various ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets has in these last days spoken to us by his Son.” Christ is the only member of the God head that has communicated the revelation of God to man by reason of physical presence. This is why he is suited to be the substance of all Old Testament theophanies. Daniel Finestone comments, “God has given a mediate revelation of Himself in Christ (Matt. 11:27), and we must therefore assume that every theophany in the Old Testament is in reality a Christophany. John Walvoord also weighs in on this point in saying:

“The Second Person is the visible God of the New Testament. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is characteristically revealed in bodily and visible form… It is logical that the same Person of the Trinity should appear in bodily form in both Testaments.” (Walvoord 167)

As Christ spoke in the New Testament through his bodily appearance, he also revealed God in the Old Testament. The Sinai Theophany in Exodus 33-34 gives us an example of God communicating revelation through appearance. In Exodus 33 18-23, Moses desired to see God in his glory, to which God replied that no man could see all of his glory and live. Yet, God did pass by Moses and revealed himself in verse 19:

“Then He said, I will make all my goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you. I will be gracious to whom I am gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

In Exodus 34:6-7, God also passed by Moses announcing:

“The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”

In these appearances, God was not fully seen, yet he communicated revelation to Moses while appearing. This dynamic of revelation through appearance seems to be God’s chosen method of communication. M. Burrows says, “God appears in order to speak,” (Niehaus 29) Gerhard von Rad expressed the same sentiment, “With an Old Testament theophany everything depends upon the pronouncement: the phenomena which accompany it are always merely accessories.” (Niehaus 29)

John chapter 1:1, 14 declare:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Christ is pictured as the divine expression and tabernacled glory of God among his people. This characterization and ideology of Christ is significant because of its ability to have its origins in the Old Testament while finding its fulfillment in the New Testament. The Old Testament clearly yearned for God to tabernacle among his people in order to express himself to them. The glory of God is seen to have time and again tried to tabernacle among the people. The Old Testament also strains revelation out through the various theophanic events. John Walvoord says:

The doctrine of the Logos has had considerable treatment in historic theology and in particular connects with the rational and philosophic implications of the revelation in Christ… The central idea remains of an intelligent, ordered revelation of God in tangible expression. The theophanies in the Old Testament are partial representations of Christ but not the same sense or as accurate a revelation as Christ the Logos. (Walvoord 160)

The New Testament effortlessly breaths revelation through the person and work of Christ. His incarnation seems to be the maturation and fullness of his theophanic workings in the Old Testament: God’s glory finally finds a suitable dwelling and finds his perfect expression in the incarnate Christ.

I think at this point we should discuss the significant theophanic appearances regarding “The Angel of the Lord.” The supposition of this paper is that Christ is the Angel of the Lord mentioned in the Old Testament. The first issue of consideration is to underscore that The Angel of the Lord is a distinctive person and not one of many angelic beings used in God’s service. The grammatical construction of the term “The Angel of the Lord” as used in the Old Testaments gives weighty evidence for his exceptionality. We cannot go into a lengthy discussion of the particulars; however John Baze gives a lengthy and technical analysis of the subject in his work The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament Part 1. He sums up his position:

Of the fifty-six occurrences of the phrase, “The Angel of the Lord”, every one of them involves a grammatical arrangement that represents the typical order and form of a true construction relationship. Thus, the usage of a proper name in this construction relationship would substantiate that the only possible literal translation of malak YHWH is “the Angel of the Lord” while eliminating the indefinite translation, “an angel of the Lord.” (Baze 271)

Baze also cites A.B. Davidson as saying: “According to the general grammatical rule the rendering ‘an angel of the Lord’ is inaccurate…” (Baze 271) It appears that grammatically the structure of the phrase “The Angel of the Lord” qualifies this character for a position particular uniqueness.

Furthermore qualifying The Angel of the Lord as a case for the pre-incarnate Christ is the fact that scripture assigns deity to the Angel. Daniel Finestone catalogues six areas where deity can be ascribed to The Angel of the Lord:

1. The Angel of Jehovah claims deity (Exodus 3:6,14; Judges 13:18)

2. The Angel of Jehovah is addressed as deity (Genesis 16:13; Judges 6:22)

3. The Angel of Jehovah is paid divine honors (Exodus 3:4,5; Genesis 22:12)

4. The Angel of Jehovah is called God by the Old Testament writer (Exodus 3:4)

5. The Angel of Jehovah has divine attributes (Exodus 32:34; Isaiah 63:9)

6. The Angel of Jehovah promises to do what only deity can do (Genesis 21:18; 22:17,18; Exodus 3:8) )Finestone 374-375)

The last point I want to make note of is that after the incarnation of Christ the term “The Angel of the Lord” does not appear again in scripture. This startling fact gives further weight to the notion that Christ is “The Angel of Jehovah”. After the incarnation, if the Angel of God was a different person other than Christ, it seems he would make an appearance. His absence seems to suggest that he is the incarnate Christ.

Now we arrive at our last point of consideration regarding Christ’s appearing in the Old Testament. Christ’s eternal role in regard to humanity’s salvation necessitates his working in the Old Testament. When God appeared to humanity in the Old Testament it was with purpose. There was never an empty theophany: all were full of redemptive value. Finestone says:

We have seen that all appearances of the Angel of the Lord were related to some phase of the redemptive program of God through Israel. This plan was consummated in the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ. Both the Angel of Jehovah and the Lord Jesus Christ were engaged in the same activity, the salvation of man; the One working in the Old Testament times, the Other in the New Testament times. (Finestone 384)

Particular activities of the pre-incarnate Christ should be noted. First he was active in a covenantal context. He established covenant, assisted Israel in covenant fidelity, brought covenant transgression judgment, and delivered Israel as a result of covenant obedience. First, God is seen entering covenant with man. Genesis chapter 1, 2, 8 and 12 contain covenant references, however, the covenant reference in Genesis 15 encloses a magnificent theophany. This covenant theophany shows to what lengths God will condescend in relating his plan to man. Abraham and his seed were the beneficiaries of the covenant. Jeffery Niehaus agrees with Moshe Weifeild and Gordan Wenham that “the nearest parallel to the covenant form in Genesis 15 is the royal grant typically made by a king to a man and his descendants in perpetuity.” (Niehaus 174) Niehaus goes on to say that, “God’s ultimate desire is to restore the intimacy of the unbroken Creation covenant with humanity.” (Niehaus 179) Christ’s appearances in the Old Testament serve to assist humanity to this end. The Genesis 15 theophany not only serves to reveal a divine covenant, but underscore theophanic covenant assistance.

Israel was assisted in covenant fidelity by theophanies. Numerous times God appeared to Abraham in reaffirming his covenant therefore encouraging Abraham. Genesis 18, 20 are instances in which the Lord appeared to Abraham encouraging, testing, and reaffirming the covenant. Jacob wrestled with The Angel of the Lord in Genesis 32. The Angel blessed him, encouraged him, and called him Israel. This pattered continues in Exodus. In chapter 3, 20-34 God appears to assist Israel not only in delivering them but encouraging them in covenant faithfulness. Every theophany has, in some measure, directly or indirectly, an effect of encouraging covenant fidelity.

Theophany or Christophany serves to facilitate judgment upon men for covenant transgression. Within the creation covenant framework God came in chapter 3 verse 8 in a storm theophany. He came as covenant judge. Ezekiel’s vision of God in chapter 1 of his book seems to indicate a similar covenant storm theophany. Niehaus goes in detail regarding the verbage of the Ezekiel 1 and Genesis 3:8 account. Niehaus aggregates the word study of Ezekiel’s theophany and Genesis 3:8 by saying:

As regards Ezekiel’s vision by Kebar and after, one fact is paramount: what he saw was disastrous. Yahweh appears in an awesome storm theophany as covenant judge. He also appeared as covenant judge to Adam and Eve, and if they saw anything like what Ezekiel saw (and the storm theophany of Genesis 3:8 laconically suggests that they did), their fear was well grounded. (Niehaus 255)

Another storm theophany takes place in the judgment upon humanity via the great flood of Genesis chapter 7. Psalm 29: 3, 4 seem to indicate that the Lord appeared in the flood of Noah. These scriptural accounts of judgment are all associated with covenant transgression and subsequent storm theophanies, which are judgment theophanies.

The last activity of Christ in respect to covenant is his activity in deliverance of his covenant people. The Old Testament serves as the narrative of the journey of God’s covenant people. Sprinkled along the journey are Christophanies that function as a means of deliverance. The Genesis 22 appearance of The Angel of the Lord effected deliverance for Abraham’s son, Isaac. The Exodus 3 Christophany announced the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. Other appearances to Gideon and Manoah in the book of Judges also emulate the concern and activity of deliverance of God’s covenant people. Even a brief study of Old Testament theophanies produces numerous examples of a deliverance motivated agenda.

It is for the above mentioned reasons that the member of the Godhead most qualified to appear in Old Testament theophanies is the Lord Jesus Christ. Scripture declares him to be the substance of Old Testament appearances. To have Christ as the visible presentation of God’s revelation gives the scripture meaningful continuity. The subject of The Angel of the Lord’s appearing and acting in the Old Testament also gives incredible evidence to the ministry of the pre-incarnate Christ. Having Christ as the subject of Old Testament theophanies is not without its difficulties, yet as in the words of Daniel Finestone, “in Christ all the pre-Christian theophanies find a higher unity.” (Finestone 384)

Works Cited

Baze, John. “The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament-Part 1”,

Finestone, Daniel. “Is the Angel of Jehovah in the Old Testament the Lord Jesus Christ?”

Niehaus, Jeffery. 1995. God at Sinai. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Walvoord, John. “Series in Christology-Part 2: The Preincarnate Son of God”

Theistic Proofs (Can God be proved?)

By Steven Lester

In a recent conversation about one of my text books, Philosophy and the Christian Faith, a former graduate of Southwestern Theological Seminar, and current pastor, made the remark, “I believe here (referring to the minds of these intellectuals) is where there are great spiritual battles and strongholds.” After reflecting upon that remark coupled with my learning through this course, I agree with him. Within the philosophical arena there is a heated battle: an earnest contending for the faith by some, and by others, a desperate attempt to jettison God altogether. The ramifications are high. The philosophy of one generation seems to be the orthodoxy of the next. There is importance on many levels in learning the various schools of thought in regard to philosophy. The inquiring Christian would be greatly enriched by their study of Philosophy. The prudent pastor would find a range of answers in respect to current to moral enigmas by a brief study of the last generation’s philosophical theory. The truth searching soul can find a harbor of rest in their honest inquiry of the historical claims of Christianity. And, very importantly, the Christian apologetic and philosopher must be well versed in past and present philosophical trends so that they may effectively engage in today’s struggle for the faith.

With that said we come to our subject: to discuss the function of theistic proofs and some of the standard rebuttals generated in recent times as well as more attempts to reintroduce modified theistic arguments. This will serve as our thesis. The outline of the essay will naturally follow the major divisions in the thesis: first, to discuss the function of theistic proofs or arguments. Next, we shall discuss certain theistic proofs, common rebuttals and modern modifications of theistic proofs. In our attempt, I would like to stress the paradigm of this work will be from a Christian Theistic presupposition.

I feel the need to outline our work and place it in some context. A definition of our subject would be helpful at this point. The Theistic presupposition believes in the existence of one God and attributes various works to him. The works attributed to him vary from the different branches within theism. The different branches are Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Deism.

The concept of proofs or arguments will clarify our topic a little more. Ronald Nash provides some excellent material on the subject of proofs. (Nash 113) He shows how that a philosophical argument or proof, akin to what we are dealing with, is not the same as a mathematical proof. The difference lies in the absoluteness of the proof. A mathematical proof has more of a matter of fact outcome. It’s hard to argue with numbers. A philosophical argument cannot have this type of finality in the conclusion. A philosophical proof or argument has many other human variables. As a result we should not set the standard of proof with respect to Theism as we would in respect to Geometry.

Among the human variables is the matter of dealing with people’s belief systems. In order to concede to certain theistic proofs, the atheist must consider the possibility of the compromise of their own belief system. If one’s belief system is compromised the practical ramifications are tremendous. One would have to order their behavior according to their belief system. The stakes are raised much higher in reference to the matter of theistic proofs as opposed to mathematical proofs.

In the matter of philosophical proofs one is dealing with subjective reception of various arguments. A great deal of personal perception is factored into the grasping of one’s argument. Dr Nash states:

Sometimes people have difficulty with competing claims and systems because of philosophical presuppositions. But often, it seems clear, people’s theoretic judgments seem inordinately affected by nontheoretical factors. This is the case, for example, when racial prejudice causes people to hold certain untrue beliefs about those who are objects of the prejudice. Sometimes, these nontheortetic factors are idiosyncratic, unique to the particular person, rooted in that person’s individual history. 28

As stated above if the argument threatens one’s belief system, the argument may not be positively captured, regardless of how sound the proof may appear. We are not dealing in the area of conclusive proofs, but probability.

Theistic proofs therefore are meant to provide a philosophical argument for the existence of God in the absent of any sources of special revelation, i.e. the Bible. It is the position of this paper that theistic proofs, while worthy of exploration and use, should not be exalted over special revelation. Their function is to engage the philosophical community with a dialogue of argument rather than silence on the subject of God’s existence not to transport the unbeliever from unfaith to faith. Only the power of the Gospel can generate faith in the unbeliever.

Now let’s move onto a discussion of Theistic Proofs. The first being examined is the Cosmological argument. This argument has been proliferated over the years by various philosophers and the arguments have become sophisticated and modified in recent times. According to Dr. Ronald Nash the argument goes like this:

Cosmological arguments reason back from the existence of the world to a principle of being that explains the world. This being or principle is called in various versions of the argument by such names as the First Cause, the Prime Mover, the Necessary Being or the Sufficient Reason.

The concept of God as the First Cause goes like this: every effect appears to have had a cause, if one could traced down the first cause that cause would be God. God, of course, would not have had a cause. The standard arguments to this line of thinking are several. Colin Brown sums up the arguments as such: “…there is a problem of demonstrating that the first cause is the same as the prime mover or the great designer, and that both are the same as the Christian God.” 27 Another rebuttal argues that we don’t know if the first cause still exists. Another suggests can one even prove the probability of an infinitely long serious of cause and effects? Still another argument asks the question what if there were more than one first causes?

We now can move on to the concept of God as the Logical First Cause. This argument is a modification to the one we have just concluded discussing. According to Nash this concept argues:

God’s creative activity did bring the world into existence out of nothing; but it

also involves God’s continually sustaining the world in its existence. God is the necessary condition of the world in two senses: 1. Had God not created the world in the first place, it would have never have come into existence; and 2. should God ever will to withdraw his sustaining power, the world would cease to exist.

By restructuring the Cosmological argument in this posture it avoids some philosophical problems namely the provability of an infinitely long serious of cause and effects. Another problem it addresses is the question if the first cause still exists. The posture of the modified argument suggests the first cause must exist since the world still exists seeing that the first cause is also the sustainer of the world.

Now we must move on to the Teleological argument for God’s existence. This argument looks at the specific function of creation and infers the existence of a creator. David Hume gives an outstanding synopsis of the argument:

Look around the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance—of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble, and that the author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.

The Teleological argument seems to be, on the surface anyhow, a very powerful and persuasive argument. There are, however, problems that appear to diminish the forcefulness of the Teleological argument. One such argument recognizes the problem that the Teleological proof is based upon analogy. Reasoning based upon analogy cannot provide conclusive proof. Just because A and B demonstrate a connection does not mean that C and D has to demonstrate the connection of A and B. The particular analogy used to in an argument must be excepted if the argument holds water. If the analogy is rejected or altered the whole argument is compromised.

The use of analogy in the Teleological argument is problematic; therefore, the proof itself has been reduced to a hypothesis explaining the apparent design of creation. Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution has filled the vacuum with its own theory as to the reason of creation’s apparent order and design. Nature has evolved over millennia in order to survive. This adaptation to survive within evolution indicates a design without referring to the work of an intelligent designer. These competing theories have taken some forcefulness from the Teleological argument.

In response to the growing popularity of Darwinism, the Teleological argument has been modified to include evolution. The modification suggests that God used the principles of evolution as a means in creating the universe. The two theories are not incompatible. In attempts to consolidate the two, a major focus has shifted from the particular examples of design to the general order of creation. This modification is known as the Wider Teleological Argument. Linwood Urban writes:

In summary, the argument maintains that the natural order not only makes possible human survival but also supports and fosters the moral and spiritual values of intelligent beings, and that this is the kind of universe one would expect a wise, benevolent, and powerful deity to have designed. Since the focus of the argument is not on the small-scale phenomena cited by Paley but on the large-scale phenomenon of the evolutionary process itself, it has become known as the Wider Teleological Arguments.

Another variation of the Teleological Argument is stated by Richard Taylor. He argues that if one believes that the arrangement of creation by an intelligent creator is purposeful then the creation would convey a message of the creator. If one believes that the universe is non-purposeful and an act of chance, then it is impossible for nature to give a message of meaning. If one holds to the latter, then even our own minds and sense organs are incapable of producing meaning. We then dwell in a real of utter darkness and meaninglessness.

There is much more we can say on this subject but we must move on to our next subject of consideration: the moral argument for God’s existence. Ronald Nash outlines this concept for us:

Many human experiences seem to point to the existence of moral laws or standards of behavior. Our failure to do something that we believe we ought to do may lead us to feel guilty. The failure of others to perform certain duties toward us may produce feelings of resentment or anger or sorrow. Whenever we dare suggest to someone else that his conduct is wrong, we are ding more than appealing to our own moral standard. Moral criticism like this would make no sense unless we also believed that the other person knew about the same moral standard. It is interesting to note that the person whose moral conduct is being criticized seldom denies the existence of the moral standard.

In view of the existence of a moral law seemingly written upon the conscious of humanity, one can point to the existence of God as the moral law giver. This is the moral argument for the existence of God in short. We now come to some common objections to this proof.

The first objection is that the moral law does not appear to be objective for everyone. For example there are certain cultures that hold opposing ethical views. There are various moral views in certain situations such as abortion, euthanasia, and war. These are difficult cases and the problem of the lack of objectivity remains in the moral argument for God’s existence.

Further attempts to add difficulty to the moral argument is to press the notion that morality is a result of evolution of instinct and the dynamic of living in a social setting. That is to say that existing in a social setting and interaction with other humans has created a system of moral principles. These moral principles evolve as the culture matures, and adapt based upon different ethical situations. Survival of the fittest employs moral programming for adequate adaptation.

Modern variations of the argument include Gordon Clark’s argument from truth. The argument goes as such:

1. Truth exists.
2. Truth is immutable.
3. Truth is eternal.
4. Truth is mental.
5. Truth is superior to the human mind.
6. Truth is God.

The argument simply says that truth must exist if knowledge exists. If truth exists then that truth must never change. Truth is also eternal and Nash says, “Any denial of the eternality of truth turns out to be an affirmation of its eternity.” (162) Truth also affirms the existence of a mind. Truth is grasped in the faculty of the mind. Although truth is grasped mentally, truth is greater than the mind. Truth is not confined to subjectivity and held by one individual. Truth is objective and overarching for all humanity. If truth is eternal, immutable, exists in the mind, and is greater than the human mind, truth must have its residence in the mind of God.

The last area of Theistic proofs we shall discuss is the area of religious experience. British theologian John Baillie argues that one can know that God is exists through their direct experience of him. He writes:

If I have a direct experience of x, then x exists.

I have a direct experience of God.

Therefore, God exists.

William Rowe offers a more detailed model for religious experience. His argument has five lines.

1. When subjects have an experience they take to be of x, it is rational to conclude that they really do experience x unless we have positive reason to think their experience delusive.
2. Experience occur which seem to their subjects to be of God.
3. There are no good reasons for thinking that all or most experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God delusive.
4. It is rational to believe tat at least some experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God really are experiences of God.
5. Therefore, it is rational to believe that God exists.

The argument is that if a person has an experience with God and there is no proof to the contrary that the experience is not of God then we must conclude that God exists. If at least one person has an experience of God then God exists or if one experience among many is of God, then God exists.

The principle of credulity is the name given to step one of Rowe’s argument. Much emphasis is placed upon the importance of such an argument. In short the principle of credulity says that any experience is innocent until proven guilty. If one treated experience as delusive until proven Ronald Nash says, “To ignore the principle and regard our experience as delusive until they are proven vertical would entrap us in a skepticism from which no escape seems likely.” (147) To ignore this principle would compromise the foundation of non-religious experience as well.

Obvious objections arise from this point. The most notable objection is the ability to confirm alleged religious experience. In order to satisfy the need to know if the experience actually came from God some conditions were implemented. These conditions are as follows: the object exists, the person’s experience is such that he is conscious of the object, and the object is part of the cause of the persons experience. (150) We therefore, need to confirm the existence of the object of one’s experience. Here is where Charles Martin tries to show the impossibility of knowing that certain experiences are from God. He concludes that experiences from God as the object are vastly different than ordinary natural objects. As a result he submits religious experiences should not be taken literally. His argument goes like this:

1. Nonreligious experiences provide warrant for the existence of their objects.
2. Therefore, experiences of God provide warrant for the existence of God. (150)

Certain rules of verification have been implemented in conformation of experiences. Sensory verification seems to be the popular verification. C.D. Broad states:

Now, in the case of sense-perception there are several tests which we can se to tell whether a perception is delusive or not. We can check one sense by another, e.g., sight by touch. We can appeal to the testimony of others and find out whether they see anything that corresponds to what we see. (151)

In the case of experience from God, sensory verification is not a viable option. Therefore, religious experience remains in doubt as the object of experience (God) cannot be verified.

There is an objection to sensory verification however. If one had an experience and wanted to verify the experience, one would have to check the experience by another sensory preceptor. That preceptor would need to be confirmed by another preceptor and that preceptor by another and the cycle goes on endlessly. If one is going to verify an experience the cycle of sensory verification must end at some point. The argument by Nash is: “there is no more reason to take the word of that final checking procedure than there was to trust the original experience as veridical.” 153

This brings us to the conclusion of our discussion. In quick recap, I hope to have shown the function of theistic proof are more suitable as a means of intelligent dialogue that engages the philosophical world. Theistic proofs are not absolute and are riddled with problems. They serve to open the skeptic and atheists minds to the rational possibility that there is a God. Our discussion was limited to the Cosmological argument, Teleological Argument, the Moral Argument and the Proof of God’s Existence by Religious Experience. We learned the nature, various modifications and standard rebuttals against certain theistic proofs.

It is my belief that attempt of the Christian philosophical community to engage the skeptic and atheist intellectually is paramount. In this intellectual arena is a fierce warfare where Satan is contending for the moral and spiritual center of humanity. God has given us mighty tools in the form of arguments wrapped in the context of scriptural truth. If we can give powerful argument in the philosophical context, then we may persuade someone to open their mind to scripture. We contend that it is only through scripture that a person moves to saving faith in Jesus Christ. Scripture says:

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and brining into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” II Corinthians 10:4-5

Mission Statement (Our values)

Crossroads Church

Crossroads Church exists to bring glory to God in making disciples through Gospel-centered worship, service, and community.

The mission of God and the Church

The mission of God is that his Glory fills the earth as waters cover the sea. The best way to reveal this glory is through the message of the Gospel of his Son. Through the Gospel of Christ, the mercy, forgiveness, justice and love of God is fully seen. The church exists to glorify God by making disciples through the Gospel of Christ. Since the mission of the church and God's mission are connected, the church must be oriented around Glorifying God through the Gospel.

Crossroads Mission

As part of the Church, Crossroads mission is to bring glory to God in making disciples through Gospel-centered worship, Gospel-centered services and Gospel-centered community.

Gospel-centered?

We are Gospel-centered because the Gospel of Christ is the heart of his revelation to us and the the substance of his redemptive plan for mankind. The church never graduates from the Gospel; the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation from the beginning to the end of the Church's life.

What is a disciple?

A disciple is a person who has been reconciled through the Gospel through the new birth and is subsequently growing in grace and love for God and others.

Gospel-centered worship

Gospel-centered worship is understanding the Gospel and its impact upon every area of our life and responding in love. This is nurtured through church services and small groups. The services feature preaching, teaching, singing, praying, baptism and communion that are centered around the Gospel.

Worship is assigning value or priority. We express worship in every facet of life with our words, time investments, and actions. We choose the object of our worship. Either we worship God or his creation by where we assign our values and priorities. Our goal is to worship God with every area of our life and not confine worship to a time and place.

Gospel-centered service

Gospel-centered services is a response to the Gospel; and as the Gospel transforms us, we begin to look outwardly instead of inwardly. Our faith finds expression through works of righteousness. We serve our community from a principle of love and gratitude.

Gospel-centered community

God created personal relationship with him through his son, but also created us to live in community. Gospel-centered community is a fellowship of believers that is characterized by self-sacrificing love, kindness, humbleness, and meekness toward each other. These acts of love is accomplished by responding to Christ's love in the Gospel. This love is our motive and power. Gospel-centered community is also characterized by turning away from a culture of slack, sin, and selfishness. Everything is truly done to the glory of God through Christ.

Statement of Faith

Crossroads Church

The Scriptures

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the verbally inspired word of God, the final authority for faith and life, inerrant in the original writings, infallible and God-breathed ( 2 Tim. 3:16, 17 ; 2 Peter 1:20, 21; Matt. 5:18; John 16:12, 13).

The Godhead

We believe in one Triune God, eternally existing in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; co-eternal in being, co-eternal in nature, co-equal in power and glory, having the same attributes and perfections (Deut. 6:4; 2 Cor. 13:14)

The Person and Work of Christ

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, became man without ceasing to be god, having been conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, in order that He might reveal God and redeem sinful man (John 1:1, 2, 14; Luke 1:35). We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished our redemption through His life and by his death on the cross as a representative, vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice, and that our justification is made sure by His literal, physical resurrection from the dead (Romans 3:24; 1 Peter 2:24; Eph 1:7; 1 Peter 1:3-5). We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God, where, as our High Priest, he fulfills the ministry as a Representative, Intercessor, and Advocate (Acts 1:9, 10; Heb. 7:25, 9:24; Rom. 8:34; 1 John 2:1-2).

The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit

We believe that the Holy Spirit is a person who convicts the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; and that He is the Supernatural Agent in regeneration, baptizing all believers into the body of Christ, indwelling and sealing them unto the day of redemption ( John 16:8-11; 2 Cor. 3:6 ;1 Cor. 12:12-14; Rom. 8:9; Eph. 5:18)

The Total Depravity of Man

We believe that man was created in the image and likeness of God, but that Adam's sin the race fell, inherited a sinful nature, and became alienated from God; man is totally depraved, and of himself utterly unable to remedy his lost condition (Gen. 1:26, 27; Rom. 3:22,23, 5:12; Eph. 2:1-3, 12).

Salvation

We believe that salvation is the gift of God brought to man by grace and received by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, whose precious blood was shed on Calvary for the forgiveness of our sins (Eph. 1:7, 2:8-10; John 1:12; 1 Peter 1:18,19).

Eternal Security and Assurance of Believers

We believe that all the redeemed are kept by God's power and are thus secure in Christ forever (John 6:37-40, 10:27-30; Rom. 8:1, 38, 39; 1 Cor. 1:4-8; 1 Peter 1:5). We believe that it is the privilege of believers to rejoice in the assurance of their salvation through the testimony of God's Word which clearly forbids the use of Christian liberty as an occasion to the flesh (Rom. 13:13, 14; Gal. 5:14; Titus 2:11-15).

The Ministry and Spiritual Gifts

We believe that God is sovereign in the bestowing of spiritual gifts. It is, however, the believer's responsibility to attempt to develop their sovereignly given spiritual gift(s). The baptism of the Holy spirit occurs at conversion and is the placing of the believer into the Body of Christ. We also believe that particular spiritual gift(s) are neither essential, nor do the prove the presence of the Holy Spirit, or are an indication of deep spiritual experience (1.Cor 12:7,11,13; Eph. 4:7,8). We believe that God does hear and answer the prayer of faith, in accordance with His own will, for the sick and afflicted (John 15:7; 1 John 5:14, 15). We believe that it is the privilege and responsibility of every believer to minister according to the gift(s) and grace that is given to him (Rom. 12:1-8; 1 Cor.13; 1 Peter 4:10-11).

The Church

We believe that the church, which is the body and espoused bride of Christ, is a spiritual organism made up of all born-again persons (Eph. 1:22, 23; 5:25-27; 1 Cor. 12:12-14; 2 Cor. 11:2) We believe that the establishment and continuance of local churches is clearly taught and defined in the New Testament Scriptures (Acts14:27, 18:22, 20:17; 1 Tim. 3:1-3; Titus 1:5-11). We believe in the autonomy of the local churches, fee of any external authority and control (Acts 13:1-4; 15:19-31, 20:28; Rom. 16:1, 4; 1 Cor. 3:9, 16: 5:4-7, 13; 1 Peter 5:1-4). We recognize believer's baptism and the Lord Supper as scriptural means of testimony for the church (Matt.28:19, 20; Acts 2:41, 42; 18:8; 1 Cor. 11:23-26).