Highlights from The Navigators' Discipleship Journal, Issue #98, Reasons We Believe

Glad you dropped by

- Faith comes from action based in trust and verified by the collection of resulting facts.. (From Josh McDowell and Don Stewart's article, Is it Reasonable to Believe in Christ?, page 41) 

     Nothing in Scripture indicates that faith is equal to foolishness, and much indicates 
the opposite.  "Thou shalt not think" is not one of the Ten Commandments.
     The Bible exhorts us to use  our  minds  in  making  decisions  about  Jesus  Christ. 
Christianity is sensible; it is reasonable, but one does not come to Jesus with  the  mind 
alone.  Faith must be exercised, yet the faith is based upon facts, not false hope. 
     Today people picture Christian faith as a blind leap into the dark, when it  actually 
is a step toward the light.  The Apostle Paul, while defending the Christian faith  before 
and unbelieving king, said, "For the king knoweth of these  things,  before  whom  also  I 
speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him;  for  this 
thing was not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26, KJV).
I have explained clearly in other documents found on the internet why I believe in the existence of God. The above point is central to my own faith. There are historical evidences available to us, also natural evidences found readily at hand. But, evidence clearly does not make us believers on its own. If it did there would be very little need for the very human involvement of the Church in our worlds. Faith must be exercised! Objectivity is a vital part of our belief, and in the above reference Paul is referring to this objectivity in his uncoerced discussion with King Agrippa. However, subjectivity is also vital. Having knowledge, we act. And in acting, we find that God is real.

(From Dennis McCallum's article, How do we know that God exists?, page 46) 

     The Argument from Design.  The presence of design in nature implies that  there  must 
be a Creator God.  We have to explain how we think the complex world in which we live came 
into being.  Chaos could not have issued forth order and complexity  unless  someone  with 
purpose and intelligence caused it to. ...
Attempts have been made to refute this position through science, but as onlookers in the debate, we must be careful to weigh the evidences. The fact is the strongest evidence comes from a theory, called evolution, that was perhaps innocently introduced to us by the Englishman Charles Darwin, who after failing to find a deep interest in his studies toward Christian clerical ministry was appointed as a naturalist on an investigative expedition to many pacific islands aboard a naval vessel called the H.M.S. Beagle. What Darwin found has been of great significance to scientific researchers, especially in special interassociations, and in the adaptive natures of living organisms over time. In fact, scientific investigation and guestimation, a qualified guessing of likely conditions and results, has led to a parallel in the order of developed life as outlined for us in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, in what Christians popularly call the Holy Bible. The largest distinctive differences are that the theory calls for accidental, or Godless, development over millions of years, whereas the Bible, claiming to be God's message to us, says that God made all of life in six days.

Again, I must reiterate, the strongest evidence against what Dennis McCallum has called 'The Argument from Design' comes from a theory, or speculated principles offered to explain a fact. And theory is no evidence at all. The idea of evolution has long been the moral anchor of atheists who desire to free themselves from the responsibilities handed down to us from God's word. Some very fanciful ideas have developed as a result, and so all seekers after the truth are advised to tread carefully, or as the Japanese say, test the bridge first before you cross over it.

     The Prepositional Argument.  In  order  for  any  worldview  to  be  believable,  the 
conclusions must agree with  the  presuppositions  of  that  view.   Otherwise,  the  view 
contradicts itself and is irrational.  For instance, certain ways of thinking  and  acting 
are inconsistent with the atheistic presupposition that the universe is purely the product 
of chance plus chaos.  ...  ..any time we use our reasoning ability  to  draw  conclusions 
and any time we look at patterns in the universe to discover  truth  (such  as  scientific 
laws), we are affirming by our actions that we already suppose there is a  rational  basis 
to the universe.  Otherwise, why would we trust anything our rational minds tell us?   ...
Our actions show that we believe in an orderly and rational basis to the universe.   [And] 
such reasoning.. is consistent with theism, not  with  naturalism.   This  reasonable  and 
orderly basis to the universe.. is none other than the  reasoning  and  personal  One  who 
created all and is Himself the ground of all being.
I have tried to quote McCallum as concisely as possible here because his proof involves an illustration for which there is not sufficient space, however careful consideration of this argument could be well-worth the reader's time. Outside of this document, Phil White and I had a discussion concerning Berkeley's belief that there is no reality because we all exist within God's mind. Neither of us agreed with Berkeley's position, though I found it a tempting thought and very close to the truth. In this case, God is the rational mind and we exist within Him. Hence, everything could make sense naturally - though there would be no free will. And, neither Phil or myself can accept that idea. McCallum explains that by using rational arguments we are agreeing with the position that the universe did not evolve by chance.

     The Cosmological Argument.  Scientists are now virtually unanimous in saying that the 
universe is expanding.  The movement of stars and galaxies away from  each  other  can  be 
measured..  If we reasoned backwards.. the stars and other matter in the  universe  must.. 
have been together in one place.  ..the so-called big bang occurred, which sent the  stars
and galaxies hurtling out from one another as they still are today.
     What could have caused the big bang?  Scientists have entertained the  notion  of  an 
oscillating universe.. if there is enough mass in the universe, it is  possible  that  the 
gravitational pull of so much mass will eventually slow and reverse the outward  motion... 
Eventually, the universe would fall back into  itself.   The  energy  of  so  much  matter 
crashing together  would  cause  another  big  bang,  and  so  forth,  for  eternity.  ... 
Unfortunately, many astronomers are now becoming convinced that there is not  enough  mass 
in the universe to arrest the present momentum and accomplish this oscillation.
     This means either two things.
     There [was only] this one big bang.  If so, there is no endless sequence of cause and 
effect extending into the past.  ..there would have  to  be  some  cause  that  we  cannot 
imagine or describe based on our knowledge.  Whether this unimaginable cause is natural or 
is God seems to be an even call.  Belief in either would have to rest on faith.  It  would 
be just as easy to believe.. [it] began in an uncaused  cause  --  the  infinite  personal 
Creator God.
     On the other hand, it is possible that there is matter in the universe that  we  have 
not yet been able to see or measure.  This is the view accepted by most naturalists today.
This is not belief in the evidence of the senses, but faith in that which  will  fill  the 
gap and make this worldview tenable. ..blind faith.
There is little more I need to say concerning McCallum's view here. Atheistic, or naturalistic evolution claims the world exists by accident. This can only be clearly accepted if there is proof of a continuum. Hence, the oscillating universe theory. Popular naturalists like Carl Sagan claim accidental existence of such magnitude as our present world ** requires billions and billions of years to accidentally develop, ignoring a theory of thermodynamics which holds that organized systems tend towards chaos (and this can be proven through mere observation). At what price do we continue to ignore God? Phil questions the idea of freedom at any cost, criticising the religious for inciting or continuing opposition leading towards often their own destruction. However, atheists actually appear to be the ones who are biased in their own efforts. They seem to actively what to disprove God, at least to a big enough audience to feel free from the claims that come to us from the Bible. Why is this? Could it be that they are fighting for their own kind of religious freedom? A freedom from their God's authority over them? This chafing under God's authority is hardly new; we can read about it in Psalm 2. Perhaps a greater question is this: Why do individuals object to God's authority in their lives? I think the answer to this question, would be very worthwhile finding...

May God bless you!!!

** By worlds, I mean world-views, or how we personally see the rules of interactions between ourselves and all else we encounter in the world, and possibly apart from it. In contrast, world means the planet we live on, and World refers to the total interaction of human beings.


Back to the Front

This page hosted by GeoCities Get your own Free Home Page