HOW CAN WE KNOW THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS THE ONE TRUE GOD?

HOW CAN WE KNOW THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS THE ONE TRUE GOD? Every religion has a different view of God. Though there are often similarities between these views, the common ground is merely superficial. There are fundamental differences that make each religion distinct and unreconcilable. Logically, contradictory claims cannot all be true, either one view of God is true or all of them are false. Many people have made the argument that each religion has a piece of the picture of God and that all the pieces together form the full picture. This is illustrated by the story of the elephant and the blind wise men. In the story, an elephant is brought to the court of a king who is busy elsewhere in the castle. The king s wise men, who are blind, begin to examine the elephant by touch. One wise man feels the side of the elephant and says, An elephant is like a wall. A second wise man touches the trunk and says, An elephant is like a snake. Another holds the leg and says, An elephant is like a tree. A fourth feels a tusk and says, An elephant is like a spear. Yet another holds the ear and says, An elephant is like a fan. The last wise man touches the tail and thinks the elephant is like a rope. The blind men then start quarreling about who is right. The king then comes to see what all the fuss is about. The king tells them they each only have a part of the picture. Each of them is right and if they just put all their information together they would have a full picture of the elephant. The problem with this illustration is that if God is the elephant and we are the blind wise men, there is no one left to be the king who sees the full picture. No one is removed enough from the situation to have a clear view. Ironically, the illustration that tries to show that no one has a correct view of God actually illustrates just the opposite. To make this claim a person would have to have a correct view of God, which is precisely what the claim denies. This brings us back to the question of which God exists. The classic arguments for the existence of God provide us not only with good reasons to believe in God s existence, but they also provide us with a list of some of God s attributes. The cosmological and design arguments show that God is necessary, powerful, transcendent, noncontingent, intelligent, and personal. The moral argument shows that God has a moral will and that he is engaged in the world. And all three show that God is uniquely ultimate and absolute. As a result, these arguments provide us with a sort of glass slipper, a checklist of criteria that must be met by any accurate description of God. If we can find the foot that fits, we will find a religion that holds to an accurate view of God. Any view that denies one or more of the criteria presents a false view of God. Now, let us take the glass slipper in search of its owner. Atheism Atheism claims that God does not exist, or that if He does exist we cannot know anything about Him. The physical universe is all that exists, period. Obviously, this does not account for a single attribute of the Glass Slipper. And the alternate explanations given by atheists for how the universe came into existence, the appearance of design in the universe, and the existence of morality are all deeply flawed. The only world religion to adhere to a form of atheism is

Buddhism, which sees God as irrelevant. Because atheism corresponds to none of the ten attributes we have learned about God, we can reject atheism as a valid way of understanding God. There is not a foot to even try to put the Glass Slipper on. Agnosticism Agnosticism says God is unknown but not necessarily unknowable. Agnostics see their view as neutral ground. For the agnostic the jury is still out. Actually, agnosticism is not a view of God at all. Instead, it s a description of a person s lack of knowledge or indecision. Obviously, agnosticism fails to address any attributes of the glass slipper. Pantheism Pantheism is the view that everything that exists is God. There are several different kinds of pantheism. One view holds that God is a force that is in all things. Another view sees God as the totality of everything, that all is one and one is all. And some see God as manifest in many forms, each a part of the ultimate reality. Many pantheists believe nature is just part of the whole. Others believe physical reality is only an illusion. Pantheists believe that God is impersonal. And since everything that exists is part of God, we ourselves are part of God, parts of the divine whole. Because God is impersonal, our individual personhood is only illusion. When we die we are absorbed into the impersonal whole. In pantheism distinctions, such as dualities or opposites, do not exist. Things either are or they are not; they are either real or illusion, they either exist or they do not. This means, for example, there can be no right and wrong, good and evil, or true and false. Because God is impersonal God cannot have a moral will. Whatever is is reality, the rest is illusion. There are no moral distinctions. Logic and reason are also examples of illusions since they deal with opposites of true and false. However, one form of pantheism is based on the observation that the same matter and energy that makes the universe makes us. We are made by the universe, sustained by the universe, destroyed by the universe, and returned to the universe after we die. The universe is all that exists. This is called scientific pantheism. One major difference in scientific pantheism is that it does not deny opposites. Rather, it relies heavily on logic and reason. Pantheism fails to account for features of reality revealed by the cosmological, design, and moral arguments. Because pantheism says God is impersonal, God cannot be intelligent since only persons have intelligence. And God cannot be engaged in the world since intentionality and engagement are also characteristics exclusive to persons. Also, if everything that exists is itself a part of God then nothing can be transcendent. Lastly, in pantheism the universe is eternal and unchanging; it has no beginning or end. This would require the existence of actual infinites, something that is clearly impossible. Pantheism has some very difficult problems. One problem has to do with morality. If we are all absorbed into the impersonal whole when we die then we all share the same fate. How we live makes absolutely no difference. There is no ground for morality. Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler share the same fate. Pantheists also claim that we are a part of God, and that God is unchanging. But if we can come

to realize that we are a part of God, then we have changed. Thus, God would change because we changed. Non-scientifc pantheism has a convenient answer for this contradiction: there is no such thing as logic or reason. The problem with this solution is that it uses logic and reason to claim that logic and reason do not exist. Either there are such things as logic and reason or there are not. Logic and reason are required to make a statement that denies logic and reason. Looking at our list we see that pantheism corresponds to only five of the ten attributes of reality that comprise our glass slipper. is necessary is powerful is NOT transcendent is non-contingent is NOT intelligent is NOT personal is NOT moral is NOT engaged. is unique Thus, pantheism is a poor explanation for how to understand God. It fails to correspond with features of reality that can be known apart from religion. The glass slipper does not fit pantheism. Religions that have a pantheistic view of God include Hinduism, Taoism, some forms of Buddhism, the New Age movement, paganism, some forms of Unitarian Universalism, Christian Science, and Scientology. Panentheism Panentheism sees God as both distinct from and dependent on the world at the same time. God comes from the world, and the world comes from God. It is a symbiotic relationship. Because our souls are our essence, which in turn are a part of the ultimate reality, we are all a part of God, though we are not God. And because the world is always changing, God is also always changing. As our souls learn and grow, God becomes more powerful. God then uses that power to create new things for us to learn. God is learning and growing just as we are. One way to envision panentheism is to view God as both a seed and a tree. The tree represents everything God could possibly become. The seed represents the actual state that God (and, consequently, the world) is now in. But in panenthesim the seed never actually becomes a tree. Although God is always growing and changing, God will never attain all that is possible to become. This is why panentheism is also known as process theology God is always in process. In panentheism the universe, or God, has always existed and always will exist. Yet God is always changing. God is finite and temporal. A finite God always lacks something. That is why it can change. And change is a sequential phenomenon; things change from one thing to another over time. Thus, in panentheism, God is simultaneously finite and eternal. Panentheism has been adopted by some forms of Judaism and Christianity, such as in Liberation Theology.

Panenthesim can account for seven of the glass slipper s attributes. is necessary is powerful. is NOT transcendent IS contingent is intelligent is personal is NOT moral is engaged is unique The attributes of the glass slipper reveal that the idea of a finite and dependent God is false. And the idea of an eternally existing universe again runs into the problem of the existence of actual infinites. Panentheism also fails to fit the glass slipper by giving no grounding for morality. If morals are rooted in God and God is always changing, then moral values are also changing, or at least they can change and therefore have no force. Why change immoral behavior if morality itself may soon change and make the immoral moral? And panentheistic morality therefore has no authority to enforce morality, and thus is no morality at all. In the end, panentheism fails to account for the features of reality found in the cosmological, design, and moral arguments. Finite Godism Finite godism describes God as the first cause that is personal, loving, and good. But Finite godism says that because evil exists, God must not be able to control or defeat it. Therefore, God is not all-powerful and is limited in nature. God does not like evil but he cannot prevent it from happening. Finite godism says that source of the imperfection of the universe is an imperfect God. And since the universe is finite, the source of the universe is a finite God. Most adherents to finite godism do not believe that God performs miracles. Because God is finite, there is not any real certainty that morality falls within the scope of God s ability to ground it. The source of morality in finite godism is ultimately unknown, though some adherents do see God as the source of morality. Though finite godism is found in some forms of Reformed Judaism, it is not a doctrine explicitly taught by any religion. However, Zoroastrianism, which teaches that there is a duality of selfexisting Gods, one good and one evil, is ultimately a form of finite godism. In Zoroastrianism the Wise Lord (God) is at war with the Destructive Spirit (the Devil). Since each of the Gods are selfexisting and each created different things, one good, the other evil, they are each finite. Each is something the other is not, and each has power the other lacks. Finite Godism agrees at five or six points on the Glass Slipper, depending on the view of the grounds of morality: Is NOT necessary Is NOT all-powerful Is transcendent Is contingent

May or may not be moral Is NOT engaged Is unique Finite godism has a number of problems. If God is finite, then where did God come from? And if God does not perform miracles, where did the universe come from? If God is not the source of morality then what does it matter what we do? If God is the source of morality, then morality has limited force since God is finite and may or may not be able to answer any wrongdoing with justice. And if, as in Zoroastrianism, God can be defeated by the Destructive Spirit, then God is not a necessary being since things could exist without him. But a God who is not necessary, is no God at all. Ultimately, finite godism has a number of internally incoherent features and falls far short of fitting the glass slipper. Polytheism Polytheism is the view that there is more than one god. These gods either come from nature or were once men and became gods. As such they are contingent and finite. The universe is either eternal or made from eternal matter. Although there is no consensus, many polytheists are moral relativists and do not believe morality comes from the gods. Religions that teach polytheism include, Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, paganism, and Mormonism. Mormons generally object to this characterization, claiming they worship only one God. But in Mormonism there are millions of gods, though they worship only one. This is a form of polytheism called henotheism. The Glass Slipper is a poor fit for this view, failing to account for five or six of the ten attributes. Is NOT necessary Is NOT powerful Is NOT transcendent IS contingent May or may not ground morality Is engaged Is NOT unique The cosmological argument tells us that everything had a beginning and did not exist eternally. But polytheism teaches that the universe (or matter) has always existed an impossibility because of the non-existence of actual infinites. Mormonism also requires actual infinites to accommodate the idea of gods coming from other gods who in turn came from other gods, and so forth. Again, this is an idea defeated by the non-existence of actual infinites. Without a first god to begin the chain we could not account for the gods of the present. But even without the problem of actual infinites, polytheism cannot account for the existence of the universe because there are no transcendent beings in polytheism. All things, including gods, come from the universe. They do not exist apart from it. And the beings that do exist have limited power. Polytheism thus fails not only to correspond to the attributes of the glass slipper, but it is also internally incoherent.

Deism Deism holds that God is not known through religion but only through reason and nature. God is a necessary, personal, powerful, transcendent being and the world is his only revelation about himself. Thus, there are no miracles. In order that we could understand him through His creation, He gave us reason. Basically, in deism God wound up the world and is passively watching it run down without interacting with it. Deism misses on only one of the ten attributes. Is necessary Is powerful Is transcendent Is non-contingent Is moral Is NOT engaged Is unique One major problem with Deism is that it requires the one thing that it denies miracles. The creation of the world was not a natural act. It required a miracle, an intervention by a transcendent, all-powerful, personal being. Without this miracle the world could not exist. If the world could exist without God, God would not be all-powerful since he could not stop it, would not be necessary, and would have no moral authority since he could not have a purpose for what he did not create. The result is that deism, though close to fitting our glass slipper, still fails to account for the universe as we find it. Monotheism Monotheism sees God as the person who created all things and sustains all things, but is different from those things. God interacts with creation in various ways and can reveal Himself to us through morality, nature, reason, and even direct revelation. Monotheism is taught by three of the world s religions: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Monotheism hits on every point of the glass slipper. The shoe fits perfectly. Exist Is necessary Is powerful Is transcendent Is non-contingent Is moral Is engaged Is unique Interestingly enough, the monotheistic religions do not just have the same basic description of God, they all claim to be talking about the God who has revealed himself in the Old Testament. Islam, however, claims the Old Testament has become corrupted. Christians believe the messianic promises in the Old Testament were fulfilled in Jesus. Judaism denies both.

At the core of these differences is who they think Jesus is. And since the vast majority of information about Jesus comes from the New Testament, we should consider its trustworthiness. The content New Testament can be traced back to the first century, with some parts of it dating from within 1 3 years of the crucifixion. It was also written by eyewitnesses or those who wrote down the testimony of eyewitnesses. Textual criticism demonstrates that the content has been passed down with an extremely high degree of accuracy, so we know what we have is what was written. The content is corroborated by archaeological discoveries as well as by fulfilled prophecy. And the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus confirms his teaching as God incarnate through whom we can have salvation and communion with God. Islam simply asserts that the New Testament is corrupt and offers no evidence. Judaism rejects the Resurrection and thus the teaching of Jesus, yet they cannot offer a better explanation for the empty tomb or account for his other miracles. In addition to these arguments, the Transcendental Argument for God uses the concept of the Trinity to show that the Christian view of God is the only view that can account for laws of nature, logic, morality, the existence of universals and the mind. In the end, when all the arguments are considered we see that the Christian view of God is the only one that fits the glass slipper and also provides substantial reason for its truthfulness. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: Apologetics Study Bible Articles: Does the Cosmological Argument Show There Is a God? By J.P. Moreland, 806. Does the Design Argument Show There Is a God? By William A. Dembski, 1327. Does the Moral Argument Show There Is a God? By Paul Copan, 1687. Is the New Testament Trustworthy? By Darrel L. Bock, 1452. Doug Powell, The Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 5, Which God Exists? DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Is there anything the Glass Slipper has left out that should be there? Is there anything included that you think shouldn t be there? 2. Is the Glass Slipper a reasonable way to access views of God? Why or why not? 3. Are there any views of God that are not considered? If so, how closely would they fit the Glass Slipper? 4. Astronomer Carl Sagan famously said, The cosmos is all is or ever was or ever will be. What view of God does this idea hold to? 5. For each of the ways to view God, can you name someone who held the view? APOLOGETICSSTUDYBIBLE.COM 2008 B&H PUBLISHING