Theism: A Primer

Introduction

Many solid philosophical arguments have been advanced over the centuries that have demonstrated that God necessarily exists as the one and only eternal, self-existent, immutable, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-benevolent Necessary Being who is Pure Actuality. Classical theism, as this view of God is known, properly conforms to the Biblical data and natural theology and is therefore in direct contradistinction to other views of God such as atheism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, polytheism, and finite godism. When we speak of God, we must understand Who we are referring to and what His nature is like to the extent that He has made Himself known. Apart from a well-grounded metaphysics and theology, we become easy prey for counterfeit philosophies and religions that use the term “God” but mean something entirely different. The legitimate sources from which we may construct our theology are both creation (Rom. 1:18-28) and Scripture. Though natural theology can instruct us about God to a limited degree, those truths prerequisite for saving faith are derived from Scripture alone.

The manifold divergent views of God can be ultimately reduced to the dichotomy of supernaturalism versus naturalism (anti-supernaturalism). Naturalism includes both atheism and pantheism for they are both essentially anti-transcendent and monistic. The monism of Parmenides was satisfactorily refuted by Aquinas who understood there to be two different kinds of beings, simple and complex. Creation is complex, Aquinas contended, possessing both actuality and potentiality. As opposed to an equivocal or univocal relationship, creation has an analogical relationship to the Creator who is simple and pure Actuality. Thus, Aquinas provided an apologetic against monism that effectively overthrew atheism and pantheism and placed supernaturalism on firm footing. 

Cosmological Argument

Furthermore, the cosmological argument, in its horizontal (kalam) and vertical form, argues for a Beginner and Sustainer of the universe respectively. Genesis 1:1 assumes the existence of God and declares Him and Him alone to be the Creator of the universe. Hence, the kalam cosmological argument agrees with the Bible that there is a transcendent God who is the uncaused First Cause of the universe (Gen. 1:1). Additionally, the Bible speaks of God as the Sustainer of His creation (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3; Ps. 104). Aquinas, arguing from the vertical form of the argument, similarly demonstrated that a Necessary Being is essential to the continuance of the contingent universe. Consequently, by combining the two forms of the cosmological argument, an effective blow is dealt against deism, for God currently sustains the universe; against polytheism, for there can be only one Necessary Being who is Pure Actuality; against finite godism for pure actuality and finitude are incompatible; and against panentheism for a Necessary Being is by definition unchanging. Only theism remains as a plausible explanation to the question, “Why is there something instead of nothing?”

Teleological Argument

With the existence of the God of theism established through the cosmological argument, other philosophical deductions from natural theology are advanced to further describe the nature of God. The teleological argument, advanced initially by William Paley, posits that the evident complex design of the universe  points to the existence of a great Designer. King David agreed, giving praise to God as he contemplated the intricate design evident within the human body (Ps. 139:13-16). Numerous other passages attest to the unfathomable wisdom of God that is displayed in the creation (see especially Job 38:1ff). Both general and special revelation declare that the infinite intelligence of God is displayed in His wondrous creation. 

Ontological Argument

The ontological argument demonstrates that if God does exist, He must exist necessarily. He is eternal and cannot cease to exist nor can He exist contingently. His covenant Name, “I AM WHO I AM,” is one of Scripture’s affirmations that God is self-existent and eternal (Ex. 3:14). If He exists at all, he must necessarily exist as a Necessary Being. 

Moral Argument

The moral law argument was popularized by C.S. Lewis who contended that since 1) moral law implies a moral law giver and 2) there is an objective moral law, therefore 3) there is an objective moral Law Giver. Moral laws are prescriptions; they prescribe what ought to be. A prescription can only be given by a prescriber. Therefore, the first premise is self-evident. The evidence for the second premise, that objective moral laws exist, is also very strong. Regardless of how mankind attempts to escape his duty to God, he nevertheless ends up affirming the existence of a cosmic moral Law Giver by his predisposition toward making his own moral prescriptions. Never mind that man’s prescriptions are often in conflict with God’s. The truth is he simply cannot escape the moral law within him that unfailingly compels him to prescribe standards by which right and wrong should be measured. 

The evidence of this truth is most brazenly demonstrated by man’s not so infrequent declarations of what he thinks are God’s moral obligations. The most hardened skeptics are often fond of decrying what they see as supposed moral deficiencies in God. This exposes man as inescapably moral, even if his morality is wanting and his rejection of God spiritually suicidal. Lewis argued that the presence of this moral law within man is incontrovertible evidence that the Creator is a moral Being. Scripture indeed agrees with Lewis and abounds with moral prescriptions by which man’s behavior is judged. Most exacting of these prescriptions is that because God is holy, we too must be holy (Lev. 19:2; 1 Pet. 1:16). Most precious is His prescription that because He is love and unconditionally loves us, we should reciprocate that love and extend it to all those He has made in His image (Matt. 22:37-40; 1 John 4:8).

Conclusion

Having a well-grounded theism better enables us to understand the special revelation of Scripture and should also make us more adept at discerning the errors in conflicting “lesser god” views. For example, it is precisely because we understand that God is pure spirit (John 4:24; 2 Cor. 3:17) that we also understand that Scripture speaks anthropomorphically when it says that He has hands, nostrils, feet, wings, brandishes a bow and arrow, etc.  God cannot be bound by any physical features and still be the eternal, omnipresent God. Tragically, many leaders within the Church today have advanced teachings about God that do violence to classical theism and effectively reduce Him to a mere exalted creature. Some, attempting to make God more “relationally acceptable” to the post-modern mind, proof-text their theology with Scripture wrenched out of context and torn from the moorings of sound metaphysics. Armed with a precise and well-grounded theism, however, the apologist can be better prepared to “rightly divide the word of truth” and uphold the only view of God that gives Him the glory due His Name.