The One True God - Part 2

PDF

We want to welcome those of you who might be visiting with us tonight, and let me give you a little context for our Sunday evening service. We are taking a little more classroom approach on Sunday evening looking at the doctrines of the Bible. Specifically, we have recently completed the study of bibliology that is what the Bible says about itself, and tonight we have we find ourselves in the second, in I don't know how many part, series on theology proper, that is we are studying the doctrine of God, the one true God.

I had a seminary professor who related an interesting story to me when I was in seminary. He had an acquaintance who said that he was not a Christian because he had not been rationally convinced of the validity of the Christian faith. My seminary professor took that as a personal challenge, and he related to him an argument that was first put into Christianity by a man by the name of Blaise Pascal.

It's basically this. He said, "Well let me see if I can convince you logically that you should embrace Christ, and you should become a Christian." He said, "Let's assume for a moment, that I as a Christian, am wrong. At the end of my sixty years, seventy years, eighty years, I die, and I go into the grave, and I cease to exist. What have I lost? What have I risked in being a Christian in this life?"

And the man had to admit, of course, that, "Well, maybe, you missed out on a few things you would've otherwise done. You missed out on some fun you could have, some pleasure you could have pursued, but that's about the extent of what you would've lost."

"So, well, let's take the other side of that argument. What if I, as a Christian, I am right. What if there is an eternity? What if there is a God? Or if there is a Christ? What have you lost by not receiving Christ and becoming a Christian?"

And the man, of course, had to admit, as the argument goes from Blaise Pascal. "Well, I would lose everything. Eternity would be lost."

And my seminary professor said to him, "Well there you go. I've logically convinced you that the logical decision to make is to become a Christian. Are you ready to become a Christian?"

To which his friend of course, responded, "Well no, I mean I don't really want to do that at this point."

And my professor, a man by the name of Dr. Bell said, "Well I knew that, but I just wanted to convince you that your problem with Christianity was not a logical one or a rational one, it was a moral one. You don't want to leave the things that you currently enjoy and have someone else telling you what to do."

In the words of the Jews, we will not have this man to rule over us. That is the issue. You need to keep that in mind, even as tonight we talk about the rational arguments for the existence of God. People's problem is not a rational one. People's problem is a moral one. And as you talk to them you have to remember that and keep that in mind.

Let me give you a brief review of where we went last week. We will do this very briefly, but we're talking about the existence of God, and specifically as we talked about that we looked at the fact that God has revealed Himself in some very specific ways. He's revealed, remember Romans 1, he's revealed His power, His eternal Godhead, He's revealed His moral code in the heart of man and the conscience in Romans 2. And so there is this universal knowledge of God. It is a necessary knowledge because it cannot be gained through man's abilities through his own mental skills and the fact that this knowledge exists is scriptural.

Again, we looked at several verses that support this, but in addition, we discovered that man rejects that knowledge. You remember in Romans 1:18, man chooses to suppress the knowledge. He chooses to suppress the truth in his own "ungodliness" which is a word in reference to God and His "unrighteousness". That's a word in reference to his fellow man. He chooses morally, as my seminary professor's friend did, to reject the reality of God, that God exists.

So, we then started our approach to the classic rational argument, but before we got there, I reminded you that they're basically two approaches when we approach people. One of those is the evidentialist approach, and evidentialist says there is a common pool of facts that we share with unbelievers, and if we carefully use our reason and the use of that common pool of facts, we can get them to agree that what we believe is the truth and possibly even get them to accept Christ.

On the other hand there's the presuppositionalist. The presuppositionalist says man must be faced with God's revelation. God must reveal Himself. Man also, and He has revealed Himself, and man has a knowledge of that. Man knows. In fact, Romans 1 says when they knew God, they made a choice. Man made a conscious choice. Man choose, as we said in Romans 1:18, to suppress that truth; and therefore; man finds himself absolutely, according to Ephesians 2:1, dead in transgressions and sins; unable to respond to God and unable to choose good. As we mentioned last time does man have a free will? Of course he does, God has given us that capacity, but an unregenerate man has the free will only to sin. Given the choice of righteousness and unrighteousness, he will always choose unrighteousness. So, he finds himself in a terrible predicament.

That brings on the necessity of regeneration. God has to act. You go further in that chapter in Ephesians after the verses where it describes the depth of which man has sunk. There are those wonderful magnificent words "but God." But God interacted in man's life to bring him new life. God made him alive, Paul says Romans 2. He brings regeneration. And that happens through the Spirit's use of the Word. We looked at several texts as we have in several weeks, but for the reality of the fact that what God uses is His Word, and His Spirit energizes that Word as it is spoken to bring regeneration.

We saw that in Romans 10. We saw that in Peter, a number of places, and because of that, the proof of God is not only impossible, as we will see with the rational arguments tonight, but it's unnecessary because God has already proven His existence. It's in the very fabric of man's mind and heart, and he's chosen to suppress it. And until God acts, and until God brings life where there is death, man cannot respond.

Therefore, we are presuppositionalists because we believe these things. It's not that there is no use for evidences, and we'll talk about that tonight. But evidences, all of my argument, all of my evidences will never convince a dead person to be alive. There's a tremendous freeing factor in that on a practical level on just a pastoral level. I'll tell you that I grew up in a home (and not so much a home but in a culture of church culture) that was more on the evidentialist side and on the human responsibility side to a degree that I felt as a new believer that it was my duty, it was my responsibility, not only to sow the seed of the gospel, not only to share the truth that God has made a way in Christ to bring forgiveness, but somehow win that soul.

You ever heard that expression? Soul winning, there's nothing wrong with that phrase, but sometimes it brings along with it brings along with it a meaning that we shouldn't carry with it, and that is that it's my responsibility to win them. I can somehow reach inside a person and convince them to embrace Christ. Listen, I can no more do that than I can do everything else God does. I can no more reach inside a person and ignite their faith in the truth of the gospel, than I can stem the tides or change the cycle of the moon. So, those are the two approaches.

Now with those in mind that brings us then to the specific arguments. What I want to show you now are the primary rational arguments that have been offered through the history of the church. These are arguments that take this approach I'm going to assume you don't believe God exists and separate from the Bible. And separate from Revelation, I am going to reason you into a confidence that God exists. Now there are others of these than the four I'm going to share with you, but these are the primary ones. They date back some of them to the Greek philosophers. Others throughout the period of church history. But again, the point in each of these arguments is to, separate from revelation that is separate from scriptural revelation from written revelation to argue a person into a confidence that God in fact exists. Now these arguments have some benefit and we'll talk about those but they also have some serious drawbacks.

The first one is the cosmological argument. Comes from the word cosmos which means world. Has a long history actually this argument dates back to Plato and Aristotle who of course weren't arguing for the Christian God. It's a very complex argument, although it's often made to be very simple, but it's actually quite complex, and are two parts of it. But we're just going to deal with the first part which is the key part and that is this: it attempts to examine, or I should say establish, the existence of a first cause that is sufficient to produce the world. In other words, the whole point here is to say there had to be a first cause that created everything you see that it made the effect.

To summarize, we could summarize it this way. It is the argument from cause and effect. Basically, every effect must have an adequate cause. The world is in effect, therefore the world must've had a caused outside of itself, an adequate to produce its existence. Hebrews really implies this argument. Turn to Hebrews 3. That's not what I want, try Hebrews 11. I wrote it down wrong in my notes. Hebrews 11:3, "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

There is this argument that when you look at the effect, there has to be in it, and again the argument isn't here clearly, but it's implied here, there has to be a cause sufficient to have produced these things. Psalm 19 really makes the same argument. Look at Psalm 19:1. This was the first verse I ever learned in Hebrew. My wife got tired of hearing me recite it in Hebrew actually, and I won't do for you tonight, but I still remember it. It was beaten into my head. Listen to what it says, "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." Basically, David is (in some sense is) saying look at the effect. Look at the heavens, look at the majesty and the magnificence of everything you see. There had to be a cause sufficient to create this. And Romans 1, of course, (which we won't look at, we have many times) makes the same point. As you lift your eyes on the creation, God has made it evident of His eternal power and His Godhead, His Godness.

Now what's the contribution of this argument? Well, the contribution people who like this argument say is that it shows that there is a first cause. In other words, there is a power behind everything you see behind all of the effects that happen in our world. But the weaknesses of this argument are several. First of all, it begs the question of the need for a first cause. In other words, it assumes without proof that everything must have a first cause. Doesn't prove that it just assumes there has to be a first cause, and so, logically, it doesn't cut muster. Also, logically, if there must be a cause to every effect, then you only have an endless series of causes. God Himself must have a cause. You know it comes back to the child's question. You tell them God made everything, and what do they say? Who made God?

Also, this argument doesn't demand a single personal cause. In other words, it doesn't demand that it be our personal God that we worship. It could have been a number of causes, or it could've been impersonal forces. That's as far back as it goes. By the way this argument that God must have a cause, this was one of atheist Bertrand Russell's big points. This was the point. He argued against this. He said obviously this isn't an argument for the existence of God because you have just argued against the existence of God by saying everything including God must have a cause.

That brings us to the second one the "teleological argument". The Greek word "Telos" means "end or goal". The roots of this argument go back again to Plato. Summarized, it's an argument from order and design. Basically, it says this intelligent design presupposes a designer. The universe clearly exhibits intelligent design therefore some architect brought the world into existence. This is similar to Paul's argument again in Romans 1.

The most famous illustration of this view, or this argument came from the man by the name of Haley back in the early eighteen hundreds. He wrote (I think it was 1802 somewhere in there he wrote), and he argued the issue (of well let me start he would say that you walk) you walk through the woods, and your foot hits a stone. You look down at that stone. You say, well it's possible that stone has been there forever. That does not violate the laws of logic. It's not irrational. But if you're walking through those same woods, and you come upon a watch, and you pick up that watch. You look at it. Your immediate conclusion cannot be (it is not rational to conclude) that that is just been there forever.

Why? Well because you realize that this is very intricately designed. That they're all of these minute parts each fulfilling a specific purpose that it actually tells time that it keeps track of what's going on in the world. And so, this intelligent design, or I should say this purposeful, intricate system of a pocket watch demands intelligent design. And he said, look, that's true even if you've never seen a watch. You've never seen a watch, but you're walking along and came upon one. You would conclude somebody made this. It's also true even if the watch doesn't always function properly. You wouldn't assume that it was the watchmaker's problem necessarily. Might be the elements have somehow made it not function properly or the time that's passed since it was made. The argument is also true even if we couldn't discover the precise function of some of the parts. You might look at that watch, and go, I wonder what that does?

But you would still assume intelligent design just as let's say we look at the human body. We may not know, and for years they didn't know, what certain parts of the body did, and they sort of removed them at will. You don't need that, you know that's an expendable part. For the most part they don't do that anymore, for which we're grateful. The fact that you don't know what the part does doesn't mean that isn't part of an intelligent design.

And it's true even if we found the watch, and we found that the watch had the ability to manufacture other watches. Even that wouldn't argue against intelligent design because obviously that only raises the stakes. Now you've got an even more intelligent designer who could make a watch that makes other watches. So, even if (and it's not true), but even if we bought into the concept of evolution, that doesn't do away with the issue of intelligent design.

My most fascinating look into this issue of intelligent design is something I may show you when we get to the works of God and we talk about creation. I haven't talked with about the elders yet so I'm not sure we'll do it. There is a DVD that I purchased at one point that argues not for the Scripture, but it argues for intelligent design and uses a most fascinating part of creation. There are tiny one-celled creatures. I don't know what else to call them - flagellum bacteria, one celled bacteria that have a flagellum. It's a tiny little pair on the end of the cell that propels that cell wherever it wants to go. Under superhigh microscopic images they've been able to see that that flagellum that flagellar actually has a motor. A motor just like some of the motors in your home. It has a rotor through which it spins, it looks (under intense micro, what's the word I'm looking for? magnification) It looks just like a household motor in your home.

The bottom line is. It is incredibly, well precisely thought out, engineered, and designed. When you look at that, your first conclusion is, there must've been a designer. What is the supposed contribution of this view? And it is this: the first cause is intelligent, and He's outside the universe. In the words he made it, he's the creator. One of the weaknesses well basically two. The intelligent designer may be finite like his creation. All it calls for is someone who is slightly greater than what he made, not infinite. And also, intelligent design doesn't equal a personal God. It doesn't take you there.

The next argument is: the ontological argument. "Ontas" is a form of the Greek word to be means "being". It's the argument from being it's the argument from the idea of God. Now this one is a little hard to follow so put your thinking hat on. The others are pretty simple this was the toughest one. Basically, this argument argues that we have an idea of God an absolute perfect being. You have that idea. Men have that idea. This idea of God is infinitely greater than man himself. Hence it cannot have its origin in man. It can only have its origin in God himself. Put another way one writer put it this way. It is self-evident that every idea in our human culture has some cause. The idea of God must have some cause, and this cause must be God Himself.

What does this supposedly contribute? It tells us that this first cause must be infinite and perfect because that's how we perceive Him, that's how we conceive Him. This is a tough argument both to understand and to critique, but it has a serious weakness and that is you can't deduce real existence from abstract thought or imagination. Can't put it this way in attacking it, and he said this argument no more establishes the reality of God than a merchants adding zeros in his ledger increases his actual wealth. Wouldn't you love that if you could do that? You know just you're your check book and add a few zeros and boom, you've added wealth. Imagination does not produce reality. As one of Ann Selm, who by the way came up with this argument, as one of his critics said I can imagine a perfect island which no more perfect can be conceived. But that doesn't make island a reality nor does my perfect my conception of a perfect God make him a reality.

The final one I want us to look at is: the moral argument. It's also called the anthropological argument. The anthropological argument comes from the word "anthroposophy" meaning "man" so it's the argument from man. Actually it's the argument from man's conscience. Basically, it argues this: man has a moral consciousness, he's aware of sin, he's aware of breaking a moral code, every man has a sense of what is right and wrong and a sense of responsibility to do what is right and when he commits evil he experiences a sense of self-condemnation. We may conclude therefore that there is permanent, there is a permanent moral law to which we are accountable. We looked at this in Roman 2 basically it's an argument from Romans 2.

This is the argument if you've read it of CS Lewis' Mere Christianity. He argues from the existence of conscience, and he talks about the various arguments against it. You could say well maybe that's just what the parents taught them. You know there's this sort of universal sense of right and wrong. For example, it's either there are no cultures in which lying is a good thing. Even in the most bizarre cultures, I shouldn't say there are none, there very few there is a sort of universal acceptance and cultures where lying, ours may be the new exception, shortly, but where lying is a virtue. Where being disloyal is a virtue. So there's this sort of universal acceptance of these things as reality. And he argued, that means back of those that universal acceptance there is a moral lawgiver.

Now what's the supposed contribution of this? That is that this first cause we've talked about has a moral nature. But they are weaknesses with this argument as well. It doesn't prove, but it assumes that that moral law is objective and not subjective, in other words that it exists outside of me as opposed to something my parents taught me or I just sort of came up with on my own. It also doesn't necessarily point to a being of absolute perfections. Now you say, why did you take time to go through that? Because you will hear these arguments used in a variety of ways. Let me tell you how different Christians look at these proofs. And obviously I'm building to how I think you should look at it but let me give you the way some do.

First of all, some say that these proofs, or one or more of them successfully argued for God's existence. They believe that the rational arguments are an effective tool in evangelism. Now let's be honest with their view. They don't believe that these arguments will force someone to believe. They just believe that any rational person when they're done must admit that there's a God. For example, R.C. Sprawl and his Ligonier Ministries would embrace this view. He's an evidentialist, and I respect him, I just disagree with him on this point. I don't think he's being consistent with his own theology.

A second approach people take to these classic proofs is that these arguments will convince no one who isn't already a believer. But they offer grounds to the believer for thinking that his faith is rational that is it's not irrational. These rational arguments, writes one writer, have some value for believers themselves but should be called testimonia rather than arguments. They are important as interpretations of God's general revelation and as exhibiting the reasonableness of belief in a divine being. Moreover, they can render some service in meeting the adversary. While they do not prove the existence of God beyond the possibility of doubt so as to compel a sin, that they can be so construed as to establish a strong probability and thereby silence many unbelievers. That's Lewis Berkhof.

Another view is that they have no value whatsoever. Doctor Kuyper writes this. The attempt to prove God's existence is either useless or unsuccessful. It is useless if the searcher believes that God is a rewarder of those who seek him, and it is unsuccessful if it is an attempt to force a person who does not have this faith by means of argumentation to an acknowledgment in a logical sense.

The view I would encourage you to take is this, a presuppositionalist approach, a common sense presupposition approach to these arguments. It's this: no rational argument will convince an unbeliever he's dead. It's not going to happen. No rational argument will convince him because he is dead in trespasses and sins; however, use these proofs for God's existence apologetically to remove his objections to Christianity. In other words, make them offensive weapons to demolish the ridiculous arguments put up by the unbeliever rather than in a defensive mode to argue that God exists. Does that make sense?

Take the offensive with him, and show him how ridiculous it is for him to hold the position he holds. Of course, He exists. Take the world for example Paul says that all around you is sufficient evidence for the existence of God. You see you're taking the offensive rather than the defensive. Rather than presenting them (and this is key), rather than presenting them as logical arguments, use the biblical passages as the basis for presenting the argument. In other words, I'm going to reason you into faith. Instead, go to the biblical passages that deal with these issues, and knock the props out from under nonbeliever who says well I don't believe there's any I don't believe God does exist. Well, let me tell you God believes He exists, and He doesn't believe in atheists. Let me show you why.

Let me give you a scriptural basis for what I'm telling you. Turn for a moment to 2 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians 10. Notice verse 3. Paul says,

For though we walk in the flesh we do not war according to the flesh. So, we're in the flesh we're human but we don't make war according to our flesh for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh we don't use fleshly weapons to fight spiritual battles, but divinely powerful [our weapons are divinely powerful notice this next phrase] for the destruction of fortresses.

Now fortresses the word "fortresses" describes a "stronghold". Many Greek cities like Corinth, for example, where Paul was writing to had an acropolis. The acropolis was designed for a number of things, but in some cities one of the things it was designed for was it was a place of retreat if you were attacked. It was usually on a high place, and you went there to fend off the attacks of the approaching army. It was a high fortified place near the city to which you could retreat. It was also used (this word was) of a "prison". So, he says we are attacking fortresses and we're not going to do it with human weapons. What are human weapons? Human reason, wisdom, strategies, our skills, our eloquence, our ability to argue somebody into the kingdom. Those are human weapons. They're not going to work against fortresses. What are these fortresses?

Notice verse 5. You'll notice the words "we are" are italicized that means they're not in original language. So, it reads like this. Our weapons are divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses that is destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God. The word "speculations" is the Greek word "lozgizmos," you can recognize the word logic in it. It's a general word that refers to all human or demonic thoughts, opinions, reasonings, philosophies, theories, psychologies, perspectives, religion. It's what man thinks when man sets out to think. Those are the speculations. Those are the fortresses that man has built to protect himself against God. He builds false ideas, false religions, false philosophies and that's the fortress, and that's what we're making war against. Our war is against false ideas, it's against wrong thinking, their ideologies, every un-biblical system of thought exalted as the truth against the knowledge of God. Instead Paul says we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

How do we do that? How we wage war on these fortresses of unbiblical thinking, ideologies, philosophies that make up our world? And I won't go into all the lists of them, but you see and read about them all around us from naturalism to evolution, postmodern thinking, ex-essentialism, all of these ideologies that man hides himself in we're supposed to attack. How do we do it? What are the weapons of our warfare? The only thing that exposes unbiblical thought and ideologies is the truth. It's the truth. You remember in Ephesians 6 the armor of God? What's the only piece of armor that is offensive? The sword of the Spirit, the sword of the Spirit. It's the Word of God. That's the offensive weapon that we use to storm the fortresses of unbiblical thinking that have locked men up.

You ever thought of your coworkers, your family, your friends that way? They are literally imprisoned in false ideologies, false unbiblical thinking, it holds them in prison, and it's our job as believers to take the truth of God's Word and to go and storm the fortress with the truth. Now, with that in mind, let's look briefly at the biblical position on these rational arguments for the existence of God.

The Bible regards all men as believing in the existence of God. Because of this it doesn't even attempt to prove His existence throughout the Bible the existence of God is taken for granted. Let me show you several, and we don't even need to turn there you know these verses by heart. But let me show you several verses that make this point in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

First of all, there's no attempt to prove Him.

Secondly, the fact that He's creating proves that He exists, that He's a being. Nonentities don't create. They create nothing. Hebrews 11:6 says this, "… without faith it is impossible to please Him for he that comes to God must believe (what?) that he is and that He is a rewarder of those [that] … seek Him." He is that's more than a concept. He exists as some translations put in and that He's a rewarder, that is, He responds to us. He actually is there. He exists. We're supposed to assume that as the Bible assumes it. We're to take it by faith. And then Exodus 3:14, when God declares Himself, what does He say? What's my name? "I am." We'll talk about that when we get to the attributes of God in a couple of weeks, what that means, but He at the very least is saying I exist, I am.

Why does the Bible take this approach? Why does the Bible not set out to prove the existence of God? You ever wondered that? I mean wouldn't that be helpful, wouldn't you think as a believer if there was some chapter we could go to where Paul says okay here's how you prove to an unbeliever that God exists. Why not? Turn to 1 Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 1. It's because there are no arguments that can convince an unbeliever. Man, through his reasoning cannot come to know the truth of God. Notice verse 21, let's start back in verse 18.

For the word or the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [It's foolishness.] For is written I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? Verse 21, [here's the point] For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God.

Here's the bottom line. It is absolutely impossible, starting with the world's wisdom with the best rational arguments man can work up, to come to know God. Can't be done. That's why it's not revealed to us because it can't be done. That means that every theistic argument outside of the Scripture that is every argument for the existence of God outside of the Scripture is incapable of convincing the unbeliever. Through the wisdom that man possesses he cannot come to know God. Instead, the person of Jesus Christ is set forth as God's only proof. Isn't that interesting? There is general revelation, we've talked about that, but there is very personal, direct evidence when you come to the person of Jesus Christ.

Turn for a moment to John 1. As Hebrews says God who used to speak in various manners to the prophets has been these last days spoken to us how? By his Son. Here's it put in a little different form. The apostle John says, again, In the beginning was the Word, [no evidence, no proof, He was the Word] … the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing has come into being that has come into being.

So, how do we know that? How can we be sure? Verse 14, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father full of grace and truth." Verse 18, No one has seen God at any time [that is the father]; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. [literally He has exegeted Him. Jesus Christ exegeted God. You want proof of the existence of God. You can look at general revelation. You can look at the Scriptures, and you can look at the person of Jesus Christ.

You see the same point made in Philippians 2:6 in Colossians 2:9. The bottom line is God doesn't need to prove His existence. He proved it in the person of Jesus Christ who lived and dwelt among us. So, how do you respond? Do you defend God's existence? Do you try to argue with people that God exists? Listen folks, the truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Just open the cage, and let it out. It will take care of itself. Or it's like, the gospel is like a gun. You don't have to convince the intruder that it is in fact a gun. Just pull the trigger. The truth is the same. Man is dead. He's dead and unable to respond, but if you, so to speak, pull the trigger and you unload the truth on him, then the Holy Spirit can use that truth, that seed that you've sown to bring life where there is currently death.

Why do we believe there's a God? Because God has revealed Himself. He's revealed Himself generally through creation and providence. He's revealed Himself morally through the Law written on the heart. He's revealed Himself personally through the incarnation of His Son. He's revealed Himself propositionally, that is, through propositions, statements in His Word, and He's revealed Himself savingly only through the Spirit and the Spirit using the Word.

To illustrate this last point John Calvin used eyeglasses. Some of you will especially appreciate this since you can't find your way to the alarm clock without them. He asked his reader to imagine an old man who can barely see, and if you put a beautiful well-written book in front of him, he could hardly put two words together to understand it. But if you give him some glasses, then he can begin to read distinctly. Even so an unbeliever is spiritually blinded. He doesn't see clearly the revelation of God. He doesn't see the revelation of God generally or morally or personally or for that matter even propositionally. He's blind. The only way he can savingly comprehend even the written Word is through the glasses the Holy Spirit allows him to see.

Don't convince somebody that God exists. Give them the truth of how God has revealed himself on the pages of Scripture and the Holy Spirit, as you've sown the seed will be faithful to produce new life in His way and in His time.

Let's pray together.

Father, thank you for Your truth. Thank you for the power of it. Lord, thank you that we don't have to defend You or defend it.

We need to stand ready to give an account or an answer to every man that asked. We need to be informed. We need to be able to present the truth clearly and accurately, but Lord, in the end we don't have to defend it. It is like a lion that we just need to open the cage and let it out. Lord, thank you for the power of Your truth. Thank you that it changed us.

We pray that You'd use it change others as well.

In Jesus name, Amen.