Fluttering Carefully

Why We Think What We Think

I am, like you, a presuppositionalist. (I am sure that sounds presumptuous, and some of you may disagree.) There are certain things in life that cannot be proved. In this case, I am a Biblical presuppositionalist: I believe that the Bible is true as a primary tenet of my understanding of things. We all take things for granted, like those who drafted the Declaration of Independence, who said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” speaking of natural right. When considering the root of our thoughts, it is worthwhile to note that we all believe things that cannot be proven. When Moses wrote the book of Genesis, he said that God created the world.

How, pray tell, would he prove that? Rene Decartes said, “Cogito Ergo Sum,” or I think therefore I am. How do you imagine Mr. Descartes might demonstrate that his thinking proves his being? I do not deny our existence, I deny our ability to prove it. (Otherwise, why am I writing this?) I am no solipsist; a solipsist would say that he can prove his own existence, I will not even assert that, how can you?

Realizing that it is nearly impossible to prove a thing, there are some things that we take for granted, i.e. that we are alive, that we require nourishment to live. (I have no interest in disproving that.)

Some Examples of the Best Cyclical Thinking

There are two good examples of cyclical thinking that are worth noting, right after the best and broadest example, Christian Faith: Calvin’s admonition that to know God you must know yourself, and to know yourself, you must know God; and that in most reformation confessions, the first article addresses the Word of God and its being given by God. I think if I had been writing a confession today, I would have started on the subject of creation. But I think it would not have been as good a way to start, though it makes all the sense in the world to me. It may be that those men who fashioned the London Baptist and Westminster Confessions, had in mind that early sin in the Garden, namely, Satan’s undermining derision, “Yea, hath God said?”

That said, I will go on in my frail consideration, with the knowledge that there are two scriptural reasons to why it may be sometimes appropriate to start with creation, namely, Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth and Romans 1 shows that natural revelation is sufficient unto condemnation. So, while knowing about creation will not save a man, scoffing at God in light of it will damn a man. So, Genesis 1 shows us that God begins with the foregone conclusion that God began not with the argument that the Scriptures are His word, but that He created. Secondly, Romans shows us that creation knowledge is quite perilous, and powerful, though not life-giving.

In the beginning God…

God exists. He is the immaterial first Cause. There is nothing made but by his hand. While Scriptures are not needed to see this, it is by Scripture that I know that they are not needed to see this (Rom 1.19-21):

¹⁹ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. ²⁰ For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: ²¹ Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

However, all the only thing raw reason does is show us his existence, not his essence. I am frail, and my thinking feeble, as I have to reflect in my constant struggle with unbelief, I can rightly pray with that father in Mark 9.24, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

What is there that was not made? Kelvin’s law of Energy Conservation says, Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, it can only change forms, from matter to energy, and then energy cannot be destroyed. So we know that matter cannot create itself. However, truly, to think that anything could create itself is fundamentally absurd. It does not take a scientist to figure that out. But that is my point. To think that the universe could create itself is fundamentally absurd. If you really think otherwise, write me. I will not be able to straighten you out, though. Your problems are deep.

I am going to end here for now. I have too much to tackle here. This is an ongoing thing. I will next address the absurdity of evolution, if the Lord allows.