Hamilton himself speaks of an “insuperable problem” confronting him at this point. “As Christians and believers in the God of the Bible, we know that the Christian God is Triune: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We know that the Bible tells us that this Triune God created and controls the universe. We know that the Bible teaches us that this God is infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. We know that God the Son came, was born of the Virgin, lived sinlessly on earth, was crucified, died and was buried, rose from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven.
“As Christians we know all this about God from the Bible record, but we also know that most of these things depend upon the Bible record itself for their proof, and that we cannot prove them apart from the Bible record. The unbeliever to whom we are trying to prove the existence of God, however, will not accept the Bible as true. Can we show him that the Christian God exists? Unless he is first shown that the Bible is true, he will not accept what the Bible says about God. But the Bible, from the beginning to end, teaches the Christian God, so we are faced with the problem of trying to prove the existence of the God in whom the unbeliever has no faith, from a Book which he will not accept!”23
The task that Hamilton now sets for himself is much more difficult than the task that Hackett sets for himself. Hackett simply resurrects his “theism” in the way that Thomas Aquinas and others first built it, namely on the idea of human autonomy. The God of Hackett’s theism is not the triune God of Scripture. Of course, even Hackett, as an evangelical, builds Christianity as a second story upon his theism as a first story. Like Thomas, he then believes that there is some sort of coherence between his theism and his Christianity.
But this way is not open to Hamilton. He believes that it is the triune God of Scripture who “created and controls the universe.” Every fact confronting any man, therefore, brings him face to face with the revelation of this triune God of Scripture. Every fact of the space-time world is what it is, in the last analysis, because of its relation to the activity of the triune God of Scripture. Man himself, as the subject who knows, knows himself and his universe for what they are only if he sees himself and his universe in their relation to the triune God of Scripture.
When fallen man therefore says or presupposes that he is intelligible in and of himself apart from his relation to the triune God of Scripture, then he does not know himself for what he is. When such a man asks whether he is created in the image of God, his question is, in one sense, meaningless. Yet, in the last analysis, it is worse than meaningless. It is an insult to God. A child who asks whether his parents, with whom he has lived from birth, are his parents is not neutral in relation to his parents. He insults them. It is only as a covenant-breaker that man asks whether the triune God of Scripture exists.
If then, this covenant-breaking man also asks whether the space-time facts are what they are, ultimately, because of the activity of the triune God of Scripture, Creator and Controller of them, he again insults God. The presupposition of asking such a question is that Chaos and Old Night are back of God. To ask whether the triune God of Scripture exists and whether the space-time world is what it is because of this God, is to presuppose that abstract possibility is back of God. A God of whom it is possible to ask intelligently whether he exists is not the God of Scripture. The God of Scripture is back of all possible eventuation in the space-time world. It is an insult to this God to argue for his possible existence. An argument for his possible existence presupposes the idea that he may possibly not exist. But the God of
20 Hamilton, op. cit ., p. 34. 21 Ibid., p. 2.
22 Ibid., p. 34. 23
Scripture tells us that he cannot possibly not exist. He presents himself as the self-referential source of all that exists in the universe.
Finally, when this covenant-breaking man asks whether the triune God of Scripture is the Creator of the laws of the mind of man and the laws of the universe surrounding man he is, again, insulting this God. How then will Hamilton solve his “insuperable” problem? He wants to bring the unbeliever to an acceptance of the triune God of the Bible and the Bible as the authoritative word of this triune God. Hamilton’s unbeliever “is sinful and corrupt.… Apart from the grace of God, man wants his way in everything. No matter how he may try to be unprejudiced, his assumption that there is no God enters all his reasoning process.… He will view every argument from his anti-God point of view … ”24 Through the fall “he became spiritually dead.”25 His soul “became evil, and this total depravity affected his thinking processes as well as his whole personality.”26 When the unbeliever begins to reason in the field of philosophy or theology, the very nature of the subject matter, dealing as it does with the ultimate muses of the universe, makes it impossible for him to reason correctly.27
Because of sin and the fall of man into sin, man’s soul, before regeneration, is spiritually dead and morally corrupt. It is this fact that warps man’s intellectual processes, so that he continually ignores or rejects the spiritual implications of the evidence for the existence of God that is all around him in the created universe.28
Yet as believers we must seek to bring the unbeliever to an acceptance of the fact that the triune God of Scripture exists. We must seek to make him realize that if man is to know this triune God, it is God who must take the initiative in revealing himself. Moreover we must seek to make the unbeliever see that as a sinner, Christ and the Holy Spirit must take the initiative in saving him from his sin.
At times Hamilton seems to undertake the solving of his insuperable problem in the way the presuppositionalist undertakes to solve it; i.e., by saying that man and his world are what the triune God of Scripture says they are and that, unless man believes this to be true and makes it the basis of his predication, all is chaos. Says Hamilton: “While the unbeliever does not acknowledge God’s creation and control of the facts, they are still the same facts for him and for the Christian.”29
But the point is that Hamilton rejects the position of the presuppositionalist in the main argument of his book. The presuppositionalist has always maintained that the revelation of God to man is alike present to all men. He has stressed the fact that man as, knowing God ( gnontes ton theon ), represses this knowledge. He does so by means of his basic assumption of human autonomy, of the contingency of the space-time facts of the world and the self-existence of its laws.
In returning to the old Princeton method Hamilton undertakes to show that the unbeliever need not be challenged on these his basic assumptions. The believer need not, from the outset, challenge the unbeliever when he simply speaks about “the soul,” about “innate ideas” like that of “being” and “cause.” Hamilton undertakes to show against the presuppositionalist not merely that the unbeliever can formally understand the position of the believer. Hamilton undertakes to show that “the content of the knowledge of man, either unregenerate or regenerate, coincides with the content of God’s knowledge of the same facts in so far as what is known by man is the truth which God knows.”30
There is a constantly recurring confusion in Hamilton’s book. Against the presuppositionalist he quotes from Scripture to the effect that the heavens declare the glory of God. “In other words the fact of creation by God can be shown through the study of ‘nature.’ The Bible also declares that we can know God’s power and deity from the created universe and can recognize that we should worship him.”31
24 Ibid., p. 2. 25 Ibid., p. 10. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid., p. 14. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid., p. 17. 30 Ibid., p. 34. 31 Ibid., p. 39.
But this is not what the presuppositionalist denies. On the contrary he affirms it in the strongest possible fashion. It is the final basis for his idea of the point of contact with the unbeliever. The unbeliever cannot escape God. An Oriental cannot even make himself believe that he is not an Oriental. The knowledge of God as his Creator is indelibly fixed in the constitution of every man. Calvin says it is “infixed in his bowels.”
But the perversion of sin in the natural man is such that he constructs a view of himself and his world by which he seeks to suppress what, deep down in his being, he knows to be true about himself. Surrounded by the light of God’s revelation the natural man, in his spiritual blindness perverts it and makes himself believe that it is a revelation of himself.
Hamilton simply assumes from the fact of the presence of God’s revelation to man that the natural man interprets it correctly. He confuses the revelation of God to man with sinful man’s false interpretation of this revelation.
It is in consonance with this confusion that Hamilton undertakes to prove the existence of God to the unbeliever. Here is “the soul.” Here are “sensations” of “the soul” and its innate ideas of being and of cause. “Our starting point is in our own souls. We know that we exist. This knowledge is immediate and cannot be doubted. Now in making such a statement we are not assuming that we are uncreated. We know that God created us because the Bible so tells us, so that knowledge is back of our whole argument.”32 We, i.e., as believers, know that we are created. But the unbeliever does not believe this. It is true as Hamilton says, that the unbeliever cannot doubt his existence. But it is equally true that the unbeliever assumes his non-createdness.
Hamilton now sits down with this unbeliever so as to discuss their common problems. He says to Mr. Jones, the unbeliever: “We know that we did not produce our own souls and bodies. We must have been caused by someone with power sufficient to produce our souls and bodies. We must have been caused by either a Person or an impersonal force. Here we appeal to the axiom that the cause must be adequate to produce the effect. How could an impersonal force produce a personal being? How could that which neither thinks nor wills produce that which thinks and wills?”33 “Only a powerful being could produce a thinking, willing person.”34
Now we “look about us.” We see other persons. “The similarity of their natures to ours suggests a common cause. They too must have been caused by a powerful Person.”35
We again look about us. “What is life? Is life intelligent? Does life itself think or will? Are these vital forces a manifestation of a Power back of them, not human, that thinks or wills?”
“All this evidence points to a personal cause, with power adequate to produce the world of thinking, willing human beings. The God of the Bible is an obvious answer.”36 “A Person must be in control.”37 We look about us more widely. In nature, as well as in other persons, we find evidence of plan and purpose. “The fact that cells in plants and animals divide according to a plan points to a rational Cause. All these items and a million others point to a Designer and Planner who has prepared this earth for our occupancy.”38
Look at that beautiful rose, Mr. Jones. “The blossom is about six inches in diameter.” And listen to that beautiful music. You must agree that “only a planning Person could produce all these things.”39
32 Ibid., p. 40. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid., p. 41. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., p. 42. 38 Ibid., p. 43. 39 Ibid.
But, to change the subject, Mr. Jones, did your conscience ever trouble you? You agree, of course, that man is a creature not only of appetites, but “of standards of right and wrong.” Surely then “it seems probable that the Cause which produced him is likewise moral in nature.”40 “A moral man must have a moral God as his Maker.”41 “The only true standard is the Word of God.”42
Here we have several arguments for the existence of God. “Each adds proof to the others, and their force is felt only when they are taken together.” They are “cumulative.”43
When Hamilton told us about his “insuperable problem” he added: “unwillingly we are forced to admit that we cannot offer mathematical proof of the existence of God.”44 At the conclusion of his arguments he repeats this point and adds: “The kind of proof we are discussing is inferential proof, the culmination of innumerable lines of evidence all pointing to what seems an inescapable conclusion.”45 Of course, because of sin men will seek to escape the proper conclusion of the arguments. “The evidence for God is there, but only the Holy Spirit can make men accept it.”46
Hamilton now goes on to consider the world today and its origin. There is nothing added in this chapter to the argument already given. We already have “what seems an inescapable conclusion” that there is a Cause back of the universe and that “it seems probable” that this cause is moral in nature. Surely then “if there is a rational God at all, he could make the world of life at one stroke as easily as through a long process.”47 “But if the evolutionary theory be rejected, however much special creation may be disliked, it is the only alternative.”48
Going on from this point Hamilton establishes “the reasonableness of supernaturalism.” Says Hamilton: “If the arguments advanced in the preceding chapters are sound, we have shown that a power which we call ‘God’ exists, and that his nature is such that he has both the power and the knowledge to intervene in the universe.”49 Alternative positions have been shown to be “logically impossible.” The evolutionary hypothesis has been shown to be “improbable.”
“The only conclusion possible, then, is to say that there is such a God, having power, intelligence, personality, and will, capable of producing the world of today, with its manifold forms of life culminating in man. Certainly if such a God exists, and reason compels us to believe that he does, no rational man would deny the possibility of his intervening in the universe which he has made.”50 It is “absurd” if any one denies the possibility of supernatural revelation.
But is it probable that God should intervene in the universe? Of course it is: “God would not logically create man and leave him alone.”51 “A person with free will might possibly do things contrary to the will of God, so it would be natural for God to warn him and help to guard him against such disobedience.”52 And wouldn’t God tell man what he is here for and what is his ultimate destiny? “If it is true that there is a heaven and a hell, to one of which places every soul will go, God would hardly leave man in ignorance of this momentous fact.”53 “Most of all, after the fall of man, if God intended to redeem man’s life from destruction in a definite way, and intended, as the Bible teaches, to have this redemption applied to a man’s life through faith in a risen Lord, he would most certainly tell men about this fact in some way or other. We thus see that there is a very great probability, if the God represented in the Bible exists, that he would reveal certain vital facts to man.”54
40 Ibid., p. 45. 41 Ibid., p. 48. 42 Ibid., p. 47. 43 Ibid., p. 48. 44 Ibid., pp. 35–36. 45 Ibid., p. 48. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid., p. 91. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid., p. 94. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid., p. 99. 52 Ibid., p. 100. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid.
But we have so far dealt only with the possibility and the probability of supernatural revelation. There remains the question: Has there actually been such a revelation? This question is “one purely of fact.”55 It is a question of evidence. “What are the laws of evidence?”56 They are three: Is the witness competent? Is he reliable? Was he “in a position to know the facts.”57
Apply these tests to the question of the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Looking at “all possibilities” we find “that the only conclusion possible is that Christ actually rose from the dead.”58 The “resurrection establishes beyond a doubt the truth of Christianity. But not only does it prove that Christianity is the one true religion. It also proves that all that Christ said and did was true, and this in turn proves that the Bible is the Word of God written.”59
It is in this manner that Hamilton seeks to solve his “insuperable problem.” His aim is to bring the unbeliever to a belief in the triune God of the Bible and in the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Yet, at no point in his argument does Hamilton as much as present the triune God of Scripture for what he is to the unbeliever. As a Reformed theologian Hamilton knows that the “Christian God” has created man in his image, and that every sinner is aware of this. Knowing God, says Paul, and knowing therefore that as creatures they ought to obey God, men seek to repress this knowledge. In every moment of self- awareness every man experiences God’s call to the recognition of himself as man’s Creator.
Secondly, as a Reformed theologian Hamilton knows that every sensation that any man experiences is of God-controlled and God-directed facts. God controls “whatsoever comes to pass.”
It is “the Soul” which, by its innate ideas of being and cause orders its experience. As a believer Hamilton knows that “the soul” is what the Bible says it is. But as an apologist he merely asks the unbeliever to admit that he has “a soul.” Hamilton will lead him on from this point toward belief in the Bible with all