Testimonia in Christian Apologetics
In Christian apologetics, the notion of “proofs” is sometimes employed in essentially the way proofs are understood in mathematics. If sufficient evidence is provided, so the thought goes, no one could possibly remain an atheist or skeptic. 1 + 1 = 2; Something cannot come from nothing; the world shows unmistakable evidence of design; archaeological data confirms biblical history; therefore: God’s existence cannot be doubted. There is much to commend arguments like these. However, a semi-mathematical understanding of apologetical proofs is biblically and theologically insufficient. A look at a section in the first chapter of the apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans will help show how this is the case.
Paul writes that the evidence for God’s existence is as clear as could possibly be the case: “For what can be known about God is plain to them [= all men], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom 1:19–20 ESV). The evidence in the world for God’s existence is “plain” (which can be translated as “clear” or “evident”) because God has “made it plain” (the verb “has shown” in the ESV has the same root as the adjective “plain”). Paul focuses on two “invisible attributes” that God has plainly revealed about himself in the world: “his eternal power and divine nature.” Both of these aspects of his being are “clearly perceived” by means of “the things that have been made.” That is to say: creation, or nature, itself clearly reveals to the world God’s “eternal power” as the agent of all that exists and the fact that he is the sole Lord of the universe (his “divine nature”). It may even be that Paul indicates that these attributes of God are revealed “by means of [Greek: apo] the creation of world” rather than the ESV’s “since [apo] the creation of the word.” The preposition apo in v. 20 can legitimately be translated as such. Either way, “the things that have been made,” the created order itself, unmistakably manifest that there is a sovereign God who made everything in the world. For this reason, all men are “without excuse” if they do not believe in God and respond to him in faith. So far, one might think the “mathematical” approach to proofs is warranted.
However, in the immediately preceding and following verses Paul describes the effect of sin on the human mind: these truths are unmistakable, yet men “by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Rom 1:18) and refuse to “honor him as God or give thanks to him” (Rom 1:21). The result of this suppression and refusal is that men become “futile in their thinking” and have their “foolish hearts . . . darkened” (Rom 1:21), which inevitably leads to idolatry (Rom 1:23) and all manner of unchecked wickedness (Rom 1:24–32). Sinners in rebellion against God, in other words, do not respond to the unmistakably clear revelation of God in the world with acknowledgement, but rather with the attempt to push that clear knowledge of God wholly out of mind. Unbelievers, in fact, “know God” (Rom 1:21) even as they do everything they can to ignore that knowledge. How could they not know him? The evidence of his existence is everywhere and is clear. And yet this evidence does not lead to repentance and faith. A simple presentation of proofs for God’s existence will not lead mathematically to belief. The proofs themselves may very well be objectively valid, but such evidences do not work like that upon human beings corrupted in mind and heart by sin.
Years ago, I read a discussion of the classic Christian proofs for God’s existence in the twentieth-century Dutch-American Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. Berkhof insists that we should call these arguments for belief in God “testimonia” rather than “proofs.” I do not know whether Berkhof came up with this distinction (I doubt it), but I do not recall others using this exact language in the way he does. Regardless, describing arguments and evidence for God’s existence as testimonia very helpfully captures the central thrust of Paul’s reasoning in Romans 1. After describing the classic arguments for God’s existence Berkhof writes (Systematic Theology, pp. 27-28; cf. p. 65):
They 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 assent, they can be so construed as to establish a strong probability and thereby silence many unbelievers.
Such arguments cannot “compel assent” in the way that a valid logical syllogism or mathematical proof can. They are, however, still very useful and beneficial since they exhibit “the reasonableness of belief in a divine Being” and “establish a strong probability and thereby silence many unbelievers.” Proofs, understood in a mathematical sense, would establish and compel assent, which is why Berkhof wants to avoid that label. The word testimonia, on the other hand, captures the way in which classical and evidential arguments provide the Christian with “helps” for his faith and refute false claims from unbelievers.
God’s general revelation, as Romans 1 shows, really does reveal the unmistakable reality of God and the absolute reasonableness of belief in him. Apologetical arguments can be used by the Holy Spirit “to silence many unbelievers,” but they are of even greater value in strengthening the faith of Christians. They are testimonia and supports that can greatly encourage the believer who struggles with various doubts. God has made himself known in his word, but also in his world, and strong articulations and explanations of this revelation are of inestimable value to the Christian.
As an example, consider Aquinas’ famous “second way” for demonstrating the existence of God (Summa Theologica I.2.12).
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Does Aquinas’ argument “prove the existence of God beyond the possibility of doubt, so as to compel assent” (Berkhof)? No, not in the way that 1 + 1 = 2 (leaving aside the mind virus of “woke” math). Nonetheless, Aquinas captures a truth derivable from reason and observable in the world: all things have causes except for the ultimate cause of everything else, which must therefore be supreme. Aquinas’ reasoning is perfectly logical and sound. This is a truth also confirmed in Scripture: “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created” (Rev 4:11). Aquinas’ argument bears witness, it is a testimonia (a support and help), to the truth of God’s sovereign self-existence. There are countless other testimonia, both logical and evidential, to the existence of the God revealed in Scripture.
I have deliberately avoided discussing the different schools of apologetics, whether classical, evidential, or presuppositional, though I believe the discussion above shows the benefit of an eclectic approach to apologetics that incorporates insights from all three schools. The evidential approach is correct insofar as it highlights the fact that every single fact in the universe really does reveal God. The classical approach, employing the “proofs” for God’s existence, employs testimonia to the existence of the God of Scripture such as the argument from design or from the impossibility of an infinite chain of causation. These arguments are logical, persuasive, and beneficial. Finally, the most important aspect of the presuppositional approach is its underscoring the way fallen minds and hearts are incapable of responding in genuine faith to the true evidence and testimonia of God’s existence apart from the Spirit’s renewal of the mind and heart (Rom 12:2; cf. 1 Cor 2:6–16), though the Spirit certainly can and often does use that evidence and testimonia as a part of drawing sinners to God.
I’m not so foolish as to think that these reflections on apologetics magically reconcile every aspect of the different schools, though they reveal that much can be learned from each approach. Treating all apologetical arguments as strengthening and confirming testimonia, rather than mathematical proofs, may help show just how complimentary are the central foci of the different schools.
Image Credit: Unsplash
