Before I enrolled in the apologetics master’s program at BIOLA, I had never heard Christians speak of God’s existence as a probability. I was flummoxed from Day 1.

In our class lectures and discussion forums, I was introduced to a new way of talking about God. Instead of speaking about God with the certainty of the Scriptures (“I am the LORD and there is no other” Is. 45:5) my classmates and I were learning to argue for God as “the most reasonable explanation”. From the beginning of the program, it bewildered me to hear the Creator of Heaven and Earth (Gen 1:1) spoken of in this way. When God proclaims, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end,” (Rev. 22:13) it never occurred to me that He was revealing Himself as the best choice among competing hypotheses. Here are a few other statements I heard in my classes that gave me pause:

“We have good reasons to think Christianity is true.”

“Arguments for the existence of God are stronger than those against it.”

“Christianity is the best explanation for the available data.”

“We can’t be certain God exists, but we can say his existence is more likely than not.”

“The data points demonstrate a high probability that Jesus rose from the dead.”

During my two and a half years in the MACA program, I read thoroughly, listened intently, and carefully took notes. I put my initial reservations aside and adopted the lingo quickly, speaking in the way real apologists were supposed to speak. All of my professors were kind, faithful men of God and I respected them all (and still do). But my confusion remained and was compounded by a troubled conscience. In the cafeteria we spoke of the God we knew, but in class we spoke of a probable God who best explained the data. In personal conversations we spoke of our risen Savior with unquestioning devotion, but in class we spoke of Him as the inference to the best explanation. Something was wrong.

As I studied the Bible, I noted that the certainty of God’s existence was assumed from cover to cover. Our ability to have such certainty, however, was denied in my classes. During one residency seminar, we had the pleasure of listening to an extremely prestigious, well-known Christian philosopher on the subject of knowledge. He taught us that knowledge didn’t require certainty; the “adequate grounds” given for our knowledge of God was also conceded to be less than certain: “It’s possible we’re wrong.”

In “The Defense of the Resurrection” course, my concerns about the language of probability grew. We learned to evaluate the resurrection like any other historical event. The resurrection itself was concluded to be highly supported by the data, but that didn’t necessarily mean the cause of the resurrection could be determined. I became adept at presenting the Minimal Facts argument for the resurrection using only the biblical facts scholars agreed upon, while disregarding the others. We also learned several apostles probably went to their deaths for Christ, though we couldn’t be certain. “Nobody is willing to die for a lie,” the professor reminded us. I thought to myself, “Nobody is willing to die for a probability, either.” At the end of the course, the takeaway on the single most important event in human history was that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the most likely explanation for the evidence we have.

With increasing frustration, I determined the arguments that spoke about the resurrection as the “best possible explanation” did not align with the glorious truths revealed to us in Holy Scripture. John 11:25 records the Lord saying, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.” There is no ambiguity in the Lord’s declaration. 1 Corinthians 15:20 says, “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.” Paul doesn’t speak of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the most credible explanation among many empty-tomb theories, but as the grounding for our certain eternal hope: “And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.” (I Cor. 6:14)

By far, the most baffling discovery occurred when I began to observe other Christian apologists agreeing with atheists in their denial of the certainty of God’s existence. Occasionally, I expressed my concerns about the method and was met with various theories of epistemology (how we know things) and differing definitions of certainty (rational, epistemic, psychological, moral, etc.). These responses were unsatisfactory and devoid of biblical support. I recall someone offering a quote from C.S. Lewis:

“We may not be able to get certainty but we can get probability, and half a loaf is better than no bread.”

Does the idea of “half a loaf” of assurance align with scripture? When God commands, “Be still and know that I am God,” (Psalm 46:10) did He mean that we were to know him somewhere in the range of 51% to 99%? When Luke writes to Theophilus saying, “ ^…it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught,” did he really investigate everything carefully in order for us to conclude Jesus was a highly probable Christ? (Luke 1:1-4) I determined that none of the biblical writers spoke about God using such terminology. Nobody in Scripture argues for the probability of God.

The Bible says, “All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ.” (Col. 2:3) It also says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” (Proverbs 1:7) Rather than begin with evidences, the Bible says knowledge begins with the fear of the Lord. The one, true God is not the God we use our reason to discover to a probable degree, but the certain God that we must start with to reason at all. God has all knowledge and has created us in His image, making knowledge possible. He’s revealed Himself to us in Creation (Psalm 19:1-4) and in His word (2 Tim. 3:16) so that we can ascertain His existence and the truth of His word with certainty. There is much more that could be said on this subject, but let it suffice to say that the Bible is in conflict with the idea that we cannot be certain of God’s existence.

Shortly before graduation, I discovered a method of defending the Christian faith that presupposed the certainty of God’s existence: presuppositional apologetics. I also discovered a well-known apologist, Dr. Greg Bahnsen (1948-1995), had taught this method. In an lecture posted to YouTube, he said, “The key to having an ability to answer anyone who asks you a reason for the hope that’s within you, the key to being able to confront any challenge to your Christian faith, is found in 2 Cor. 10:4-5…by bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” That was a turning point. I realized that the thought “we can’t be certain God exists” was itself not brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. It conflicted with the certainty declared in the Bible. The idea that God is the “best explanation for the available evidence” was another thought not submitted to Christ’s authority. I began to read more about this apologetic method and soon found that the concerns that presuppositional apologists were addressing were the same ones I had struggled with in my classes at BIOLA.

As I did more research, I began to understand why atheists and classical/evidential apologists often agreed that certainty is unattainable: They both begin with human reason as their ultimate starting point. The Dutch Christian philosopher and apologist Cornelius Van Til composed a vivid metaphor for the atheist’s search for truth:

“Suppose we think of a man made of water in an infinitely extended and bottomless ocean of water. Desiring to get out of water, he makes a ladder of water. He sets this ladder upon the water and against the water and then attempts to climb out of the water. So hopeless and senseless a picture must be drawn of the natural man’s methodology based as it is upon the assumption that time or chance is ultimate. On his assumption his own rationality is a product of chance. On his assumption even the laws of logic which he employs are products of chance. The rationality and purpose that he may be searching for are still bound to be products of chance.”

Note the connection: The Christian apologist who tries to argue from evidences does not assume that his mind is the produce of chance as the atheist does, but he begins with human reason, as the atheist does. By refusing to anchor his arguments in God’s revelation from the start, the classical/evidential apologist steps off of the powerful foundation of certainty that God has given to us and jumps into a bottomless ocean of uncertainty. All of the artwork in this post came from my sketchbook as I contemplated the necessity of God for epistemic certainty (which cannot fail to be true) and our dependence upon Him for our reasoning. In order to escape the ocean of uncertainty, we must start with the God of the Bible.

Soon after I graduated from the Biola, I was hired to teach apologetics to 9^th-12^th graders at a private school. I was faced with a choice. Would I instruct these young Christians to defend the God of the Bible as the most likely explanation of the available data points, or would I teach them to defend the Almighty God of the Universe, whose certain existence makes knowledge possible?

You guessed it.

Throughout that entire year, we began with Scripture as the starting point for knowledge. Resolving to emulate God (Ephesians 5:1) I spoke of Him the way He speaks of Himself in Scripture. Truths from the Bible were stated as facts, not probabilities, and all other gods were declared idols. (Psalm 96:5)

And this former Biola apologetics student, who had been swimming in an ocean of uncertainty, set her feet on the solid Rock once more. (Psalm 18:2)

 Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. (Matthew 7:24-25)