Theological Term of the Week

transcendental argument for the existence of God
The argument which attempts to prove God’s existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose the Christian worldview, and that God’s absolute nature is the source of logic and morals.1

• Scripture that grounds a transcendental argument for the existence of God:

  And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:17 ESV)

• An example of a trancendental argument:

  When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist world view cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to        understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist world view cannot account for our debate tonight. (A bit of Greg Bahnsen’s argument from Does God Exist? Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein)

• From Trancendental Arguments by John Frame:

  What, then, does transcendental argument add to the apologist’s arsenal, beyond the traditional arguments? First, it presents a goal for apologetics. The goal of the apologist is not only to show that God exists, but also who he is: that he is the source of all meaning and intelligibility in the universe.

  Further, it suggests apologetic strategies somewhat neglected in the tradition. Traditional apologists have often argued that causality (for example) implies God. A transcendental argument makes a stronger claim: that causality presupposes God. The difference between “implies” and “presupposes,” according to Peter Strawson and Bas Van Fraasen, is that in the latter case God’s existence is implied either by the assertion or the denial of causality. That is, not only does the existence of causality imply the existence of God, but even to deny (intelligibly, if it were possible) the existence of causality would be to invoke a framework of meaning that presupposes God’s existence. Don Collett argues that the Strawson-Van Fraasen kind of presupposition is identical with Van Til’s. So if creation presupposes God, even the denial of creation presupposes him, and the atheist is like the little girl slapping her father while sitting on his lap.

  The Bible does make this kind of radical claim, that creation not only implies, but presupposes God. For God is the creator of all, and therefore the source of all meaning, order, and intelligibility. It is in Christ that all things hold together (Col. 1:17). So without him everything falls apart; nothing makes sense. Thus Scripture teaches that unbelief is foolish (Psm. 14:1, 1 Cor. 1:20). There are many arguments to be made on the way to that conclusion. Not every individual apologetic argument needs to go that far.  But the apologist’s work is not done until he reaches that conclusion, until he persuades the objector that God is everything the Bible says he is. That is to say that a complete argument for Christian theism, however many sub-arguments it contains, will be transcendental in character.

Learn more:

1. GotQuestions.org: What is the trancendental argument for the existence of God?
2. RealApologetics.org Blog: A Concise Outline for the Trancendental Argument for God’s Existence
3. Doug Wilson: The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence (The opening statement of a debate with Theodore Drange)
4. Greg Bahnsen: Transcript of Does God Exist? Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein

Related terms:

• presuppositional apologetics
• cosmological argument
• moral argument
• ontological argument
• teleological argument

1What is the transcendental argument for the existence of God? at GotQuestions.org

Do you have a a theological term you’d like to see featured here as a Theological Term of the Week? If you email it to me, I’ll seriously consider using it.

I’m also interested in any suggestions you have for tweaking my definitions or for additional (or better) articles or sermons/lectures for linking. I’ll give you credit and a link back to your blog if I use your suggestion.

Clicking on the Theological Term graphic at the top of this post will take you to a list of all the previous theological terms organized in alphabetical order or by topic.

I Give You Permission to Laugh

I write like
Dan Brown

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Ht: Brandon

Round the Sphere Again: Using Words

Entirely Trustworthy
Kevin DeYoung quotes J. I Packer on the wisdom of using the word inerrancy to describe scripture.

What it says is that in formulating my theology I shall not consciously deny, disregard, or arbitrarily relativize anything that I find Bible writers teaching, nor cut the knot of any problem of Bible harmony, factual or theological, by assuming that the writers were not consistent with themselves or with each other. Instead, I shall labor to harmonize and integrate all that is taught (without remainder), to take is as from God (however little I may like it), and to seek actively to live by it (whatever change of my present beliefs and behavior-patterns it may require).

Read more.

Not Just for Calvinists
Any adequate response to the problem of evil requires that God have two wills. 

You need to have some sense in which God wants to evil to happen if God in any sense knowingly allows it…. But you better not say that God wants it to happen in every sense. God certainly disapproves of the evil, and wouldn’t desire it if it weren’t for whatever issue led God to allow the evil.

Read the whole post at Parableman.