In today’s trying times for people of faith, nothing can be more threatening than the recent focus on ‘proving’ God. One cannot ‘prove’ God just as one cannot ‘prove’ that their parents love them. So why is it that liberals frown upon people of faith? I think that it’s because these people insist upon seeing everything mathematically, failing to see that math is only usefully applied in our day to day lives. It is incapable of explaining the universe. Since the universe cannot be by chance, one must turn to religion. Pantheism and Deism are not substitutes; Pantheism disavows a personal god, so they are essentially atheists. Deism, on the other hand, believes that there can be a personal god, but that it does not have to be served, which defeats the purpose. Agnosticism is OK if one is under the age of 8, but it is simply unsatisfying as a final view of the world. So we must turn to the most powerful religion, and the book which sells more than ALL other books combined happens to be the Bible. Therefore, one must assume that God exists. ‘Proofs’ are unnecessary evils that waste resources on turning emotions into mechanical concepts.

Don’t take my word for taking God on faith, though. There’s also excellent theology behind the concept:

Jesus employed a presuppositional apologetic method. Christian apologists today would do well to follow our Lord’s example. The Savior was perfectly consistent in His teaching. As outlined above, Christ taught the doctrines which have come to be known as the five points of Calvinism. These doctrines teach that man is a totally depraved sinner and therefore salvation is 100% by God’s grace. An evidential apologetical method is inconsistent with this Calvinistic doctrine, while totally consistent with the Arminian doctrine of free will. The Arminian evidentialist believes that if given enough compelling evidence, a man will reason that the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus is who He claimed to be. He will then employ his free will to “accept Christ”.

I grant the fact that evidence for the veracity of Scripture and the claims of Christ are everywhere (Rom. 1:18ff). However, because of the noetic effects of sin, corrupt man suppresses such evidence. Even if one could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus rose from the dead and that the Bible is the word of God, this would not convince one more person to be saved, for salvation is of God’s grace, not the will of man (John 1:13). It is the accurate preaching of the whole counsel of God which God employs in the salvation of souls. In His “defense of the faith,” Jesus never sparred with the Romans by setting up an elaborate system of theistic proofs. Nor did He attempt to overwhelm the Sadducees with empirical evidence of the supernatural aspects of Scripture. Jesus “presupposed” the existence of the God of the universe revealed in Scripture, how could He have done otherwise, being Himself “God with us” (Matt. 1:23).

In the forty days of being tempted by Satan, Jesus knew that His best weapon against the Evil One was the self-authenticating Word of God. Three times Jesus countered the devil’s temptation with “It is written…”

Not only did Jesus “presuppose” the truth of God’s Word, He took it at face value. Jesus accepted as historical fact the events that modem rationalistic theologians relegate to the categories of “myth” or “saga”. For example, Jesus taught the Genesis account of creation (Matt. 19:4) as an historical event. He taught the story of Jonah as an actual event and did not even hint of a possibility that Jonah’s amazing experience was apocryphal or solely symbolic (Matt. 12:38-41). Our Lord also affirmed the historicity of Noah and the flood (Matt. 24:37-39). Jesus assumed the truth of Scripture, using even details of these “difficult” passages to illustrate aspects of His work. For example, Jesus used the historicity of the story of Jonah to illustrate that He would remain under the darkness of death for a time but would rise again on the third day (Matt. 12:40-41)

You really cannot come up with a more concise explanation of why Christianity is true than this, other than perhaps an explanation from Cornelius van Til. Emotions are the most powerful human characteristic, and it would be unnatural to suppress them. To do so would be typical of a communist atheist. Unfortunately, Democrats are attempting to force America’s citizens to accept the university idea of how the world came to be: that is, relying on atheistic science or pseudo-philosophical gobbledygook. Jimmy Carter attempted to force us to become pawns of the Iranians, who rely on mathematics and science, rather than faith in God, to work their nuclear program. Bill Clinton attempted to share his DNA with more than one person, a typical action of someone who thinks that mathematically construed DNA can sufficiently account for the traits of human beings. Obama, being an open Muslim, will undoubtedly attempt to convey this antagonism even further.

So far, modern Republicans have all been true to the doctrine. However, the recent showings of McCain and Giuliani shows that anti-presuppositionalism is alive and well among RINOs. Their actions show all sorts of disloyalty towards America and presuppostionalism, from adultery and the NYC banning of ferrets, which is an affront against God’s creations, to the supporting of mavericks and war crimes. These cannot be tolerated in a presidential candidate. The only hope for us is if McCain picks a good candidate, which is described best by David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union:

“You can hit a grand slam home run, which might be a [Gov.] Mark Sanford of South Carolina, or a home run with Mitt Romney, or a double or a triple with a [North Carolina Sen.] Richard Burr, or a [Wisconsin Rep.] Paul Ryan … . Or you can screw it up.

However, there are RINOS, too, those who don’t take conservatives and God on their Words, but instead on McLame:

Others, like Ken Duberstein, a chief of staff to President Reagan, say the field is open: “Does the right wing have veto power? The answer is no. Conservatives have a role to play, but it is not to dictate who the vice presidential candidate is.”

And St. Reagan let you on HIS staff?! The rest of anti-Sanford quotes aren’t worthy of notice.

Only a President Sanford could save us now from the tyrannies that lurk within the Democrat Party complex, which wishes to force Evolution, Helioleftism, food stamps, health care, and public schools on every American. Thankfully, since McCain’s heart can easily give way by the grace of the LORD, a President Sanford could be a reality. Cheney and Bush do not wish to run for the Presidency or Vice Presidency, as they have already secured their martyrdom. It would only be logical to spread his martyrdom towards other good Christian Reconstructionists ready to help make America better. Whether Ron Paul would help make America good is unclear; on the one hand, he has shown to hate America, because of his opposition to the War on the Terror; but on the other hand, his support among hard core fundamentalists cannot be ignored. At the moment, I think we should rely on a President Sanford.

God bless America, and America submit to God, without question.