Introduction
If an all-powerful, perfectly loving God truly exists, why isn’t His presence undeniably obvious to every human being on the planet?In contemporary philosophy of religion, this question forms the foundation of the Problem of Divine Hiddenness (PDH). Popularized in large part by philosopher J.L. Schellenberg, the argument contends that a perfectly loving God would ensure that anyone who is genuinely open and nonresistant to a relationship with Him would believe in His existence. Because "nonresistant nonbelievers" exist, critics argue that God must not.
But does this argument hold under scrutiny, or does it rest on faulty definitions of faith, cherry-picked biblical theology, and unverifiable subjective claims? When we examine the true biblical nature of faith, God's morally sufficient reasons for restraint, and the unprovable premise of nonresistance, Schellenberg’s hiddenness argument fractures across multiple foundational fronts.
A man gets stranded on his roof during a massive flood.
Soon, a neighbor rows by in a canoe and shouts, "Jump in, I’ll take you to safety!" The man replies, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and trusting Him to save me."
A few hours later, the water rises to his waist. A rescue boat comes along, and the captain yells, "Get in! The dam is about to break!" The man refuses again: "No, God is going to deliver me."
Finally, the water reaches his neck, and a helicopter drops a rescue ladder right above his head. Through the loudspeaker, the pilot urges, "Grab the ladder!" Still, the man waves it off: "God will save me!"
The water rises, and the man drowns. When he gets to heaven, he confronts God in frustration: "Lord, I had complete faith in You! Why did You let me drown?"
God looks at him and says, "What do you mean? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"
The Tie-In: The skeptic demanding that God reveal Himself only on their precise, spectacular terms often ignores the evidence, conscience, and creation already standing right in front of them.
A man sits in his living room in the middle of the afternoon, staring toward the dark glass and complaining bitterly to his wife: "The sun never shines in this town anymore. It's completely black outside."
His wife walks over, turns on the lamp, and gently reaches up to pull open the heavy blackout shades he drew shut three days ago.
The Tie-In: Schellenberg assumes that anyone sitting in the dark must be an honest, open seeker whom the sun has unfairly abandoned - ignoring the reality that human nature instinctively lowers the blinds to keep the light out.
Secret Thoughts
Two old friends meet at a coffee shop after twenty years. One says to the other, "You know, deep down, I've always secretly wanted to be an astronaut, and I never once resisted the urge to apply to NASA."
The friend looks at him and asks, "Did you ever submit an application?" "No." "Did you ever take a physics class or call a recruiter?" "No, but in my heart of hearts, I was completely nonresistant to going to space. NASA just never called me."
The Tie-In: Claiming pure "nonresistance" from the comfort of an armchair is easy. Proving that our private motivations are completely free of bias, apathy, or self-interest is an entirely different matter.
The Common Thread: Blindness by Choice, Not Absence
While these three stories approach the problem from different angles, they converge on the exact same fatal flaw in the hiddenness argument:
Demanding Our Own Terms: Like the man on the roof who ignored the boats because he demanded a miraculous parting of the waters, the skeptic often refuses the abundant witness of creation, conscience, and historical evidence. Simply because God does not reveal Himself on their preferred, sensational terms.
Shutting Out the Light: Like the homeowner sitting in self-imposed darkness behind blackout shades, human nature instinctively avoids divine illumination to preserve autonomy, then blames the sun for failing to shine.
Unverifiable Openness: Like the armchair astronaut who insists he was fully open to spaceflight without ever taking a single real-world step, claiming internal "nonresistance" is easy to assert but impossible to substantiate.
Taken together, they illustrate that divine hiddenness is not a failure of God’s love or availability. Rather, it reflects our human tendency to dictate the terms of revelation, close our eyes to the light already provided, and mistake our own subtle indifference for genuine, open-hearted seeking.
The Mechanics of Schellenberg’s Argument
At its core, the Problem of Divine Hiddenness asserts that God’s existence and the reality of nonresistant nonbelief are fundamentally incompatible. Schellenberg formally structures the argument through a series of logical steps:
Premise 1: Necessarily, if God exists, anyone who is not resisting God and is capable of a meaningful, conscious relationship with Him is positioned to participate in that relationship simply by trying.
Premise 2: One can only participate in a meaningful, conscious relationship with God if one believes that God exists.
Deduction: Necessarily, if God exists, anyone who is nonresistant and capable of a relationship with Him also believes that He exists.
Premise 4: There are (and historically have been) people who are nonresistant and capable of a relationship with God, yet do not believe He exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.
While logically valid on paper, the argument collapses when evaluated against Christian theology, epistemological realities, and human psychology. Four independent objections dismantle its core premises:
The Biblical Distinction: Faith vs. Mere Intellectual Belief
Schellenberg assumes that cognitive belief in God’s existence is the primary bridge to a divine relationship. Yet Scripture makes a sharp distinction between intellectual assent and saving faith:
Belief Without Relationship: James 2:19 pointedly observes that "even the demons believe—and shudder!" Acknowledging that God exists does nothing, in and of itself, to establish a meaningful relationship with Him.
Repentance and Trust: The biblical mandate is centered on faith (pistis, active trust and allegiance) and repentance (metanoia, a fundamental change of mind). As Paul proclaimed in Acts 26:20, repentance is a transformation of mind regarding sin and Christ that results in tangible fruit.
God's primary objective is not simply to compel intellectual agreement that He is there; His goal is our repentance, trust, and willing reconciliation.
Morally Sufficient Reasons: Mercy in Restraint
The argument assumes a loving God would maximize cognitive awareness for all people. However, God possesses morally sufficient reasons to remain hidden from those who would not respond in genuine repentance even if His existence were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt:
Greater Light Brings Greater Culpability: Scripture repeatedly teaches that moral culpability and subsequent judgment are proportional to the revelation received (Matthew 11:20–24; Luke 12:47–48; Hebrews 10:28–29).
Divine Mercy: If a person's underlying heart orientation would reject or defy God despite irrefutable proof, making His existence undeniable would only increase their moral culpability and condemnation.
In such cases, God’s hiddenness is not an act of indifference, but an act of restraining mercy.
Cherry-Picking the Christian Worldview
Critics routinely adopt Christian definitions of God’s character (such as perfect love and omnibenevolence) to construct the hiddenness dilemma, yet arbitrarily discard the biblical worldview's assessment of human nature:
The Problem of Neutrality: Schellenberg’s argument assumes humanity exists in a morally neutral state, objectively and dispassionately weighing evidence.
The Scriptural Reality: The Bible describes fallen humanity as actively inclined toward self-rule and naturally resistant to the Creator (Romans 3:9–19; Ephesians 2:1–3). As Romans 1:18–23 outlines, human rejection of God is not driven by a genuine vacuum of evidence, but by a suppression of truth to preserve autonomy.
A critic cannot selectively borrow God's perfect love from Christian theology while ignoring the biblical diagnosis of the human heart that renders "nonresistance" a theological misnomer.
The Epistemological Barrier: Nonresistance Is Unprovable
Finally, Premise 4 of the hiddenness argument relies on an unprovable, unverifiable subjective claim: the existence of truly "nonresistant" nonbelievers.
Inaccessibility of Internal States: Internal motivations and subconscious resistance cannot be empirically observed or verified by external observers. If a person asserts they are completely open and devoid of all subtle bias or desire for moral autonomy, their claim must be accepted purely on self-testimony.
Inherent Bias: Skeptics have an immense psychological incentive to perceive themselves as open-minded and nonresistant, as doing so rationalizes their disbelief and validates the hiddenness argument itself.
Because true, perfectly objective openness cannot be measured or proven, treating nonresistant nonbelief as an established empirical fact is unwarranted.
Conclusion
The Problem of Divine Hiddenness ultimately fails because it misdiagnoses both God's purposes and the human condition. God is not interested in securing coerced intellectual assent; He seeks willing trust, repentance, and love.
By failing to distinguish faith from mere belief, ignoring God’s merciful reasons for limiting culpability, cherry-picking theological premises, and relying on an unprovable claim of human neutrality, the hiddenness objection falls apart. For the Christian, divine hiddenness is not evidence of an absent God, but a reflection of a wise, sovereign Creator who reveals Himself precisely as needed to redeem the willing heart.
Objection A - it is repentance/faith/trust in Jesus – i.e. that He is who He says He is, and will do what He says He will do - that’s what is vitally important, not mere belief in God’s existence. God’s purpose is that we repent and come to trust Him [i.e. have faith] not just merely believe that He exists; that mere belief does nothing for our relationship with God.
Most assume that the word ‘faith’ is more or less synonymous with the word “believe,” but the Bible is careful to communicate that it is not. James says: “Even the demons believe—and shudder!” James 2:19.
Many understand the term repentance to mean “a turning from sin.” Yet in the Bible, the word repent means “to change one’s mind.” Paul declares, “I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds” (Acts 26:20). The short biblical definition of repentance is “a change of mind that results in a change of action.”
The book of Acts especially focuses on repentance in regard to salvation (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). To repent, concerning salvation, is to change your mind regarding sin and Jesus Christ. In Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2), he concludes with a call for the people to repent (Acts 2:38).
Peter calls the people who rejected Jesus (Acts 2:36) to change their minds about that sin and to change their minds about Christ Himself, recognizing that He is indeed “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). True repentance is prompted by “godly sorrow,” and it “leads to salvation” (2 Corinthians 7:10).
Repentance and faith can be understood as two sides of the same coin. It is impossible to place your faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior without first changing your mind about your sin and about who Jesus is and what He has done. Whether it is repentance from willful rejection or repentance from ignorance or disinterest, it is a change of mind. Biblical repentance, in relation to salvation, is changing your mind from rejection of Christ to faith in Christ.
Thus, merely believing in God's existence sans repentance and trust in Jesus does nothing for one's soul.
Objection B - God has morally sufficient reasons to hide Himself from certain people. The basic idea is that many non-believers, would NOT come to repentance/faith/trust in God even if God's existence were not subject to doubt. And their moral conduct wouldn’t improve, and might even increase. However, immoral conduct in such a state of affairs would be even more immoral since they know that Jesus is God and every sin is now a willful violation, and hence justly subject to greater punishment. Jesus affirms there are different degrees of punishment – see Matthew 11:20-24; Luke 12:47–48; Hebrews 10:28-29; 2 Peter 2:20-22; James 3:1-2; Matt. 10:15 - in the next life. But even more importantly, our level of knowledge and understanding is, in part, the basis for this punishment.
Thus, God mercifully remains ‘hidden’ to limit their moral culpability.
Objection C - Critics cherry-pick data – Critics say, for this argument [and others like the problem of evil] that God is omnibenevolent or Perfectly Loving. Where do they get this idea? From the Scriptures or from Christian via the Scriptures. But there is data that is ignored. For instance, the Bible clearly states that non-believers are in rebellion and are not non-resistant.
To consistently use the Bible would be the death warrant for the PDH, for to be consistent, they would have to use all of Scripture to define God and man rather than just what is convenient for the hiddenness argument. The fact is that the Scriptures present a worldview radically different from that presented by critics, the most significant and obvious distinction between a secular worldview and the biblical worldview is the nature of man.
According to Scripture, man is not a morally-neutral being but is a sinner and in a natural state of rebellion against his Creator (Rom 3:9–19; Eph 2:1–3; Gen 8:21; Col 2:13). Man does not reject God because there is no evidence for God, but because man twists the evidence to justify His own rebellion and hate of God (Rom 1:18–23).
The critic cannot even begin to argue against the existence of God via the PDH unless he can prove God’s omni-benevolence, but the only option for that is to approach the nature of God from the Christian worldview [lest a strawman is built] but, this worldview is not compatible with the moral neutrality of humanity as asserted by the PDH, and thus an appeal to the Christian understanding of God is self-defeating.
Objection D - the existence of non-resistant non-believers is unprovable, since nonresistant non-belief is a thought of the mind. If I were to state, “I was thinking about taking my daughter out for a ride on my motorcycle,” how would I go about proving that I thought about that? I cannot prove that I am thinking such a thought, for the mind cannot be observed in such a way. Thus, those whom I share this information with must simply take me at my word.
If a believer approaches an unbeliever and says, “I know God exists because God speaks to me through my thoughts via His word,” do you suppose that the unbeliever would accept this statement as evidence that God does exist? Hardly. What if, instead of one believer, one million believers approached this unbeliever and made the same argument. Would the unbeliever then accept that as evidence that God exists. Highly unlikely.
Why then should we believe the testimony of a non-believer when they say they are non-resistant?
Furthermore, it seems likely that a non-believer would be biased towards thinking that they are non-resistant since this proves their stance that God doesn’t exist or that they are justified in their non-belief.
Thus, the non-believer cannot prove they are non-resistant, and they have every reason to be biased in their assessment of their non-resistantance.
Given the four objections above, the PDH is not a problem for Christians. Any of these four objections are fatal to the PDH, in and of themselves, independent of any other objection.
No comments:
Post a Comment