Christian Philosophy Made Easy

CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY MADE EASY
CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY MADE EASY A Made Easy Series Book
W. Gary Crampton, Ph.D. and Richard Bacon, Ph.D., Th.D.
Draper, Virginia
Christian Philosophy Made Easy (c) Copyright 2010 by W. Gary Crampton and Richard Bacon The Made Easy Series from ApologeticsGroup.com a provides substantial studies on significant issues in a succinct and accessible format from an evangelical and Reformed perspective. Chapters in Part II of this book are used by permission of: The Trinity Foundation Post Office 68 Unicoi, Tennessee 37692 Phone: 423.743.0199 Fax: 423.743.2005 www.TrinityFoundation.org ApologeticsGroup Media www.ApologeticsGroup.com A Division of NiceneCouncil.com Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-0-9825890-4-5 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, except for brief quotations for the purpose of review, comment, or scholarship, without written permission from the publisher.
The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth. Athanasius, Defender of Orthodoxy Council of Nicaea A.D. 325
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I: Basics of Christian Philosophy 1. The Nature of a Christian Worldview .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Christianity and the Basic Elements of Philosophy. . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. A Biblical Theodicy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4. False Philosophical Systems .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 PART II: Issues in Christian Philosophy 5. What Is Christian Philosophy? (W. Gary Crampton) . . . . . . . . . . 6. The Bible as Truth (Gordon Clark) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. A Call for Christian Rationality (W. Gary Crampton ) . . . . . . . . . . 8. The Importance of Studying Logic (John W. Robbins) . . . . . . . . . 9. A Biblical View of Science (W. Gary Crampton) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. A Christian Philosophy of Education (Gordon Clark). . . . . . . . . 51 59 71 79 85 91
PREFACE
Everyone has a worldview. A worldview is a set of beliefs, a system of thoughts, about the most important issues of life. Ones worldview is his philosophy. Worldview and philosophy are virtually synonymous words. Great thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas, each had a system of belief regarding philosophy, that was written out in a systematic fashion. Each system expressed the worldview of the particular philosopher. But even though they may not realize it, all (mature) persons necessarily and inescapably have a worldview, a philosophical system of thought, as well. Their worldview may not be written out, or as well systematized as the four thinkers mentioned above, but they have a worldview nonetheless. This little book intends to raise the readers self-consciousness about his worldview so that he might gain a clearer understanding of a Christian worldview, which in the opinion of the present writers is the only viable worldview or philosophy. Scripture teaches us, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q 1) aptly states, that mans chief end is to glorify God [1 Corinthians 10:31; Romans 11:36], and to enjoy Him forever [Psalm 73:2528]. This being so, we are enjoined to adopt a philosophy that honors God. We need, as the apostle Paul states, a philosophy that is according to Christ (Colossians 2:8). Herein we have a Christian philosophy, which is based on the axiom of divine revelation: the Word of God. And the best summary of this system of belief is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.
Part I BASICS OF CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY
Chapter 1
THE NATURE OF A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW

True Versus False Philosophy In Colossians 2:8 the apostle Paul writes: Beware lest anyone capture you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. In this verse the apostle warns his readers against being taken captive by false philosophies. Rather he says that they should adopt a philosophy according to Christ. This verse does not teach, as some have said, that philosophy itself is unworthy of Christian study. In fact, the verse teaches precisely the opposite. It is an imperative for the pursuit of the discipline. To guard against being captivated by a philosophy according to the tradition of men, one must have an awareness of such errant philosophy. And more importantly, he must have a knowledge of that which is true. Too many Christians are not aware of this fact. Therefore, they have neglected the study of philosophy in general. Sadly, these are the ones most likely to be captivated by the false philosophies of this world. R. C. Sproul writes that no society can survive, no civilization can function, without some unifying system of thought. . . . What makes a society a unified system? Some kind of glue is found in a unifying system of thought, what we call a worldview.1 The fact of the matter is that thoughts shape societies. Worldviews, or philosophies, are important. Christians, then, need to study philosophy. Stressing this point Ronald Nash writes:
Because so many elements of a worldview are philosophical in nature, Christians need to become more conscious of the importance of philosophy. Though philosophy and religion [i.e., theology] often use different language and often [wrongly] arrive at different conclusions, they deal with the same questions, which include questions about what exists (metaphysics), how humans should live (ethics), and how human beings know (epistemology). Philosophy matters. It matters because the Christian worldview has an intrinsic connection to philosophy and the world
R. C. Sproul, Lifeviews (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, 1986), 29.
Ch. 1: The Nature of a Christian Worldview of ideas. It matters because philosophy is related in a critically important way to life, culture, and religion. And it matters because the systems opposing Christianity use philosophical methods and arguments. 2
Colossians 2:8 teaches us that there are two radically different philosophical worldviews: Christian and non-Christian. There is no neutral ground. The non-Christian philosopher is committed to total independence from the God of Scripture. Thus, he views God, man, and the world from a non-biblical standpoint. The Christian philosopher, on the other hand, is committed to absolute dependence on God and His Word. He philosophizes about God and His creation from a wholly different perspective. He sees Christ, the Word of God incarnate, as central to all truth. In Him, writes Paul, are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). A Biblical philosophy, therefore, must be rooted and built up in Christ (Colossians 2:7). The Christian philosopher is to analyze all things by means of Gods infallible revelation, seeking to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5). The Bible is replete with philosophical teachings. The book of Ecclesiastes is a prime example. The preacher (1:1), the author of the book, presents us with two distinct and opposing worldviews, both of with which he has personally been involved. He writes as an old man looking back on life, and admonishes his readers to pay heed to his instruction (12:1ff.). On the one hand, he views the issues of life from the standpoint of the man who is under the sun (1:3, 9; 2:11). This is unregenerate man, who only has an awareness of God and His creation by means of general revelation, a revelation which he suppresses (more will be said on this below). On the other hand, the preacher presents the proper worldview of regenerate man, who makes use of special revelation. This man knows God as Savior, and is capable of true wisdom (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). Without this wisdom, says the preacher, all things in life are folly (2:2526). His conclusion is given in 12:13-14: a proper worldview must begin with the fear of God: Let us hear the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether it is good or whether it is evil. Devoid of this, man is destined to philosophical vanity, a chasing after the wind.
2
Ronald H. Nash, Faith & Reason (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 26.
Christian Philosophy Made Easy
Ch. 1: The Nature of a Christian Worldview 3
The preachers message is clear: sound philosophy is sound Christianity. Without a Biblically based philosophy, philosophical endeavor is inane. As taught by Francis Schaeffer, the Christian worldview, based on the Word of God alone, is not just a good philosophy, it is the best philosophy . . . it is the only philosophy that is consistent to itself and answers the questions of [life] . . . it deals with [lifes] problems and gives us answers. 3 What, then, is the nature of Christian philosophy? It is a philosophy that is according to Christ. It seeks to study the entire philosophical arena by means of Christs Word. It recognizes that only the triune God of Scripture is wise: Father (Romans 16:27), Son (1 Corinthians 1:24,30), and Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2). And genuine Christian philosophy understands that only the Word of God can make one wise (Psalm 19:7). Gregg Singer writes that the true Christian philosopher, using Scripture as his starting point, believes in Jesus Christ [and] commits himself to much else besides, to a view of God, creation, man, sin, history, and all the cultural activities of the human race, and in this view he finds the correct interpretation and the motivating power to think Gods thoughts and to do His will after Him. 4 Biblical Presuppositions All worldviews or philosophies (as seen, these words are used as virtual synonyms) have presuppositions, which are foundational. These presuppositions are axioms, which, by definition, cannot be proved. Without such axioms, as first principles or starting points, a worldview could not get started, because there would be no foundation upon which to base its beliefs. In a logically consistent Christian worldview, the first and absolutely essential presupposition, is that the Bible alone is the Word of God, and it has a systematic monopoly on truth. This is the axiomatic starting point. From the teachings of the axiom of Scripture, however, we find that there are several other doctrines which are presuppositional to a Christian worldview. First, then, is the presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God. In the words of the apostle Paul: All Scripture is given by inspiration of
Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer (Westchester; Crossway Books, 1982), 3:259. 4 C. Gregg Singer, From Rationalism to Irrationality (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979), 37.
Ch. 1: The Nature of a Christian Worldview
God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:1617). And in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1:6): we read: The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, mans salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Notice the universal terms in these two statements: all, complete, thoroughly, every, whole, all, nothing, at any time. The Bible, infallibly, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, in compliance with the Bible, both teach the all sufficiency of Scripture. By word derivation, philosophy (philosophia) means the love of wisdom. Scripture teaches us that only God is wise (Romans 16:27; 1 Timothy 1:17). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of wisdom (Isaiah 11:2). And Jesus Christ, the Master Philosopher, is Wisdom itself (Proverbs 8:2236; John 1:13,14; 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30). In Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). And Christ has given us these treasures in His Word, which is a part of His mind (1 Corinthians 2:16). Therefore, if one is to be a Christian philosopher (a lover of wisdom), he must go to Gods Word. Therein is where one learns the fear of the Lord [which] is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). The Bible claims to be the infallible, inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:1617; 2 Peter 1:2021), and the Holy Spirit produces this belief in the minds of the elect (1 Corinthians 2:616). As stated in the Confession (1:45): the authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, depends . . . wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. Further, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. There simply is no higher authority than the Word of God. As the author of Hebrews claims: because He [God] could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself (6:13). Second, from the axiom of Scripture, we learn, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q 56) teaches, that there is one only living and true God . . . [and that] there are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in
substance [essence], equal in power and glory (see Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 28:19). We also learn that this triune God is self-existent and independent, possessing all perfections. As stated in the Catechism (Q 4): God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Further, God is both transcendent (distinct from His creation) and immanent (omnipresent in His creation) (Isaiah 57:15; Jeremiah 23:2324). In Him all things live and move and have [their] being (Acts 17:28). Third, the Scriptures teach us that God, in His eternal decree has sovereignly foreordained all things which will ever come to pass (Ephesians 1:11). Furthermore, He executes His sovereign purposes through the works of creation (Revelation 4:11)and providence (Daniel 4:35). Not only does God create all things ex nihilo (out of no pre-existing substance), including man, but He sovereignly preserves, sustains, and governs all of His creation, bringing all things to their appointed end. Hence, J. I. Packer rightly states that Christian theism is to be viewed as a unified philosophy of history which sees the whole diversity of processes and events that take place in Gods world as no more, and no less, than the outworking of His great preordained plan for His creatures and His church. 5 Fourth, God created man in His own image, both metaphysically and ethically (Genesis 1:2628). Man is a living soul consisting of a physical (body) and a non-physical (spirit, soul, or mind) element (Genesis 2:7). But, as Calvin properly teaches, man is Gods image bearer in a spiritual or mental sense. Writes Calvin: The mind of man is His [Gods] true image.6 That is, man is a spirit; man has a body. The body is the instrument of the soul or spirit. 7 According to Biblical Christianity, as taught by the Westminster Confession, man is a spiritual, rational, moral, immortal being, created with innate, propositional knowledge, including knowledge of God, to have a spiritual relationship with his Creator. Herein he differs from the rest of creation. Says the Confession (4:2): After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image; having the law of God written in their hearts. Calvin referred
J. I. Packer, A Quest For Godliness (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990), 129. John Calvin, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 22. 7 Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 1:22; On the Soul and Its Origin 4:20.
6
to this innate knowledge as the sensus divinitatis, or the sense of divinity, which is engraved upon the soul of all men. It is propositional and ineradicable truth, and it leaves all men without excuse. 8 Theologians refer to this innate knowledge as general revelation. It is general in both audience (the whole world) and content (broad theology), whereas special revelation (the verbal communications of Scripture), on the other hand, is specific in audience (those who read the Bible) and detailed in content. General revelation, as noted, reveals God as Creator, thus leaving men without excuse (Romans 1:1821; 2:1415). But it does not reveal Christ as the only Redeemer. This latter knowledge is found only in Scripture (Romans 1:1617; 10:17). The Confession (1:1) reads:
Although the light of nature [naturally innate in man], and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore, it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of Gods revealing His will unto his people being now ceased.
When properly studied, general and special revelation are in perfect harmony. But creation is always to be studied in light of special revelation. The Bible alone has a monopoly on truth. As clearly taught in Proverbs 8, a proper understanding of creation may only be derived from a study of Scripture. This does not mean that we should avoid a study of creation. Rather, we are compelled by special revelation to interact with it (e.g., scientific and historical investigation), as seen in the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:2628. But Scripture alone, not the study of science or history, gives us truth. This brings us to our fifth consideration. Due to the Fall of man, sin has affected the entire cosmos (Genesis 3; Romans 8:1823). Man and the universe are in a state of abnormality. The effects of the Fall have greatly
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. by John T. McNeill, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1:3:13.
hindered mans ability to philosophize. Metaphysically speaking, man is still in the image of God, even though the image is defaced. He is still a spiritual, rational, moral, immortal being (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9). But ethically speaking, the image of God is effaced. Fallen man is in a state of total depravity, incapable of doing anything to please God (Romans 3:918; 8:78). As taught in the Confession (6:4), fallen man is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil. The ethical image is only restored through the salvific cross work of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10). To properly philosophize, man must be regenerated (John 3:38). In the words of Robert Reymond: Until he is born again, man cannot see the kingdom of God, or, for that matter, anything else truly. 9 Philosophy and Wisdom As noted the Bible teaches that true wisdom begins with the fear of the Lord (Proverbs 9:10). Thus, one who does not savingly know the Lord Jesus Christ, who is wisdom incarnate (1 Corinthians 1:24,30; Colossians 2:3), cannot be wise (confirm John 14:6). The Bible describes such an individual as a fool. The fool is one who hates knowledge (Proverbs 1:22), is naive in his thinking, ready to believe anything (Proverbs 14:15), and trusts in himself (Proverbs 28:26), rather than in God (Psalm 14:1). He has said in his heart there is no God (Psalm 14:1). The fool may be a highly educated individual, one who is well versed in the discipline of philosophy; nevertheless, he is a fool, because he rejects the God of Scripture, and the Bible as the sole source of wisdom (Matthew 7:2627). Hence, he seeks wisdom and does not find it, because he is always looking in the wrong place (Proverbs 14:6). The apostle Paul describes the nature of this foolish, secular philosophy in Romans 1:1825. The non-Christian suppresses the knowledge of God which he possesses, he rejects Gods Word as the only standard of truth, and ascribes all of creation to that which is other than the God of Scripture (verses 1821). Says the apostle, such fools have become futile in their thoughts, their foolish hears [are] darkened (verse 21); professing to be wise, they became fools (verse 22). And as false philosophers, they have chosen to worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator (verse 25).
9
Robert L. Reymond, A Christian View of Modern Science (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977), 10.
The Christian philosopher, on the other hand, is a wise man. He builds his philosophical system upon the Rock of Christ and His Word (Matthew 7:2425). He views all things (i.e., philosophizes) by means of the spectacles of Scripture.10 In this way, the Christian philosopher is not only homo spiritualis (spiritual man), he is also homo sapiens (man having wisdom).
10
Calvin, Institutes 1:6:1.
Chapter 2
CHRISTIANITY AND THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF PHILOSOPHY

Introduction As we have seen, a worldview or philosophy is a set of beliefs concerning the most important issues of life. Therefore, any well rounded worldview must be able to adequately deal with the four most basic elements or tenets of philosophy: epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and politics. First, epistemology is that branch of philosophy which is concerned with the theory of knowledge. How do we know what we know? What is the standard of truth? Is truth relative? Is knowledge about God possible? Can God reveal things to human beings?; if so, how? Second, metaphysics has to do with the theory of reality. Why are things what they are? Why is there something, rather than nothing? How can there be unity amidst diversity in the universe? Is the world a creation? Is it a brute fact? Is there purpose in the universe? Third, ethics concerns itself with how one should live. It is the study of right and wrong thoughts, words, and deeds. What is the standard for ethics? Is there an absolute law to which every man must conform? Is there a logical reason for us to ask why someone ought to do this or that? Is morality relative to individuals, cultures, or historical periods? Or does morality transcend these boundaries? Fourth, politics is that branch of philosophy which has to do with the theory of government. What kind of government is the correct one? Should government be limited? Do citizens have a right to private property? What is the function of the civil magistrate? Epistemology Epistemology is the key component to any theological or philosophical system. Metaphysics, ethics, and political theory can only be established on an epistemological basis. Without a standard, a ground basis for belief (epistemology), one cannot know what a true theory of reality is; nor can he know how we must determine what is right and wrong; nor
10
Ch. 2: Christianity and the Basic Elements of Philosophy
can he know what the proper political theory is. An epistemic base is always primary. This is why the Westminster Confession of Faith begins with epistemology, the doctrine of revelation. Chapter 1 is Of the Holy Scripture. Only after the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments have been established as the starting point of Christian theology, does the Confession go on to consider the doctrine of God (metaphysics) in chapters 25, the doctrine of the law (ethics) in chapter 19, and the doctrine of the civil magistrate in chapter 23. Gordon Clark says it this way:
While the question of how we can know God is the fundamental question in the philosophy of religion, there lies behind it in general philosophy the ultimate question, How can we know anything at all? If we cannot talk intelligently about God, can we talk intelligently about morality, about our own ideas, about art, politics can we even talk about science? How can we know anything? The answ er to this question, technically called the theory of epistemology, controls all subject matter claiming to be intelligible or cognitive. 1
In the history of philosophy, there have been three major non-Christian theories of knowledge: (pure) rationalism, empiricism, and irrationalism. First, pure rationalism avers that reason, apart from revelation or sensory experience, provides the prime, or only, source of truth. The senses are untrustworthy, and our apriori knowledge (the knowledge we have before any observation or experience) must be applied to our experience in order for our experience to be made intelligible. In a Biblical epistemology (which may be called Christian rationalism, or Scripturalism), knowledge comes through logic, as one studies the revealed propositions of Scripture. In pure rationalism, on the other hand, knowledge comes from reason alone. Unaided human reason becomes the ultimate standard by which all beliefs are judged. Even revelation must be judged by reason. One false assumption made here by the rationalist is that man, apart from revelation, is capable of coming to a true knowledge of at least some things, including the knowledge of God. There are several errors endemic to the rationalist system of thought. First, fallen men can and do err in their reasoning. Formal errors in logic is one example. Second, there is the issue of a starting point. Where does
Gordon H. Clark, How Does Man Know God? The Trinity Review (July/ August, 1989): 1.
11
one start in pure rationalism? Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza, all of whom were classified rationalists, had different starting points. Plato began with his eternal Ideas, Descartes with his doubting of all things (his cogito ergo sum), Leibniz with his system of monads, and Spinoza, who was a pantheist, with his Deus sive Natura (God, that is, nature). It seems that rationalists do not agree on a starting point, an axiom on which their system is to be based. Third, how can reasoning apart from revelation determine if the world is controlled by an omnipotent, good God, who has revealed to us that two plus two equals four, or by an omnipotent demon who has all along deceived us into believing that two plus two equals four, whereas it really equals five? Fourth, rationalism seems to commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent. A rationalist argument may proceed as follows: If we begin with proposition A, we can justify the claim that we do indeed have knowledge. Now, it is certain that we do have knowledge; therefore proposition A is true. This form of argumentation commits the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent. Finally, it is difficult in pure rationalism to avoid solipsism, which is the belief that the self is all that exists or is capable of being known. Without a divine, universal mind in which all persons and objects participate (such as in Christian theism), it is not possible for the individual to escape his own mind. This is at least one of the reasons that the rationalists have adopted the ontological argument for the existence of God. The nineteenth century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel attempted to solve this problem by positing an Absolute Mind, but a Mind from which one could not rationally deduce individuals. In Hegels view, we have the disappearance of the self into the Absolute Mind (or World Spirit). This is another form of pantheism, which is also a failure. Second, empiricism maintains that all knowledge originates in the senses. According to the empiricist, ordinary experience yields knowledge. In empiricism, the scientific method of investigation is stressed. Surely, it is alleged, the numerous triumphs of science in the modern age demonstrate the truth of the empirical method. Science, of course, is based on observation, and repetitive observation is emphasized. The idea being, that with repetitive observation, knowledge and certainty are increased. In a consistent empirical epistemology, the mind is considered to be a tabula rasa (blank tablet) at birth. It has no innate structure, form, or ideas. Therefore, all knowledge must come through the senses.
12
While rationalists proceed by deduction, empiricists use inductive reasoning as well. One collects his experiences and observations and draws inferences and conclusions from them. This empirical knowledge is aposteriori, i.e., it comes after and through experience. One must be able to smell, taste, feel, hear, or see something in order to know it. Once something is experienced (or sensed), then the mind, which is a blank tablet prior to experience, somehow remembers, imagines, combines, transposes, categorizes, and formulates the sensory experience into knowledge. The philosophical problems with empiricism are legion, some of which will be exposed here. First, all inductive arguments are formal logical fallacies. In inductive study, each argument begins with particular premises and ends with a universal conclusion. The difficulty is that it is not possible to collect enough experiences on any subject to reach a universal conclusion. Simply because the system depends on the collection of experiences for its conclusions, it can never be certain that some new experience or observation will not change its previous conclusions. Thus, it can never be conclusive. For example, one may observe 1000 crows and find them all to be black. But when crow number 1001 turns out to be an albino, the previous conclusion about crows being black must be revised. Then too, along this line of thought, keep in mind how often scientists revise and overturn earlier conclusions. The fact is that science can never give us truth; it deals only with theories, not absolutes. It was Einstein who said: We [scientists] know nothing abut it [nature] at all. Our knowledge is but the knowledge of school children . . . .We shall know a little more than we do now. But the real nature of things that we shall never know.2 And philosopher of science Karl Popper wrote: In science there is no knowledge in the sense that Plato and Aristotle used the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science we never have sufficient reason for belief that we have attained the truth. 3 Second, the senses can and frequently (perhaps always) do deceive us. No one can ever have the same experience twice. The ancient philosopher Heroclitus spoke to this in his well known dictum: No one ever stands in the same river twice. Finite things continue to change, even as the water in a river continues to flow. In such a system, verification, that
Cited in Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians (Unicoi: Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 1991), 128. 3 Cited in John W. Robbins, The Trinity Review (August, 1993): 3.
13
is the inferring of a conclusion by good and necessary consequence, is not possible. In fact, the basic axiom of empiricism that everything needs to be either verified or falsified by sense observation cannot itself be verified or falsified by sense observation. Thus, empiricism rests on a self-contradictory and therefore false starting point. Third, as we have seen, empiricists maintain that all men are born with a blank mind. But this is not possible. A consciousness which is conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. Here too empiricism is self-contradictory. 4 Fourth, how can the truths of mathematics be derived from the senses? Can the laws of logic be abstracted or obtained from sensation? How can the senses give us ideas such as equal, parallel, or justification? These are never found in sense experience. No two things we experience are ever perfectly equal. These are insuperable difficulties with empiricism. Empiricism cannot tell us how the senses alone give us conceptions. If the knower is not already equipped with conceptual elements or ideas (i.e., innate knowledge), how can he ever conceptualize the object sensed? Whereas rationalism, with its concept of universal ideas, gives us an explanation for categories and similarities, empiricism does not. And without these, rational discourse would not be possible. Fifth, like pure rationalism, solipsism is inescapable in an empiricist epistemology. Ones sensations are just that: ones sensations. No one else can experience them. But if this is the case, how can one know that there is an external world? Any evidence that might be offered is just another subjective experience. Finally, in ethics, even if we assume that empiricism (at best) can tell us what is, it can never tell us what ought to be. Ought-ness can never be derived from is-ness. Empirical observations can never give us moral principles. As Gordon Clark states: A moral principle can only be a divinely revealed prohibition or command.5 Even in the Garden of Eden, before the Fall, man was dependent on propositional revelation from God for knowledge. By observation he could not have determined his duty before God. After the Fall, of course, the problem is worsened.
John W. Robbins, An Introduction to Gordon H. Clark: Part 1, The Trinity Review (July, 1993): 4. 5 Clark, First Corinthians, 78.
14
In 1 Corinthians 2:910, the apostle Paul distinguishes between philosophies built on pure rationalism and empiricism, and propositional revelation from God: But as it is written: Eye has not seen, nor ear heard [empiricism], nor have entered into the heart [mind] of man [pure rationalism] the things which God has prepared for those who love Him. But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. What is Pauls conclusion? Simply this: that neither pure rationalism nor empiricism can yield knowledge. Rather, maintains the apostle, propositional revelation is the sine qua non of knowledge. Third, irrationalism, fostered by such men as Soren Kierkegaard, (to a certain extent) Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and neoorthodox theologians, is a form of skepticism. It is anti-rational and antiintellectual. Actual truth, say the skeptics, can never be attained. Rational attempts to explain the world leave us in despair. Reality cannot be communicated propositionally, it must be grasped personally and passionately (Kierkegaard). Truth is subjective. Even though man may never know if there is a god who gives purpose and meaning to life, he must nevertheless take a leap of faith (Kierkegaard). He must live life as if there is a god, a higher being, a meaningful universe, because not to do so would be worse (Kant). Irrationalism manifests itself in theological circles in the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. For these men, logic is disdained. Logic must be curbed to allow for faith. After all, it is alleged, Gods logic is different than mere human logic, so we can only find truth in the midst of paradox and contradiction. In this theology of paradox, God can even teach us through false statements. Sadly, irrationality has also affected the orthodox church. Far too many of those within Christian circles have fallen prey to the anti-reason, anti-intellectual, anti-logic movement. The present authors agree with John Robbins who writes: There is no greater threat facing the true church of Christ at this moment then the irrationalism that controls our entire culture. We are living, says Robbins, in the age of irrationalism. And as many philosophical foes as the Christian church has to face, as many false ideas that would vie for supremacy, there is no idea as dangerous as the idea that we do not and cannot know the truth. 6
John W. Robbins, Scripture Twisting in the Seminaries (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 1985), 110.
15
The problem with irrationalism is that when one divorces logic from epistemology, he is left with nothing. Skepticism is self-contradictory, for it asserts with certainty that nothing can be known for certain. Christian theism, on the other hand, maintains, as stated by the Confession (1:4) that God is truth itself: Father (Psalm 31:5), Son (John 14:6), and Holy Spirit (1 John 5:6), and that truth is logical. The law of contradiction7 is a negative test for truth. The reason being that a contradiction is always a sign of error. If something is contradictory, it cannot be true (1 Corinthians 14:33; 1 Timothy 6:20). In fact, the Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ is the Logic (Logos) of God (John 1:1). He is Reason, Wisdom, and Truth incarnate (1 Corinthians 1:24, 30; Colossians 2:3; John 14:6). The laws of logic are not created by God or man; they are the way God thinks. And since the Scriptures are a part of the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:16), they are Gods logical thoughts. The Bible expresses the mind of God in a logically coherent fashion to mankind. Man, as the image bearer of God (Genesis 1:26-28), possesses logic inherently as part of the image. Man is Gods breath (Genesis 2:7; Job 33:4), for the Spirit of God breathed into man his spirit or mind, which is the image. Contrary, then, to the platitudinous nonsense of the irrationalists, Scripture teaches us that there is no such thing as mere human logic. We read in John 1:9 that Christ, as the Logos (Logic) of God is the true Light which gives light to every man. This being the case, it is evident that Gods logic and mans logic are the same logic. We are to understand, then, that to reason logically is to reason according to Scripture (Romans 12:2), which is a part of Gods logical thoughts. Redeemed man is to learn progressively to think Gods thoughts (2 Corinthians 10:5). To quote Clark: Logic is fixed, universal, necessary, and irreplaceable. Irrationality contradicts the Biblical teaching from beginning to end. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not insane. God is a rational being, the architecture of whose mind is logic.8
The law of contradiction (or non-contradiction) states that A (which could be any proposition or object) cannot be both B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense. 8 Gordon H. Clark, God and Logic, The Trinity Review (November/December, 1980): 4.
16
Christian Epistemology As already studied, the starting point of Christian epistemology is the propositional revelation of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. If we are to avoid the fallacies of pure rationalism, the pitfalls of empiricism, and the skepticism of irrationality, we need another source of truth. And this source is propositional revelation from the God of Scripture, who is truth itself. Scripture passages such as Job 11:79, Proverbs 20:24, Ecclesiastes 3:11; 7:2728; 8:10,17, Matthew 16:17, 1 Corinthians 2:910, just to list a few, make it abundantly clear that apart from Biblical revelation, man cannot truly know God or His creation. Gregg Singer aptly states:
It may not be amiss to note that epistemology has become the most profoundly disturbing issue confronting the modern mind, simply because contemporary philosophy has rejected [the] Biblical solution and has sought answers from various other sources, all of which have led to the despairing conclusion that man simply cannot know reality and that there is no ultimate truth that can be known. 9
We have seen that every philosophical system must have its starting point which is axiomatic, that is, it cannot be proved. And the starting point for Christian philosophy is the Word of God. This is the axiom: the Bible alone is the Word of God, and it has a systematic monopoly on truth. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit produces this belief in the minds of Gods elect. Therein, they acquiesce to the self-authenticating Scriptures. As stated in the Confession (1:45), the Bible is to be received [simply] because it is the Word of God, and even though it abundantly manifests itself to be Gods Word, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. Sometimes this is referred to as dogmatism, Biblical presuppositionalism, Christian rationalism, or Scripturalism. All too frequently the critics will say that this is nothing more than question begging (petitio principii); it is circular reasoning; it assumes what ought to be proved. One cannot assume that the Bible is the Word of God, just because the Bible claims to be the Word of God. First, it is alleged, we must prove that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. It is the case, of course, that not every claim is true. There are many false claims and claimants. But it cannot be rationally denied that the
9
Singer, From Rationalism to Irrationality, 33.
17
Bible claims to be the infallible, inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:1617; 2 Peter 1:2021). And this is significant. It is a claim that few writings attribute to themselves. Therefore, since the Bible makes such a claim, explicitly and pervasively, it is very proper to believe the witness of the Bible itself. Second, the ad hominem (to the man) reply to the critic is that all systems must begin with an indemonstrable starting point. Otherwise, the system could never get started. Question begging, in this broad sense of the phrase, is not a characteristic unique to Christianity. It is a situation in which all philosophical systems find themselves. If one could prove that the Bible is the Word of God, then the Bible would not be the starting point. There would be something even before the starting point, which would be absurd. Simply stated, according to Scripture, there is no higher authority than Gods self-authenticating Word. Again, to cite the author of Hebrews: because He [God] could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself (6:13). One must accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as axiomatic, or there is no knowledge possible at all. Further, in Christian epistemology, there is no dichotomy between faith (revelation) and reason (logic). The two go hand in hand, because it is Christ the Logos who reveals the truth. Christianity is rational. In fact, the Christian faith is absolutely dependent on the cogency of reason (coherent thinking) for its proclamation and understanding. God communicates to us in a coherent fashion in His Word by means of rational, propositional statements. Revelation can only come to a rational person. In explaining the relationship between faith (revelation) and reason (logic), Augustine writes:
For if reason be found contradicting the authority of Divine Scriptures, it only deceives by a semblance of truth, however acute it be, for its deductions cannot in that case be true. On the other hand, if, against the most manifest and reliable testimony of reason, anything be set up claiming to have the authority of the Holy Scriptures, he who does this does it through a misapprehension of what he has read, and is setting up against the truth not the real meaning of Scripture, which he has failed to discover, but an opinion of his own; he alleges not what he has found in the Scriptures, but what he has found in himself as their interpreter. 01
10
Augustine, Letters 143:7.
18
Note is also made that there is an important philosophical distinction between knowledge and opinion. There is a difference between that which we know and that which we opine. Knowledge is not only possessing ideas or thoughts; it is possessing true ideas or thoughts. Knowledge is knowledge of the truth. It is justified true belief. Only the Word of God gives us such knowledge. Opinions, on the other hand, may be true or false. Natural science is opinion; archaeology is opinion; history (with the exception of Biblical history) is opinion. In these disciplines we are not dealing with facts. Here there is no justified true belief. To opine something is not to know it, even though the opinion may be true. A schoolboy may guess the correct answer to an arithmetic question, but unless he can show how he got the answer, he cannot be said to know it. To cite the Confession (1:6), only that which is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, gives us knowledge. Justified truth is found only in the Word of God. Paul speaks to this in 1 Timothy 6:35. According to the apostle, those who do not agree with the wholesome words of Jesus Christ, the doctrine which is according to godliness, are those who know nothing and are destitute of the truth. Finally, Christian philosophy holds to the coherence theory of truth, rather than the correspondence theory of truth. That is, the coherence theory of truth avers that whenever a person knows the truth, he knows that which exists in the mind of God; he does not have a mere representation of the truth (as in the correspondence theory of truth); a representation of the truth is not the truth. In the Biblical view, a proposition is true because God thinks it to be true. And since God is omniscient (knowing all things), if man is going to know the truth, he must know that which is in the mind of God. The same truth that exists in the mind of man exists first in the mind of God. In the coherence theory of truth, the mind and the object known are both part of one system, a system in which all parts are in perfect accord, because they are found in the mind of God. Metaphysics The word metaphysics is derived from the Greek meta phusika, meaning beyond physics. As seen, metaphysics has to do with the theory of reality, not just the physical, but even that which transcends the physical. Physical objects may appear to the senses in various ways, but
19
the metaphysician is concerned with what the object truly is. Metaphysics is a study of ultimates. In the history of non-Christian thought, metaphysicians have usually fallen into one of two camps: monists and pluralists (or atomists). The former aver that all things are forms of one substance or essence, whereas the latter maintain that all things are forms of several substances or essences. Some monists are materialists (Thales, Heraclitus), and others are idealists or spiritualists (Parmenides). Then too, some pluralists are materialists (Democritus, Epicurus, Empedocles), while others are idealists (Leibniz). But by and large, all metaphysicians are concerned about the one and the many problem. That is, the major issue in the study of metaphysics is the question of the one and the many. How can there be so many diverse things in the world, while there also seems to be a basic unity? Amidst much complexity, how is there still simplicity? Which is the basic fact of life, unity or plurality, the one or the many? If the answer to this latter question is the one, then unity must have priority over plurality. If, on the other hand, the answer is the many, then the individual and particulars have priority. If the one is ultimate, then the particulars are degraded. If the many is ultimate, then the reverse is true. 11 According to Francis Schaeffer, this question has plagued nonChristian thinkers throughout the history of philosophy. Plato emphasized the universals and Aristotle the particulars. Aquinas (at least implicitly) separated the two in his errant theory of nature (particulars) and grace (universals). Kant and Hegel both attempted to synthesize the one and the many problem by means of reason apart from revelation. Kierkegaard concluded that the answer can only be found in a leap of faith into the realm of universals. Linguistic Analysis philosophers assert that only a perfect language can bring about the desired unity. But all non-Christian philosophy comes short of the solution to the problem. Only Christian philosophy can adequately answer the one and the many question. And the answer lies in the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Says Schaeffer, without the high order of personal unity and diversity as given in the Trinity, there are no answers. 21
R. J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many (Fairfax, Vir.: Thoburn, 1978), 2n. Francis A. Schaeffer, He is There and He is Not Silent (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1972), 3167, 14.
12
11
20
God is one in essence, yet three (many) distinct persons. He is the eternal One and Many. As sovereign God, He created all of the many things in the universe, and He gives them a unified structure. The universe, then, is the temporal one and many. Thus, the particular things of the universe act in accordance with the universal dictates of the triune God (Psalm 147:1518). There is order in the universe because there is a sovereign God who created and providentially controls it. Augustine asserted that the one and many problem finds its solution in that the particulars of this world have their archetypes in the mind of God. Augustine called these archetypes the eternal reasons. Gods eternal reasons are the architectural plans from which He created the world. The world is patterned after the divine propositions of the triune God. Therefore, there is unity amongst diversity. 31 Augustine went on to teach that Jesus Christ, the eternal Logos of God, is the one who gives us a coherence between the infinite and the finite, the Creator and the creation. In other words, it is Christ who reveals the solution to the one and many problem. Apart from a proper understanding of Logos theology (i.e., Christ as the eternal Word who came to reveal the truth of God to man), there is no real solution.14 Differing drastically with the non-Christian views of metaphysics, Scripture teaches that all things exist as they do because the triune God of Scripture is the Creator and Sustainer of all things. As taught in the Westminster Confession (5:1):
God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
This is why there is something, rather than nothing. And because God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, the world is neither a brute fact, nor a purposeless machine. There is order, meaning, and purpose in the universe because it is the purposeful work of the Master Craftsman.
See Richard E. Bacon, Two Essays, a review of Lord God of Truth, by Gordon H. Clark, and Concerning the Teacher, by Aurelius Augustine (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 1994), in The Blue Banner (March / April, 1995), 1315. 14 See Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), chs. 6 and 8.
13
21
And this order, meaning, and purpose is found in the covenant that God has entered into with His creation (Genesis 1; 2:1517; 3:15; 9:917; Jeremiah 33:1926). It is in Him [that] we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). Ethics Even though persons sometimes consider ethics and morals to be virtual synonyms, technically, there is a difference between the two. Ethics is a normative discipline, which seeks to prescribe obligations on mankind. It has to do with what one ought to do. Ethics is a matter of authority. Morals, on the other hand, describe the behavior patterns of individuals and societies, i.e., what people do. Ones ethics should determine his morals. Christian ethics depends on revelation. Christianity maintains that there is only one ethical standard for mankind, and that is the law of God. As stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (19:5): Gods moral law does for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof. And sin is properly defined, as per the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q 14), as any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the law of God. If there were no law of God, then there would be no sin. Our moral conduct, then, is to be guided by the ethical standard of the Word of God. Again to cite the Confession (16:1): Good works are only such as God has commanded in His Holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention. Behind the validity of the moral law of God, is, of course, the authority of the God who gives us the law. The prologue of the Ten Commandments is: I am the Lord. Theology and not ethics is primary. The distinction between right or wrong is entirely dependent upon the commandments of God, because He is the Lord. And the Christian system of ethics is based on the very nature of God Himself. You shall be holy for I [God] am holy (Leviticus 11:44; 1 Peter 1:16). All non-Christian ethics (and morals) are perversions of the only true standard. As Paul points out in the first two chapters of his epistle to the Romans, man has suppressed the innate knowledge of God and His Word, which he knows to be true, and supplanted it with his own false systems. We have already noted that man was created in the image of God. The Fall, however, left man in an ethical state of total depravity. Unregenerate man is now unable to do anything that pleases God (Romans
22
3:918; 8:78). His ethical standard is autonomous; it has no eternal reference point. Non-Christian man is on the horns of a dilemma: he is seeking to build an ethical system without a divine, eternal authority behind it. In the words of Christ, fallen man is on sinking sand (Matthew 7:2627). The Scriptures are clear on this matter. There is a noticeable link between non-Christian worldviews and the practice of those who adhere to them. Psalm 14 states the matter plainly. It is the fool who has said in his heart [that] there is no God (verse 1a) And, as the Psalmist goes on to say, it is because of this denial of God that they are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good (verse 1b). Paul teaches the same thing in Romans 3. In verses 1017, he gives us a catalogue of the sins which infect the unregenerate. Then in verse 18, he sums up the indictment by saying that there is no fear of God before their eyes. That is, when man rejects the God of Scripture, it leads to abominable works. The number of non-Christian ethical systems are many. R. C. Sproul notes that there are presently at least eighty different theories of ethics which are competing for acceptance. Perhaps the two that have had the most (negative) impact on Christianity are legalism and antinomianism, both of which are on what Jesus referred to as the broad way that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:1314).15 Legalism, in its most severe form, claims that law keeping, by itself, is the savior of both man and society. It concerns itself with external conformity to a standard of law, a standard which is always, in one way or another, a man-made law. As Paul writes, men, seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God (Romans 10:3). This form of legalism was adopted by the Pharisees of Jesus day (Matthew 15:19; 23:139). It is also the error of Pelagianism. 61 Equally false and dangerous is the semi-Pelagian teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, that justification is a co-mixture of grace and works. Sometimes, in a less severe fashion, legalism comes in the form of non-biblical lists of dos and donts. Other times it is found in mere tradition. But it is always humanistic in origin. Mans law is set in opposition to the law of God.
R. C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1983), Part Four. Pelagius was a fourth century British monk who propagated this system of legalism. His teachings were staunchly opposed by Augustine.
16
15
23
Legalism asserts, with Protagoras, that man is the measure of all things. But if man is the measure of all things, then what I believe is every bit as true as what you believe. We are both correct. So if I believe that you are wrong, then you are necessarily wrong. And if you believe that I am wrong, then I am necessarily wrong. Hence, we are both right and wrong at the same time, which is a contradiction. And, as we have seen, that which is contradictory is inescapably erroneous. Jesus speaks against legalism in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. And Paul condemns it in the book of Galatians. Antinomianism (anti-lawism) takes several forms: libertinism, gnostic spiritualism, and situation ethics. Libertinism, in one way or another, denies that the moral law of God is binding on mankind today. Sadly, it has found its way into the (pseudo) church. This view is prevalent in Dispensational circles, where Pauls statement in Romans 6:14 is frequently stated to make the point that in the New Testament age Christians are no longer under law, but under grace: For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. This, however, is not the case. As taught in chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, that although the ceremonial laws given to the nation of Israel, as a church under age, are now abrogated, nevertheless, the Ten Commandments, and the general equity of Israels judicial laws, do continue for ever to bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that neither does Christ in the Gospel [New Testament age] any way dissolve, but much strengthens this obligation. That is to say, as the Confession goes on to say (citing Romans 6:14 as a proof text), that although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs, and binds them to walk accordingly. That is to say, in Romans 6:14, the apostle Paul is not denying that Christians are obligated to obey the law of God; rather, he is teaching that they are no longer under the law as a curse (confirm Galatians 3:1013). Further, he makes this clear in an earlier passage in the same epistle, where he writes: Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law (Romans 3:31). Gnostic spiritualism, often found in Charismatic and Pentecostal churches, elevates feelings and mystical experiences above the law of God. Those who are in the know claim a superior source of knowledge.
24
The mandates of Scripture should be set aside, it is alleged, when such an experience occurs. The Spirit of God, say the Gnostics, guides them apart from (without the need of) Biblical revelation. According to Scripture, however, the Holy Spirit is not antinomian. He is the Spirit of truth, who guides the church into all the truth (John 16:13). But He does so by means of Scripture, not apart from it (John 16:1315; 1 Corinthians 2:1016). It is the Scripture, writes Paul, not mystical experiences, that thoroughly equips the church for every good work (2 Timothy 3:1617). Further, writes Solomon: He who trusts in his own heart [feelings] is a fool (Proverbs 28:26). Situation ethics, or the new morality, is a construct which denies that there are any absolute truths. Rather, the law of love is to dictate ones ethics in each specific situation. That is, love always trumps law, and makes the action correct. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Emil Brunner, the Marquis de Sade, and Bishop J. A. T. Robinson, to name just a few, are notable proponents of this system. Joseph Fletcher, however, is perhaps the major popularizer of situation ethics. As noted, in situation ethics, the only absolute, if it may be called that, is the law of love. But it is a law defined by Fletcher, not by the Word of God. Whereas love, from a Biblical standpoint, is objective in nature defined by Jesus as keep[ing] My commandments (John 14:15), and by Paul as the fulfillment of the law [of God] (Romans 13:10) to Fletcher and the situation ethicists, it is merely personal and subjective. The situation dictates; there is no norm, no absolute standard by which all is to be judged. Situation ethics is in contradistinction to Christian ethics, where love is manifested in living life in obedience to the law of God: This is love, that we walk according to His [Gods] commandments (2 John 6). All non-Christian ethical systems are bankrupt. They have no eternal standard upon which to stand. They have no basis from which to make assertions. Having rejected divine revelation, these systems provide no certain ground for any moral laws (Matthew 7:2627). The Preacher (qoheleth) of Ecclesiastes summarizes mans ethical obligation when he writes: Let us hear the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether it is good or whether it is evil (12:1314).
25
Politics The Christian worldview maintains that there are three main Biblical institutions ordained by God: the family, the church, and the civil magistracy (or state). The institutions exist, as with all things, to glorify God (1 Corinthians 10:31). They are separate as to function, but not as to authority. All three are governed by Scripture. The family is the primary Biblical institution. It was the first one established (Genesis 12), and, in a sense, the other two institutions are founded upon the family. The second Biblical institution is the church.17 Theologians distinguish between the visible and the invisible church. The former, according to the Confession (25:1), consists of all those throughout the world who profess the true religion, and of their children. The invisible church, on the other hand, comprises the true saints (the elect) of all time, even those not yet born. Teaches the Confession (25:1): The catholic or universal church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all. The third Biblical institution, which is the focus of our study, is the civil magistracy. The difference between this institution and the other two is that it is, in the words of Augustine, a necessary evil.18 That is, the civil magistracy is itself made necessary due to the Fall. Because the major purpose of the state is to punish evil doers (Romans 13:17; 1 Peter 2:1317). And for this purpose the state is Gods minister (Romans 13:4, 6). As taught in the Confession (23:1): God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers. Two major errors have developed in the history of the church-state relationship: Papalism and Erastianism. The former avers that the church (namely, the pope) is to rule both church and state. The latter maintains that both institutions are to be under the headship of the civil magistrate.
For a further study of the doctrine of the church, see W. Gary Crampton and Richard E. Bacon, Built Upon The Rock (Dallas: Blue Banner Ministries, 1999). 18 Augustine, City of God 19:1315.
17
26
The Biblical view avoids both errors, and teaches that both the church and the state are God ordained institutions, under the law of God. Again, they are separate as to function, but not as to their authority. Further, it is certainly a fair statement that any attempt to base a theory of the civil magistrate on secular axioms, rather than on Scripture, will logically result in either anarchy or totalitarianism. Surely, this has been the case through the centuries of time. In Proverbs 14:34, we read: Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. What constitutes the righteousness that exalts a nation? How is righteousness defined? First, the triune God of Scripture is righteous: Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His [Gods] throne (Psalm 97:2). And, writes the Psalmist, so is Gods Word: The righteousness of Your testimonies is everlasting . . . . For all Your commandments are righteous (Psalm 119:144, 172). The apostle Paul, in agreement with the Old Testament, writes: Gods law is holy and just and good (Romans 7:12). It would seem, then, that a nation is considered righteous when it seeks to honor the God of Scripture by applying His righteous standard (i.e., His Word) to every facet of the nations interests. This is the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith (19:2, 5), which states that Gods law is a perfect rule of righteousness, which does for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others [to include nations], to the obedience thereof. Turning away from Gods law as the infallible standard of the nation, on the other hand, constitutes the sin [which] is a reproach to any people. This is confirmed in Proverbs 29:18, where we read: Where there is no vision [Biblical revelation], the people perish, but happy is he who keeps the law. The present writers agree with John Robbins, that according to the Scriptures, there are at least seven basic values which are essential for a nation to be considered righteous:19 First: A Recognition of the Sovereignty of God. Gods sovereignty is universal: The Lord has established His throne in heaven, and His
John W . Robbins, The Ethics and Economics of Health Care, Journal of Biblical Ethics in Medicine, 8:2 (1994): 2324. Dr. Robbins lists ten basic values in his article. The present authors have grouped some of them with others to come up with a total of seven. All of the quotes attributed to Dr. Robbins in this book come from the pages cited in this footnote.
19
27
kingdom rules over all (Psalm 103:19); Our God is in heaven, He does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115:3). As stated in the Confession (5:1): God, the great Creator of all things, does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will. Regarding national matters, writes Dr. Robbins, the recognition of the sovereignty of God means that God, not the state, society, race, or church is the source of security. Says the Psalmist: It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes [magistrates] (118:89); Vain is the help of man. Through God we will do valiantly, for it is He who will tread down our enemies (60:1112). When the people of a nation look to the civil magistrate, or to the church (as in Roman Catholicism), rather than to God, to meet their needs, they have denied the sovereignty of God. Second: Limited Government. The fact that God is sovereign necessitates limiting the power and authority of all human institutions. In a Biblical society, the civil government would not have the authority to regulate banking practices, to impose taxes over ten percent, to run the postal department, to redistribute property, to make zoning laws, to buy and sell real estate, to borrow money, and so forth. In Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, we read that the authority of the magistrate is limited to that of defense and justice. In the words of the Confession (23:1): God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates to be under Him over the people, for His own glory, and the public good; and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers. Third: The Primacy of the Individual. The Reformation stressed this principle. It is likewise rooted in the teaching of the Westminster Confessions doctrine of individual election (chapter 3), individual calling or regeneration (chapter 10), individual justification (chapter 11), individual adoption (chapter 12), individual sanctification (chapter 13), and individual glorification (chapters 3233). The primacy of the individual in no way denies that God has from all eternity entered into a covenant with His elect people (chapter 7), which is the church of Jesus Christ (chapter 25), and is a communion of saints (chapter 26). But God fulfills His covenant historically through the salvation of individual saints. Every man, woman, and child is individually
28
responsible unto God. Ones blood line does not save him: But as many as received Him [Christ], to them He gave the authority to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:1213). The numerous individual freedoms and protections that citizens of a nation should enjoy, are derived from this doctrine: freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and so forth. Also derived from this doctrine is individual responsibility within society. No able-bodied person should be on the government dole. The state should not be involved in welfare. In the words of Paul: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Further, God has revealed specific non-governmental approaches to poverty relief (i.e., the family, the church). Government opposes God when it opposes His revelation. Fourth: The Right to Private Property. Two of the Ten Commandments, at least implicitly, teach the right to private property: You shall not steal; [and] you shall not covet (Exodus 20:15,17). If all property were held in common, stealing and coveting would not be possible. Too, in Matthew 20 Jesus teaches the parable of the workers in the vineyard, in which He concludes that it is lawful for a man to do what he wishes with his own possessions (verse 15). Then there is the Biblical teaching on Naboths vineyard in 1 Kings 21, where we are taught that the civil magistrate is forbidden to expropriate private property. This consideration makes eminent domain laws for public projects nothing other than ungodly intrusions. Included in the right to private property is the Biblical right to bear arms. In Exodus 22:12 and 1 Samuel 13:1922, for example, we read that individual citizens have the Biblical right to defend themselves, implicitly teaching that they have a right to keep and bear arms.20 And in Luke 22:36, Jesus explicitly tells His disciples to go out and buy a sword. In fact, teaches Jesus, it is so important that a man be able to defend himself, that, if necessary, he should sell his garment to secure the weapon. Fifth: The Protestant Work Ethic. This principle is rooted in the Fourth Commandment: Six days you shall labor and do all your work
Interestingly, the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America (the right of the people to keep and bear arms) was based on 1 Samuel 13:1922.
20
29
(Exodus 20:9). Hard work is not a curse of the Fall. Even prior to the Fall, Adam was commanded to tend and keep the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15). In Proverbs 14:23 we read that in all labor there is profit. Man is to work for a living. As Robbins says: What Max Weber called the Protestant work ethic is itself a bundle of economic virtues: Honesty, punctuality, diligence, obedience to the Fourth Commandment six days you shall labor, obedience to the Eighth Commandment you shall not steal, and obedience to the Tenth Commandment you shall not covet. A recognition of the significance of productive work grew out of the Bible and the Reformation. The Protestant work ethic also includes a proper understanding of the Sabbath principle. Man is to work six days a week, but he is to realize that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it (Exodus 20:1011). Sixth: The Rule of Law. According to chapter 19 of the Confession, a righteous nation must establish legal principles which are founded upon the Ten Commandments and the general equity of the Judicial laws which God gave to Israel. All substantive law is to be founded on the teaching of Scripture. It is also mandatory that the settled laws of the nation be applicable to all persons, including leaders. No one within the nation is above the law. This is the Puritan principle of lex rex (the law is king), rather than rex lex (the king is law). William Symington sums up the obligation of the nations to adopt the law of God as their national standard as follows:
It is the duty of nations, as the subjects of Christ, to take His law as their rule. They are apt to think it enough that they take, as their standard of legislation and administration, human reason, natural conscience, public opinion, or political expediency. None of these, however, nor indeed all of them together, can supply a sufficient guide in affairs of state. Of course, heathen nations, who are not in possession of the revealed will of God [special revelation], must be regulated by the law of nature [general revelation]: but this is no good reason why those who have a revelation of the divine will should be restricted to the use of a more imperfect rule. It is absurd to contend that, because civil society is founded in nature, men are to be guided, in directing its affairs and consulting its interests, solely by the light of nature . . . .The truth is, that
30
Ch. 2: Christianity and the Basic Elements of Philosophy revelation is given to man to supply the imperfections of the law of nature; and to restrict ourselves to the latter, and renounce to former, in any case in which it is competent to guide us, is at once to condemn Gods gift and to defeat the end for which it was given. We contend, then, that the Bible is to be our rule, not only in matters of a purely religious nature, in matters connected with conscience and the worship of God, but in matters of a civil or political nature. To say that in such matters we have nothing to do with the Bible, is to maintain what is manifestly untenable. To require the nations, who possess the sacred volume, to confine themselves, in their political affairs, to the dim light of nature, is not more absurd than it would be to require men, with the sun in the heavens, to shut out its full blaze and go about their ordinary duties by the feeble rays of a taper [candle]. Indeed, if nations are moral subjects [and they are], they are bound to regulate their conduct by whatever law their moral Governor has been pleased to give them; and as they are subjects of the Mediator, they must be under the law of the Mediator as contained in the Scriptures . . . . In the Holy Scriptures of truth, He has given them a fairer and more complete exhibition of the principles of immutable and eternal justice, than that which is to be found in the law of nature. We have only to look into the volume of revelation itself, to have the reasonings confirmed. 12
Seventh: Republicanism. Modeled on the Presbyterian form of church government, a Biblical nation is to be a republic, not a monarchy or democracy. God warned Israel against a monarchy in 1 Samuel 8. Among other things, said the Lord, the monarch would use compulsory labor, establish bureaucracies, establish a standing army, impose excessive taxes, and nationalize the means of production. In a monarchy, the voice of the king is as the voice of God. A democratic society, on the other hand, is one based on majority rule. It is law by majority opinion, what Schaeffer refers to as the dictatorship of 51%, with no controls and nothing with which to challenge the majority.22 When a nation is governed by the majority, the voice of the people becomes as the voice of God. Neither a monarch nor a democracy is Biblical. The Biblical form of government is a republic, wherein the nation is governed by established laws. A Christian republic is to be governed by constitutional and Biblical
21
William Symington, Messiah the Prince (Edmonton: Still Waters Revival, 1990), 23435. 22 Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer (Westchester; Crossway Books, 1982), 4:27.
31
law, and administered by representatives elected by the people. There is to be a division of powers and separation of powers, so that no government or branch of government has a monopoly of jurisdiction. As Dr. Robbins writes, a republican form of government is designed to fragment political power so that it cannot threaten the lives, liberties, and property of the citizens. Interestingly, Isaiah 33:22 was an important verse in the founding of the United States of America. Outlined in this verse are the three branches of government: judicial, legislative, and executive: For the Lord is our Judge [judicial], the Lord is our Lawgiver [legislative], the Lord is our King [executive]; He will save us. These seven values are foundational to any society that would be righteous. They are foundational because they are based upon the infallible, inerrant Word of God. If these are abandoned or subverted, the moral power and authority of a nation will be lost. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 14:34). Conclusion Christianity is a complete philosophical system that is founded upon the axiomatic starting point of the Bible as the Word of God. As the Westminster Confession (1:6) teaches: The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, mans salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Therefore, the whole Christian system proceeds from the single axiom, that the Bible alone is the Word of God, and therefore authoritative, to thousands of theorems. In this system, each of the parts we have studied epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and politics is important. And the ideas found therein are all arranged in a logical system, with each part mutually reinforcing the others. If the reader is concerned about following the dictates of Scripture, by having his mind transformed by the teachings of Scripture (Romans 12:12), and bringing all thoughts into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5), then he must learn to think as the Logos of God Himself thinks: logically and systematically. This accomplished, the reader will have learned the only viable philosophy, a philo-
32
sophy according to Christ (Colossians 2:8), which is founded upon the Word of God. 32
23
John W. Robbins, What is Christian Philosophy? (Trinity Foundation, 1994),
7.
Chapter 3
A BIBLICAL THEODICY
According to 1 Peter 3:15, it is the responsibility of the Christian theist to defend the Christian worldview against the many challenges brought against it. Writes Peter: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you. Certainly, one of the most serious challenges has to do with the problem of evil. Thomas Warren, for example, writes that it is likely the case that no charge has been made with a greater frequency or with more telling force against theism of Judeo-Christian (Biblical) Christian tradition than the complication of the existence of evil.1 Ronald Nash agrees; he states that the most serious challenge to theism was, is, and will continue to be the problem of evil. 2 Even the Biblical writers themselves address the topic of God and evil. The prophet Habakkuk complained: You [God] are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness. Why do You look on those who deal treacherously, and hold Your tongue when the wicked devours one more righteous than he? (Habakkuk 1:13). And Gideon contemplated: O my Lord, if the Lord is with us, why then has all this [hardship] befallen us? (Judges 6:13). If, according to the Bible, God, who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, has eternally decreed all that ever comes to pass, and if He sovereignly and providentially controls all things in His created universe, how is He not the author of evil? How can evil exist in the world? How do we justify the actions of God in the midst of evil, suffering, and pain? This is the question of theodicy. The word, which was supposedly coined by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, is derived from two Greek words (theos God and dike justice), and has to do with the justification of the goodness and righteousness of God in light of the evil in the world.
Thomas B. Warren, Have Atheists Proved There is No God? (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1972), vii. 2 Ronald H. Nash, Faith & Reason (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 177.
34
Ch. 3: A Biblical Theodicy
As we will see, the problem of evil is not nearly the problem it is made out to be. In fact, as Gordon Clark says, whereas various other views [philosophies] disintegrate at this point, the system known as Calvinism and expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith offers a satisfactory and completely logical answer.3 The answer, as we will see, lies in our epistemological starting point: the Word of God. Throughout the centuries, there have been numerous non-Christian attempts to deal with this issue. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Scientist Church, for one, simply denies that evil exists, i.e., it is illusory. Others, such as E. S. Brightman and Rabbi Harold Kushner, opt for a finite god, who is limited in power. Hence, he cannot be blamed for the existence of evil in the world. Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, on the other hand, posit some form of ultimate dualism. Good and evil co-exist independently, thus accounting for the mixture of good and evil in the world. Aristotle conceived of god as the Unmoved Mover, who was not really concerned about the things of this world. This being so, the relation of Aristotles god to evil and the moral endeavors of men is inconsequential. Leibniz rationalistically contended that God was morally bound to create the best of all possible worlds. Since there is evil in the world, God must have seen that it was the best of all worlds to create. These theories, of course, fall far short of a Biblical theodicy. Scripture clearly teaches that sin is not illusory (Genesis 3). Further, the God of Scripture is no finite deity. He is the ex nihilo Creator and Sustainer of heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:13), who is very much concerned with His universe (Psalm 104) and the moral affairs of men (Exodus 20:117). Moreover, the God of Scripture brooks no competition (Job 33:13; Psalm 115:3), so that there can be no form of ultimate dualism. Leibniz is also in error. He speaks of Gods moral responsibility to create the best out of a number of possible worlds, each of which is more or less good. Leibniz has things in reverse. God did not choose this world because it was the best. It was the best because He chose it. Calvin clearly understood this principle. He writes:
Gordon H. Clark, God and Evil: The Problem Solved (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 1996), 7. In the opinions of the present authors, this is the best book ever written on the subject of theodicy.
Christian Philosophy Made Easy For Gods will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever He wills, by the very fact that He wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so willed you are seeking something greater and higher than Gods will, which cannot be found. 4
35
Likewise, Leibnizs view tends to eliminate mans responsibility for sin by representing sin as little more than a misfortune that has befallen him. Again, the Bible is very clear that man is responsible for his sin. In Davids prayer of repentance in Psalm 51, for example, he puts the blame, not on God, nor on his mother, nor on Adam, all of which are causes in the chain leading to his sinful actions. David, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, places the blame squarely upon the immediate cause: himself. The great Christian philosopher, Augustine, also pondered the theodicy issue. He taught that since God created all things good, evil cannot have a separate or independent existence. Evil is the absence of good, as darkness is the absence of light. Evil is parasitic, in that is cannot exist apart from good. This being so, said Augustine, evil cannot be the efficient cause of sin; rather, it is a deficient cause in man. Evil is the result of mans turning away from the good commands of God, to seek a lesser good: the will of the creature, man. It is man, not God, who is the author of sin. This, though, is no solution to the problem. As Clark states: deficient causes, if there are such things, do not explain why a good God does not abolish sin and guarantee that men always choose the highest good. 5 Arminianism, an ostensible Christian system, also fails to give us a Biblical theodicy. Arminian theologians attribute the problem of evil to the free will of man. In his freedom, Adam chose to sin, apart from Gods will. Adam had a liberty of indifference to the will of God. God merely permitted man to sin. The idea of Gods merely permitting man to sin, however, is wholly unbiblical, and does not give us a solution. God permitted Satan to afflict Job (Job 12). But because this permission was necessary prior to the affliction, God is hardly exonerated. If He could have prevented Jobs trial, and yet willingly approved it, how can God be considered as less reprehensible than if He decreed it. This notion of permission and free will cannot exist with the omnipotence of God.
4 5
Calvin, Institutes 3:23:2. Clark, God and Evil, 9.
36
Neither is the Arminian view of free will compatible with Gods omniscience, because omniscience renders the future certain. If God foreknows all things, then of necessity they will come to pass; otherwise, they could not have been foreknown. God foreknew, even foreordained, the crucifixion of His Son by the hands of sinful men. Yet, Scripture tells us that the godless men who carried out the crucifixion are held responsible for their actions (Acts 2:2223; 4:2728). Could they have done differently? Could Judas Iscariot not have betrayed Jesus Christ? To ask these questions is to answer them; of course not! The Bible teaches us that God decrees all things that will ever come to pass: Known to God from eternity are all His works (Acts 15:18). Hence, Arminianisms attempted refuge in free will is both futile and false; for the Bible consistently denies the Arminians view of free will. Reformed theology does not disavow the fact that Adam (and all men after him) had a free will in the sense of free moral agency. All men have freedom of choice in this sense of the term. Men of necessity choose to do what they want to do; in fact, the could not do otherwise. What Reformed theology does deny is that man has the freedom of indifference. His freedom to choose is always governed by factors: his own intellections, habits, and so forth. Of course, all choices are subject to the eternal decrees of God. As mentioned, this is not only true of man after the Fall. It was also true of Adam prior to Genesis 3. The major difference is that post-fall man, who still maintains his free moral agency, has lost that which Adam originally possessed: the ability to choose what God requires. Fallen man, in his state of total depravity, always chooses to do that which he desires, but his sin nature dictates that he always chooses evil (Romans 3:918; 8:78; Ephesians 4:1719). This ability to choose good is only restored through regeneration (John 3:38; 2 Corinthians 3:17). Man, then, is never indifferent in his willing to do anything. God has determined all things that will ever come to pass. Yet, this does not undermine the responsibility of man. There is no disjunction here. The Westminster Confession of Faith (3:1; 5:2, 4) correctly states that:
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; yet, by the same
Christian Philosophy Made Easy providence, He orders them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God; who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.
37
God, says the Confession, is the sovereign first cause of all things, many of which occur through the free acts of men, which are second causes. The end which is decreed by God must never be separated from the means which He has also decreed, as second causes. And this is the reason, according to the Confession, that God is not to be considered the author or approver of sin. God is the sovereign first cause of sin, but He is not the author of sin. Only second causes sin. This view taught by the Westminster divines is the Calvinistic concept of determinism. The word determinism often carries with it an evil connotation, but this should not be the case. In actuality, determinism expresses a very Biblical and high view of God, and it gives us the only plausible theodicy. God determines or decrees every event of history and every action of man. Moreover, whatever God decrees is right simply because He decrees it. God can never err. God, says the Scripture, answers to no one: He does not give an accounting of any of His words (Job 33:13). He is the lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22); man is under the law (sub lego). God is accountable to no one. He is ex lex (above the law). The Ten Commandments are binding on man, not God. And the only precondition for responsibility is a lawgiver in this case God. Thus man is necessarily responsible for his sin, and God is completely absolved of being the author of sin. The determinism taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith is not the same thing as fatalism. In fatalism, god, or the gods, or the Fates, determine all things, while man remains completely passive. Hence, man cannot logically be held responsible for his sinful actions. In Biblical determinism, on the other hand, God sovereignly determines all things, but He also holds man responsible, because man and his freely chosen sinful actions are the second causes through which things are determined to occur.
38
But someone will ask: Is not murder sin and contrary to the will of God? How can it be that God wills it? The answer is found in Deuteronomy 29:29: The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. In this verse, Moses distinguishes between the decretive will of God (secret things) and the preceptive will of God (those things which are revealed). Gods preceptive will is found in Scripture. Therein we learn what God requires of man. Gods decretive will, on the other hand, is the cause of every event. Man is responsible for the preceptive will, not the decretive will. In the example used above, God from all eternity decreed Christs crucifixion (Revelation 13:8), yet when it was carried out by the hands of sinful men (Acts 2:2223; 4:2728), it was contrary to the moral law of God, i.e., Gods preceptive will. Standing on the rock foundation of the Word of God as our axiomatic starting point (Matthew 7:2425), the Christian theist has an answer to the theodicy issue. God, who is altogether holy and who can do no wrong, sovereignly decrees evil things to take place for His own good purposes (see Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6). And just because He has decreed it, it is right. As Reformer Jerome Zanchius taught:
The will of God is so the cause of all things, as to be itself without cause, for nothing can be the cause of that which is the cause of everything . . . .Hence we find every matter resolved ultimately into the mere sovereign pleasure of God . . . .God has no other motive for what He does than ipsa voluntas, His mere will, which will itself is so far from being unrighteous that it is justice itself. 6
It is good, then, that sin exists. God has decreed it and it is working for the ultimate: His glory. With these Biblical premises in mind, it is easy to answer anti-theists, such as David Hume, who argue that the pervasiveness of evil in the world militates against the existence of the Christian God. Hume argues as follows:7 First, an omnibenevolent deity will prevent evil from occurring. Second, an omniscient, omnipotent deity is able to prevent evil. Third, evil exists in the world. Fourth, therefore, either God is not omnibenevolent, or He is not omniscient or omnipotent.
Cited in Gordon H. Clark, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 1993), 11314. 7 David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 10.
39
The problem with Humes argument is his starting point. His first premise is false, therefore, his conclusion is invalid. The Christian theist would counter with the following argument: First, the omnibenevolent God of Scripture will prevent all evil, unless He, as all wise, has a purpose for its existence. Second, the omniscient and omnipotent God of Scripture is able to prevent all evil. Third, Scripture teaches us that evil exists in the world. Fourth, therefore, the omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God of Scripture, in His wise plan for His creation, does have a purpose for the existence of evil. And ultimately it will accomplish His good purpose. It is all a matter of ones starting point, his epistemic base. With the Bible as the axiom, the existence of evil is not really the problem it is made out to be. In fact, the existence of evil is far more problematic in a non-Christian worldview. Without an eternal reference point to tell us what is right and wrong, good and bad, how does one define evil? What makes evil, evil? How do we know? The Christian has an answer to these questions, whereas the non-believer does not.
Chapter 4
FALSE PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS

From a Biblical standpoint, a false philosophical system is one that teaches anything contrary to the Word of God. In Genesis 3 we learn why false philosophical systems exist. It is due to sin and the Fall of man. And in Romans 1, the apostle Paul elaborates on this. The full-orbed Gospel of Jesus Christ, says the apostle is the power of God unto salvation. It alone provides solutions to the problems of life; it alone answers lifes questions; it is the salvation of every area, every aspect, of life. For in it is revealed the righteousness of God . . . from faith to faith (verses 1617). But, writes Paul, fallen man has turned aside from Gods revelation. He inescapably knows the God of Scripture from general revelation, yet he suppresses, or holds in unrighteousness, the knowledge which he possesses (verses 1821). Mans reasoning has become faulty (verse 21). Mans philosophical problem stems from his knowing rebellion against the true God. And, having rejected God, he has chosen to serve the creation, rather than the Creator (verses 2225). The noetic effects of sin have corrupted fallen mans ability to philosophize in a godly manner. This being the case, false philosophical systems, in one way or another, deny or misinterpret God as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Too, they often elevate one aspect of the creation above all others. Worldviews are recognizable by the suffix ism. This suffix makes that to which it is affixed a worldview. John Calvin, for example, was a sixteenth century Reformer, and a master theologian. Calvinism, on the other hand, is that system of thought (or worldview) adopted by those who adhere to the basic teachings of John Calvin, and which is best summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. This system is frequently referred to as Reformed theology. Another example of an ism is secular humanism. According to Scripture, humans (human beings) are persons created in the image of God (Genesis 1:2628). Secular humanism, however, is a worldview which makes man the measure of all things. It basically elevates man to the level of deity. It is a false worldview.
42
Ch. 4: False Philosophical Systems
The number of false worldviews (isms) is legion. Some of these are over viewed below. False Theism Theism is that worldview that maintains that there is a god who transcends the universe which He created and sustains. Christianity, traditional Judaism, and Islam are all theistic worldviews. Christianity is both monotheistic and trinitarian. As taught in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q 56): There is but one only, the living and true God . . . .[Further] there are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance [essence], equal in power and glory. Herein lies one of the major differences between Christianity and these other two theistic systems. Whereas both traditional Judaism and Islam are monotheistic, neither is trinitarian. Two other major heresies within theistic systems are subordinationism (Arianism, Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormonism) and modalism (Sabellianism). Subordinationists teach that there is only one God: the Father. The Son and the Holy Spirit are lesser deities, if divine at all. They are not eternal beings; thus they are subordinated to the Father. Modalism, on the other hand, avers that God is one in essence and one in person. Son and Holy Spirit are names used with Father to describe the different roles, or modes, of God. When we speak of God as Creator we call Him Father; when we speak of Him as Redeemer we call Him Son; and when we refer to God as Illuminator and Regenerator we use the name Holy Spirit. But, according to this false theory, these are merely names for the various roles or modes of the divine being. Atheism Atheism expresses itself in different ways. But in general, atheists, in one way or another, deny the existence of an infinite and eternal God, such as the God of Christian theism. As taught by atheist Carl Sagan, all there is and ever will be is the universe in which we live. On one end of the spectrum we have agnostics (such as David Hume). Agnosticism is one form of atheism, which does not openly deny the existence of God, but which questions His knowability. An agnostic is skeptical, and as we have seen, skepticism as a worldview is contradictory. When one asserts that we cannot know if God exists, he has made a
43
certain statement about that which he says we cannot be certain. And such a statement is self-referentially absurd. On the other end of the spectrum of atheism we have humanism or naturalism (Karl Marx, Ludwig Feuerbach). This system of thought is purely anthropocentric, wherein man, as the measure of all things, is virtually deified. Man is the summum bonum of creation; he is ultimate. Feuerbach, for example, claimed that man is the god of man.1 Atheism is naturally materialistic. This is recognizable in the classic statement of Feuerbach that a man is what he eats. It is also noticeable in the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin. Evolutionism is a form of humanism which absolutizes the origin of the biotic aspect of the universe. Man is purely a material being. Man does not have a mind (he thinks with his brain), and belief in life beyond the grave is pure superstition. In summarizing some of humanisms central teachings, R. C. Sproul points out its irrational nature:
Man is a cosmic accident. He emerges from the slime by chance. He is a grown up germ. He is moving inexorably toward annihilation. Yet man is a creature [sic]2 of supreme dignity. He lives his life between two poles of meaninglessness. He comes from nothing; he goes to nothing. His origin is meaningless, his destiny is meaningless. Yet, somehow, between his origin and his destination, he acquires supreme dignity. Where does he get it? Out of thin air. 3
Another form of atheism is (atheistic)4 existentialism. Existentialism teaches, as per the dictum of Jean-Paul Sartre, that existence precedes essence. Here particulars are important, not universals. There are men, but there is no man. And whatever men may become (their essence), they make of themselves, because there is no divine essence who creates or produces the essence of man.
Confirm Ludwig Feuerbach, Lectures on the Essence of Religion (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), 17; where Feuerbach w rites: This doctrine of mine is briefly as follows: Theology is anthropology. 2 A consistent Darwinist would not call man a creature, because that would imply that man was created by a creator God. 3 R. C. Sproul, Lifeviews (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, 1986), 71. 4 The word atheistic is added in parentheses before existentialism because there is a form of existentialism referred to as Christian existentialism , which is a contradiction of terms.
44
Existentialism is closely related to pragmatism (where the end justifies the means), relativism (where truth is relative), and secularism (with its accent on the temporal, the here and now). In elevating existence above essence, men become their own masters; freedom reigns supreme. When Sartre describes man as a useless passion, we are to understand that in existentialism, men are not to be viewed so much in terms of their minds or thoughts, but of their feelings, their passions. And ultimately their passions are useless. Life is little more than the theater of the absurd. The only genuinely free act, then, is suicide. Existentialism places a strong emphasis on the experience of the present at the cost of the past and future. There are no ethical absolutes; truth is individualistic and subjective (there are truths, but no truth). As Fedor Dostoevsky said it: If there is no God, all things are permissible. Existentialism logically leads to either nihilism and utter despair (Friedrich Nietzsche) or to irrationalism (Soren Kierkegaard5). Deism Deists (Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin), recognizing that there is a need for a creator of the existing universe, maintain that there is a god who creates the world. But this god remains transcendent; he does not enter into the affairs of his creation. This god is not the immanent God of Biblical Christianity. The god of Deism is similar to the watchmaker, who, after having made his watch, sits back and lets it run itself. And the universe runs according to natural law. The god of Deism is usually one in essence and one in person; he is an absolute unity. It is not surprising, then, to learn that Unitarianism grew out of Deism. A consistent Deist might praise his god, but he would not pray to him. Because this god does not enter into the everyday affairs of men. In Deism, there is no special revelation, there is only general revelation. Any system of ethics in Deism, then, must come from natural law, or that which is common in human nature. In a Deistic worldview, reason and science are the primary tools of life. Finite Theism Finite theism, espoused by such men as E. S. Brightman, William James, and Rabbi Harold Kushner, posits the existence of a finite god. He
Soren Kierkegaard is considered by some to be a Christian existentialist. There are some scholars who consider him to be the father of existentialism.
45
is limited in his perfections or attributes. He may be omnibenevolent, but he is certainly not omnipotent. Evil is one thing that limits god. We cannot, then, blame god for the existence of evil in the world, because even though this god would like to expunge evil from the world, he is simply not able to do so. Kushner goes so far as to say that we must forgive god for his limitations. Since the world operates under the rubric of natural law, say the finite theists, ethical absolutes must not be posited. Neither are we to believe in miracles. Further, because there is no special revelation, we cannot be certain about the destiny of mankind. All we can say for certain is that perhaps there is life beyond the grave. One form of finite theism is henotheism, which teaches that there are many finite gods, one of whom is supreme. Sometimes henotheism has one god per nation or ethnic group, such as Baal of the Canaanites, or Dagon of the Philistines. Henotheism is a transitional stage between monotheism and polytheism. Pantheism The word pantheism is derived from two Greek words pan (all) and theos (God) all is God. In a pantheistic worldview (Hinduism, the new age movement), the world is god and god is the world; god is all and all is god. Pantheism stresses the immanence of god, while denying his transcendence. In this sense it is the opposite of Deism. In general, pantheists are not so crass as to assert that everything is actually god. This would render the word god virtually meaningless; it would be the same as saying everything is everything. What pantheists normally mean when they claim that all is god, is that god is manifested in everything. The transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson, for example, said it this way: When one is in touch with a flower, he is in touch with god. Some pantheists teach that god is impersonal, and the world emanates from him. And due to the fact that there is no special revelation, there are no ethical absolutes. It is alleged that mans need is to be united with god (which is self-contradictory since man is already, in some sense, identical with god). History is considered to be cyclical, and reincarnation is therefore frequently posited, based on ones karma. The one thing that Pantheism and materialism have in common is that in neither worldview is there anything or anyone outside of or beyond the universe.
46
Panentheism Panentheism is an attempt to blend Christian theism with Pantheism; it is clearly distinct from both. The word panentheist means all in god. Thus, panentheists maintain that all of the world is somehow in god. Or, perhaps it is better to say, as some do, that god is in the world, just as a soul is in a body; that is, god indwells the world. In this system god is not identical with the world (as in Pantheism). He is more than the world and has an identity of his own, albeit, he is not transcendent. In fact, in Panentheism, god (who is personal) and the world (which is impersonal) are co-eternal and interdependent. God needs the world and the world needs god. Panentheists, such as Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, and Schubert M. Ogden, teach that god is bipolar. There is a concrete or consequent pole, in which god is spoken of as finite, dependent, and contingent. But there is also an abstract pole, in which god is said to be infinite, independent, and immutable. God is constantly in the process of becoming, or moving from the former pole to the latter. And since god and the world are co-eternal and interdependent, all things are in this same process of becoming. History has no beginning and no end. Hence, the name process philosophy, or process theology is applied to this worldview. In Panentheism, man is a completely free moral agent. Thus, there are no ethical absolutes. Man has no personal immortality; he merely lives in the memory of a constantly becoming god. Polytheism Polytheism, sometimes found among the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Persians, teaches that there are two or more finite gods which exist in the universe, each with his own sphere of authority and activity. The gods often have a direct influence on the affairs of human events (unlike Deism). They may even appear to man in revelations, dreams, and visions. Some polytheists, such as the Mormons, teach that the various gods are in the process of changing; that is, there are degrees of perfection which they may be undergoing. Unlike the Polytheism of the Mormons (which posits ethical standards), in most polytheistic systems, there are usually no strict ethical standards. Normally, ethics are relative and localized to the authority level of the gods. Yet, paradoxically, man may someday answer to the gods for how he has lived his life on this earth. In Mormonism, for exam-
47
ple, an exemplary man may even ascend to the level of deity and rule his own universe. Conclusion Christian theism is the only true worldview, or philosophy. Jesus Christ, the Master Philosopher, makes it clear that He is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). There is no neutrality. One is either with Christ or against Him (Luke 11:23). There is no tertium quid, no third alternative. Christianity, then, is not a species, it is a genus. As taught in Genesis 3, all false worldviews are a result of the Fall. Due to the Fall man is estranged from the God of Scripture, giving rise to the many false worldviews that have arisen throughout history. It is the job of the Christian theist to defend the truth of Christian theism against all false worldviews. Hopefully, this brief overview of some of the false isms that exist, will be of some aid in this task.
Part II ISSUES IN THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY
Chapter 5
WHAT IS CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY?

John W. Robbins, Ph.D. Within its 66 books, the Bible contains a complete system of thought. Paul tells us that All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. The Bible tells us how we may know truth, what reality is like, how we should think and act, and even what governments should do. Philosophers usually call these studies (1) epistemology: the theory of knowing; (2) metaphysics: the theory of reality; (3) ethics: the theory of conduct; and (4) politics: the theory of government. The first of these, epistemology, is the most important, for it is the most basic. Knowledge: The Bible Tells Me So Christianity holds that knowledge is revealed by God. Christianity is propositional truth revealed by God, propositions that have been written in the 66 books of the Bible. Divine revelation is the starting point of Christianity, its axiom. The axiom, the first principle, of Christianity is this: The Bible alone is the Word of God. An axiom, by definition, is a beginning. Nothing comes before it; it is a first principle. All men and all philosophies have axioms; they all must start their thinking somewhere. It is impossible to prove everything. To demand proof for everything is an irrational demand. Christianity begins with the 66 books of the Bible, for knowledge--truth--is a gift from God. Truth is a gift that God by his grace reveals to men; it is not something that men discover on their own power. Just as men do not attain salvation themselves, on their own power, but are saved by divine grace, so men do not gain knowledge on their own power, but receive knowledge as a gift from God. Man can do nothing apart from the will of God, and man can know nothing part from the revelation of God. That does not mean that we can know only the actual statements in the Bible. We can know their logical implications as well. The Westminster Confession of Faith, written in the seventeenth century and one of the oldest Christian statements of faith, says:
52
Ch. 5: What Is Christian Philosophy? The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is Truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, mans salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.
Notice the words of the Confession: The whole counsel of God is either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced from it. Everything we need for faith and life is found in the propositions of the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly. Nothing is to be added to the revelation at any time. Only logical deduction from the propositions of Scripture is permitted. Logic: Thinking Gods Thoughts After Him The principles of logic reasoning by good and necessary consequence are contained in the Bible itself. Every word of the Bible, from Bereshith (In the beginning) in Genesis 1:1 to Amen in Revelation 22:21, exemplifies the fundamental law of logic, the law of contradiction. In the beginning means in the beginning, not a hundred years or even one second after the beginning. Amen expresses agreement, not dissent. When God gave his name to Moses, I am that I am, he was stating the logical law of identity. The laws of logic are embedded in every word of Scripture. Deductive reasoning is the principal tool of understanding the Bible. The Bible is our only source of truth. Neither science, nor history, nor archaeology, nor philosophy can furnish us with truth. A Christian must take seriously Pauls warning to the Colossians: Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and you are complete in him. Salvation: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ The doctrine of salvation is a branch of the doctrine of knowledge. The doctrine of salvation is not a branch of metaphysics, for men are not changed into gods when they are saved; saved men, even in the perfec-
53
tion of Heaven, remain temporal and limited creatures. Only God is eternal; only God is omniscient; only God is omnipresent. The doctrine of salvation is not a branch of ethics, for men are not saved by doing good works. We are saved in spite of our works, not because of them. The doctrine of salvation is not a branch of politics, for the notion that salvation, either temporal or eternal, can be achieved by political means is an illusion. Attempts to bring Heaven to Earth have brought nothing but blood and death. Salvation is through faith alone. Faith is belief of the truth revealed by God. Faith, the act of believing, is itself a gift of God. For by grace have you been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. Peter says that we have received everything we need for life and godliness through knowledge. James says we are regenerated by the word of truth. Paul says we are justified through belief of the truth. Christ says we are sanctified by truth. Just as we are regenerated by truth, and justified through belief of the truth, we are sanctified by truth as well. Science: In Him, Not Matter, We Live Those who put their trust in science as the key to understanding the universe are embarrassed by the fact that science never discovers truth. If the Bible is the source of all truth, science cannot discover truth. One of the insoluble problems of the scientific method is the fallacy of induction; induction, in fact, is a problem for all forms of empiricism (learning by experience). The problem is simply this: Induction, arguing from the particular to the general, is always a logical fallacy. No matter how many crows, for example, you observe to be black, the conclusion that all crows are black is never warranted. The reason is quite simple: Even assuming you have good eyesight, are not color blind, and are actually looking at crows, you have not, and cannot, see all crows. Millions have already died. Millions more are on the opposite side of the planet. Millions more will hatch after you die. Induction is always a fallacy. There is another fatal fallacy in science as well: the fallacy of asserting the consequent. The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell put the matter this way:
54
Ch. 5: What Is Christian Philosophy? All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true. This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone and stones are nourishing. If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.
Recognizing that induction is always fallacious, philosophers of science in the twentieth century, in an effort to defend science, developed the notion that science does not rely on induction at all. Instead, it consists of conjectures, experiments to test those conjectures, and refutations of conjectures. But in their attempts to save science from logical disgrace, the philosophers of science had to abandon any claim to knowledge: Science is only conjectures and refutations of conjectures. Karl Popper, one of the twentieth centurys greatest philosophers of science, wrote: First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it . . . . We know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses . . . . In science there is no knowledge in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. . . . Einstein declared that his theory was false : he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newtons, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory . . . . Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement: . . . our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural; . . . it consist of guesses, of hypotheses rather than of final and certain truths. Observation and science cannot furnish us with truth about the universe, let alone truth about God. The secular worldview, which begins by denying God and divine revelation, cannot furnish us with knowledge at all. Ethics: We Ought to Obey God Rather Than Men The Bible teaches that the distinction between right and wrong depends entirely upon the commands of God. There is no natural law that makes actions right or wrong, and matters of right and wrong certainly cannot be decided by majority vote. In the words of the Westminster
55
Shorter Catechism, sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God. Were there no law of God, there would be no right or wrong. This may be seen very clearly in Gods command to Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Only the command of God made eating the fruit sin. It may also be seen in Gods command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Gods command alone made the sacrifice right, and Abraham hastened to obey. Strange as it may sound to modern ears used to hearing so much about the right to life, the right to health, and the right to choose, the Bible says that natural rights and wrongs do not exist: Only Gods commands make some things right and other things wrong. In the Old Testament, it was a sin for the Jews to eat pork. Today, we can all enjoy bacon and eggs for breakfast. What makes killing a human being and eating pork right or wrong is not some quality inherent in men and pigs, but merely the divine command itself. Human Rights: In the Image of God He Made Man If we had rights because we are men if our rights were natural and inalienable then God himself would have to respect them. But God is sovereign. He is free to do with his creatures as he sees fit. So we do not have natural rights. That is good, for natural and inalienable rights are logically incompatible with punishment of any sort. Fines, for example, violate the inalienable right to property. Imprisonment violates the inalienable right to liberty. Execution violates the inalienable right to life. The natural right theory is logically incoherent at its foundation. Natural rights are logically incompatible with justice. The Biblical idea is not natural rights, but imputed rights. Only imputed rights, not intrinsic rights--natural and inalienable rights are compatible with liberty and justice. And those rights are imputed by God. All attempts to base ethics on some foundation other than the Bible fail. Natural law is a failure, because oughts cannot be derived from ises. In more formal language, the conclusion of an argument can contain no terms that are not found in its premises. Natural lawyers, who begin their arguments with statements about man and the universe, statements in the indicative mood, cannot end their arguments with statements in the imperative mood. The major ethical theory competing with natural law theory today is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism tells us that the moral action is one that results in the greatest good for the greatest number. It furnishes an
56
Ch. 5: What Is Christian Philosophy?
elaborate method for calculating the effects of choices. Unfortunately, utilitarianism is also a failure, for it not only commits the naturalistic fallacy of the natural lawyers, it requires a calculation that cannot be executed as well. We cannot know what is the greatest good for the greatest number. The only logical basis for ethics is the revealed commands of God. They furnish us not only with the basic distinction between right and wrong, but with detailed instructions and practical examples of right and wrong. They actually assist us in living our daily lives. Secular attempts to provide an ethical system fail on both counts. Politics: Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land Christian political philosophy is grounded squarely on divine revelation, not on natural law, nor on majority rule, nor on the exercise of mere force. Attempts to base a theory of government on secular axioms result in either anarchy or totalitarianism. Only Christianity, which grounds the legitimate powers of government in the delegation of power by God, avoids the twin evils of anarchy and totalitarianism. Government has a legitimate role in society: the punishment of evildoers, as Paul put it in Romans 13. That is the only function of government that Paul mentions. Education, welfare, housing, parks, roads, retirement income, health care, or any of the other programs in which government is involved today are illegitimate. The fact that government is involved in all these activities is a primary reason why government is not doing its own job well: The crime rate is rising, and the criminal justice system is a growing threat to a free people. The innocent are punished and the guilty remain unpunished. The Bible teaches a distinctly limited role for government. The Biblical goal is not a bureaucracy staffed by Christians, but no bureaucracy. There should be no Christian Department of Education, no Christian Housing Department, no Christian Agriculture Department simply because there should be no Departments of Education, Housing, and Agriculture, period. We do not need and should oppose a Christian Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or a Christian Internal Revenue Service. Some so-called Christians are engaged in a pursuit of political power that makes their activities almost indistinguishable from the activities of the social gospelers in the early and mid-twentieth century. This sort of political action has nothing to do with Scripture.
57
The Philosophical System Each of the parts of this philosophical system epistemology (knowledge), soteriology (salvation), metaphysics (reality), ethics (conduct), and politics (government) is important, and the ideas gain strength from being arranged in a logical system. In such a system, where propositions are logically dependent on and logically imply other propositions, each part mutually reinforces the others. Together they make an impregnable fortress that can withstand and defeat whatever other philosophies and religions may say. Historically though not in this decadent century Christians have been criticized for being too logical. The criticism is silly. If we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, if we are to bring all our thoughts into conformity with Christ, we must learn to think as Christ does, logically and systematically. Christianity is a complete philosophical system that proceeds by rigorous deduction from one axiom to thousands of theorems. It is a whole view of things thought out together. It meets all non-Christian philosophies on every field of intellectual engagement. It offers a theory of knowledge, a way to Heaven, a refutation of science, a theory of the world, a coherent and practical system of ethics, and the principles required for political liberty and justice. It is our hope and prayer that Christianity will conquer the world in the next century. If it does not, if the church continues to decline in confusion and unbelief, at least a few Christians can take refuge in the impregnable intellectual fortress that God has given us in his Word.
Chapter 6
THE BIBLE AS TRUTH6

Gordon H. Clark, Ph.D. In a game of chess a player can become so engrossed in a complicated situation that, after examining several possibilities and projecting each one as far ahead as he is able, he finally sees a brilliant combination by which he may possibly win a pawn in five moves, only to discover that it would lose his queen. So, too, when theological investigations have been pursued through considerable time and in great detail, it is possible to overlook the obvious. In the present state of the discussions on revelation, it is my opinion that what needs most to be said is something obvious and elementary. This paper, therefore, is a defense of the simple thesis that the Bible is true. This thesis, however, does not derive its main motivation from any attack on the historicity of the Bible narratives. The destructive criticism of the nineteenth century still has wide influence, but it has received a mortal wound at the hand of twentieth-century archaeology. A new form of unbelief, though it may be forced to accept the Bible as an exceptionally accurate account of ancient events, now denies on philosophical grounds that it is or could be a verbal revelation from God. So persuasive are the new arguments, not only supported by impressive reasoning but even making appeals to Scriptural principles, which every orthodox believer would admit, that professedly conservative theologians have accepted them more or less and have thus betrayed or vitiated the thesis that the Bible is true. Because the discussion is philosophical rather than archaeological, and hence could be pursued to interminable lengths, some limits and some omissions must be accepted. Theories of truth are notoriously intricate, and yet to avoid considering the nature of truth altogether is impos-
Editors note: The Bible As Truth was first published in Bibliotheca Sacra (April 1957) and reprinted in Gods Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics (1995). The Bible and its system of truth are still under attack today, even from so-called conservative theologians. The church needs to be brought back to its only authority the Bible, for the Bible alone is the Word of God.
60
Ch. 6: The Bible as Truth
sible if we wish to know our meaning when we say that the Bible is true. For a start, let it be said that the truth of statements in the Bible is the same type of truth as is claimed for ordinary statements, such as: Columbus discovered America, two plus two are four, and a falling body accelerates at thirty-two feet per second per second. So far as the meaning of truth is concerned, the statement Christ died for our sins is on the same level as any ordinary, everyday assertion that happens to be true. These are examples, of course, and do not constitute a definition of truth. But embedded in the examples is the assumption that truth is a characteristic of propositions only. Nothing can be called true in the literal sense of the term except the attribution of a predicate to a subject. There are undoubtedly figurative uses, and one may legitimately speak of a man as a true gentleman or a true scholar. There has also been discussion as to which is the true church. But these uses, though legitimate are derivative and figurative. Now, the simple thesis of this paper is that the Bible is true in the literal sense of true. After a thorough understanding of the literal meaning is acquired, the various figurative meanings may be investigated; but it would be foolish to begin with figures of speech before the literal meaning is known. This thesis that the Bible is literally true does not imply that the Bible is true literally. Figures of speech occur in the Bible, and they are not true literally. They are true figuratively. But they are literally true. The statements may be in figurative language, but when they are called true the term true is to be understood literally. This simple elementary thesis, however, would be practically meaningless without a companion thesis. If the true statements of the Bible could not be known by human minds, the idea of a verbal revelation would be worthless. If God should speak a truth, but speaks so that no one could possibly hear, that truth would not be a revelation. Hence the double thesis of this paper, double but still elementary, is that the Bible aside from questions and commands consists of true statements that men can know. In fact, this is so elementary that it might appear incredible that any conservative theologian would deny it. Yet there are some professed conservatives who deny it explicitly and others who, without denying it explicitly, undermine and vitiate it by other assertions. The first thing to be considered, then, will be the reasons, supposedly derived from the Bible, for denying or vitiating human knowledge of its truths.
61
The Effect of Sin on Mans Knowledge The doctrine of total depravity teaches that no part of human nature escapes the devastation of sin, and among the passages on which this doctrine is based are some which describe the effects of sin on human knowledge. For example, when Paul in 1 Timothy 4:2 says that certain apostates have their conscience seared with a hot iron, he must mean not only that they commit wicked acts but also that they think wicked thoughts. Their ability to distinguish right from wrong is impaired, and thus they give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. Therefore, without in the least denying that sin has affected their volition, it must be asserted that sin has also affected their intellect. And though Paul has in mind a particular class of people, no doubt more wicked than others, yet the similarity of human nature and the nature of sin force the conclusion that the minds of all men, though perhaps not to the same degree, are impaired. Again, Romans 1:21, 28 speak of Gentiles who become vain in their imaginations and whose foolish hearts were darkened; when they no longer wanted to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind. In Ephesians 4:17 Paul again refers to the vanity of mind and the darkened understanding of the Gentiles, who are alienated from the life of God through ignorance and blindness. That ignorance and blindness are not Gentile traits only but characterize the Jews also, and therefore the human race as a whole, can be seen in summary condemnation of all men in Romans 3:1018, where Paul says that there is none who understands. And, of course, there are general statements in the Old Testament: the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). These noetic effects of sin have been used to support the conclusion that an unregenerate man cannot understand the meaning of any sentence in the Bible. From the assertion there is none who understands, it might seem to follow that when the Bible says, David . . . took out a stone . . . and struck the Philistine in his forehead, an unbeliever could not know what the words mean. The first representative of this type of view, to be discussed here, are centered in the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Cornelius Van Til and some of his colleagues prepared and signed a document in which they repudiate a particular statement of the unregenerate mans epistemological ability. A certain professor, they complain, makes no absolute qualitative distinction between the knowledge of the unregenerate man and the knowledge of
62
the regenerate man (The Text of a Complaint, page 10, column 2). This statement not only implies that an unbeliever finds it less easy to understand that David smote the Philistine, but in asserting an absolute qualitative distinction between whatever knowledge he derives from that statement and the knowledge a regenerate man derives, the quotation also suggests that the unregenerate man simply cannot understand propositions revealed to man. In another paper, two of Van Tils associates declare that it is erroneous to hold that regeneration . . . is not a change in the understanding of these words (A. R. Kuschke, Jr., and Bradford, A Reply to Mr. Hamilton, 4). According to them, it is also erroneous to say, when he is regenerated, his understanding of the proposition may undergo no change at all [but] that an unregenerate man may put exactly the same meaning on the words . . . as the regenerate man (6). Since these are the positions they repudiate, their view must be precisely the contradictory; namely, an unregenerate man can never put exactly the same meaning on the words as a regenerate man, that regeneration necessarily and always changes the meaning of the words a man knows, and that the unregenerate and regenerate cannot possibly understand a sentence in the same sense. These gentlemen appeal to 2 Corinthians 4:36, where it is said that the Gospel is hidden to them that are lost, and to Matthew 13:323, where the multitudes hear the parable but do not understand it. These two passages from Scripture are supposed to prove that a Christians understanding is never the same as that of the unregenerate man. As a brief reply, it may be noted that though the Gospel be hidden from the lost, the passage does not state that the lost are completely ignorant and know nothing at all. Similarly, the multitudes understood the literal meaning of the parable, though neither they nor the disciples understood what Christ was illustrating. Let us grant that the Holy Spirit by regeneration enlightens the mind and leads us gradually into more truth, but the Scripture surely does not teach that the Philistines could not understand that David had killed Goliath. Such a view has not been common among Reformed writers; just one, however, will be cited as an example. Abraham Kuyper, in his Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology (110 111), after specifying eight points at which we are subjected to error because of sin adds:
The darkening of the understanding . . . does not mean that we have lost the capacity of thinking logically, for so far as the impulse of its law of life is concerned, the logica has [sic] not [italics his] been impaired by sin.
Christian Philosophy Made Easy When this takes place, a condition of insanity ensues . . . sin has weak ened the energy of thought . . . [but] the universal human consciousness is always able to overcome this sluggishness and to correct these mistakes in reasoning.
63
In thus defending the epistemological ability of sinful man, Kuyper may have even underestimated the noetic effects of sin. Perhaps the human consciousness is not always able to overcome the sluggishness and correct mistakes in reasoning. The point I wish to insist on is that this is sometimes possible. An unregenerate man can know some true propositions and can sometimes reason correctly. To avoid doing an injustice to Van Til and his associates, it must be stated that sometimes they seem to make contradictory assertions. In the course of their papers, one can find a paragraph in which they seem to accept the position they are attacking, and then they proceed with the attack. What can the explanation be except that they are confused and are attempting to combine two incompatible positions? The objectionable one is in substantial harmony with Existentialism or Neo-orthodoxy. But the discussion of the noetic effects of sin in the unregenerate mind need not further be continued because a more serious matter usurps attention. The Neo-orthodox influence seems to produce the result that even the regenerate man cannot know the truth. Mans Epistemological Limitations That the regenerate man as well as the unregenerate is subject to certain epistemological limitations, that these limitations are not altogether the result of sin but are inherent in the fact that man is a creature, and even in glory these limitations will not be removed, is either stated or implied in a number of Scriptural passages. What these limitations are bears directly on any theory of revelation, for they may be so insignificant that man is almost divine, or they may be so extensive that man can understand nothing about God. First, a few but not all of the Scriptural passages used in this debate will be listed: Can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limits of the Almighty? (Job 11:7); Behold, God is great, and we do not know him, nor can the number of his years be discovered (Job 36:26); Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it (Psalm 139:6); for my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways (Isaiah 55:89); Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out! For who
64
has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become his counselor? (Romans 11:3334); Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). These verses are simply samples, and many similar verses are easily remembered. Several of them seem to say that it is impossible for man to know God. We cannot search him out; we know him not; I cannot attain this knowledge; Gods thoughts are not ours; no none knows the mind of the Lord; and no one knows the things of God. It could easily be concluded that man is totally ignorant and that no matter how diligently he searches the Scripture, he will never get the least glimmering of Gods thought. Of course, in the very passage which says that no man knows the things of God, there is the strongest assertion that what the eye of man has not seen and what the heart of man has never grasped has been revealed to us by Gods Spirit that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. It will not be surprising, therefore, if some attempts to expound the Biblical position are as confused actually as the Biblical material seems to be. With many statements of such theologians we all ought to agree; but other statements, misinterpreting the Scripture in the interest of some esoteric view of truth, ought to be rejected. Mans Knowledge in Relation to Gods The professors above referred to assert, there is a qualitative difference between the contents of the knowledge of God and the contents of the knowledge possible to man (The Text, 5:1). That there is a most important qualitative difference between the knowledge situation in the case of God and the knowledge situation for man cannot possibly be denied without repudiating all Christian theism. God is omniscient; his knowledge is not acquired, and his knowledge, according to common terminology, is intuitive while mans is discursive. These are some of the differences and doubtless the list could be extended. But if both God and man know, there must with the difference be at least one point of similarity; for if there were no point of similarity, it would be inappropriate to use the one term knowledge in both cases. Whether this point of similarity is to be found in the contents of knowledge, or whether the contents differ, depends on what is meant by the term contents. Therefore, more specifically worded statements are needed. The theory under discussion goes on to say: We dare not maintain that his knowledge and our knowledge coincide at any single point (The
65
Text, 5:3). The authors repudiate another view on the same grounds that a proposition would have to have the same meaning for God as for man (7:3). These statements are by no means vague. The last one identifies content and meaning so that the content of Gods knowledge is not its intuitive character, for example, but the meaning of the propositions, such as David killed Goliath. Twice it is denied that a proposition can mean the same thing for God and man, and to make it unmistakable they say that Gods knowledge and mans knowledge do not coincide at any single point. Here it will stand repetition to say that if there is not a single point of coincidence, it is meaningless to use the single term knowledge for both God and man. Spinoza in attacking Christianity argued that the term intellect as applied to God and as applied to man was completely equivocal, just as the term dog is applied to a four-legged animal that barks and to the star in the sky. In such a case, therefore if knowledge be defined either God knows and man cannot, or man knows and God cannot. If there is not a single point of coincidence, God and man cannot have the same thing, namely, knowledge. After these five professors had signed this cooperative pronouncement, some of them published an explanation of it in which they said: Man may and does know the same truth that is in the divine mind . . . [yet] when man says that God is eternal he cannot possibly have in mind a conception of eternity that is identical or that coincides with Gods own thought of eternity (A Committee for the Complainants, The Incomprehensibility of God, 3). In this explanatory statement, it is asserted that the same truth may and does occur in mans mind and in Gods. This of course means that there is at least one point of coincidence between Gods knowledge and ours. But while they seem to retract their former position in one line, they reassert it in what follows. It seems that when man says God is eternal, he cannot possibly have in mind what God means when God asserts his own eternity. Presumably the concept eternity is an example standing for all concepts, so that the general position would be that no concept can be predicated of a subject by man in the same sense in which it is predicated by God. But if a predicate does not mean the same thing to man as it does to God, then, if Gods meaning is the correct one, it follows that mans meaning is incorrect and he is therefore ignorant of the truth that is in Gods mind. This denial of univocal predication is not peculiar to the professors quoted, nor need it be considered particularly Neo-orthodox. Although the approach is different, the same result is found in Thomas Aquinas.
66
This medieval scholar, whose philosophy has received the papal sanction, taught that no predicate can univocally be applied to God and created beings. Even the copula is cannot be used univocally in these two references. When therefore a man thinks that God is good or eternal or almighty, he not only means something different from what God means by good or eternal or almighty, but, worse (if anything can be worse) he means something different by saying that God is. Since as temporal creatures we cannot know the eternal essence of God, we cannot know what God means when he affirms his own existence. Between Gods meaning of existence and mans meaning there is not a single point of coincidence. The Scholastics and Neo-scholastics try to disguise the skepticism of this position by arguing that although the predicates are not univocal, neither are they equivocal, but they are analogical. The five professors also assert that mans knowledge must be analogical to the knowledge God possesses (The Text, 5:3). However, an appeal to analogy though it may disguise does not remove the skepticism. Ordinary analogies are legitimate and useful, but they are so only because there is a univocal point of coincident meaning in the two parts. A paddle for a canoe may be said to be analogical to the paddles of a paddle-wheel steamer; the canoe paddle may be said to be analogous even to the screw propeller of an ocean liner; but it is so because of a univocal element. These three things the canoe paddle, the paddle wheel, and the screw propeller are univocally devices for applying force to move boats through water. With a univocal element, even a primitive savage, when told that a screw propeller is analogous to his canoe paddle, will have learned something. He may not have learned much about screw propellers and, compared with an engineer, he is almost completely ignorantalmost but not quite. He has some idea about propellers, and his idea may be literally true. The engineer and the savage have one small item of knowledge in common. But without even one item in common, they could not both be said to know. For both persons to know, the proposition must have the same meaning for both. And this holds equally between God and man. If God has the truth and if man has only an analogy, it follows that he does not have the truth. An analogy of the truth is not the truth; even if mans knowledge is not called an analogy of the truth but an analogical truth, the situation is no better. An analogical truth, except it contain a univocal point of coincident meaning, simply is not the truth at all. In particular (and the most crushing reply of all) if the human mind were
67
limited to analogical truths, it could never know the univocal truth that it was limited to analogies. Even if it were true that such was the case; he could only have the analogy that his knowledge was analogical. This theory, therefore, whether found in Thomas Aquinas, Emil Brunner, or professed conservatives is unrelieved skepticism and is incompatible with the acceptance of a divine revelation of truth. This unrelieved skepticism is clearly indicated in a statement made in a public gathering and reported in a letter dated March 1, 1948, to the Directors of Covenant House. The statement was made, questioned, and reaffirmed by one of the writers mentioned above that the human mind is incapable of receiving any truth; the mind of man never gets any truth at all. Such skepticism must be completely repudiated if we wish to safeguard a doctrine of verbal revelation. Truth Is Propositional Verbal revelation with the idea that revelation means the communication of truths, information, propositions brings to light another factor in the discussion. The Bible is composed of words and sentences. Its declarative statements are propositions in the logical sense of the term. Furthermore, the knowledge that the Gentile possesses of an original revelation can be stated in words: Those who practice such things are worthy of death. The work of the law written on the hearts of the Gentiles results in thoughts, accusations, and excuses which can be and are expressed in words. The Bible nowhere suggests that there are any inexpressible truths. To be sure, there are truths which God has not expressed to man, for the secret things belong to the Lord our God; but this is not to say that God is ignorant of the subjects, predicates, copulas, and logical concatenations of these secret things. Once again we face the problem of equivocation. If there could be a truth inexpressible in logical, grammatical form, the word truth as applied to it would have no more in common with the usual meaning of truth than the Dog Star has in common with Fido. It would be another case of one word without a single point of coincidence between its two meanings. The five professors, on the contrary, assert, we may not safely conclude that Gods knowledge is propositional in character. And a doctoral dissertation of one of their students says: It appears a tremendous assumption without warrant from Scripture and therefore fraught with dangerous speculation impinging upon the doctrine of God to aver that all truth in the mind of God is capable of being expressed in propositions.
68
To me, the tremendous assumption without warrant from Scripture is that God is incapable of expressing the truth he knows. And that his knowledge is a logical system seems required by three indisputable evidences: first, the information he has revealed is grammatical, propositional, and logical; second, the Old Testament talks about the wisdom of God and in the New Testament Christ is designated as the Logos in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; and third, we are made in the image of God, Christ being the light that lights every man. Certainly, the burden of proof lies on those who deny the propositional construction of truth. Their burden is twofold. Not only must they give evidence for the existence of such truth, but first of all they must make clear what they mean by their words. It may be that the phrase nonpropositional truth is a phrase without meaning. What I apprehend to be this confusion as to the nature of truth has spread beyond the group criticized above. The thought of Edward J. Carnell would presumably not find favor with them, and yet on this point he seems to have adopted much the same position. Consider his argument in A Philosophy of the Christian Religion (450453). He begins by distinguishing two species of truth: first, the sum total of reality itself, and second, the systematic consistency or propositional correspondence to reality. It is not irrelevant to the argument to consider the correspondence theory of truth, but it might lead to a discussion too extended for the immediate purpose. Suffice it to say that if the mind has something which only corresponds to reality, it does not have reality; and if it knows reality, there is no need for an extra something which corresponds to it. The correspondence theory, in brief, has all the disadvantages of analogy. Carnell illustrates the first species of truth by saying, The trees in the yard are truly trees. No doubt they are, but this does not convince one that a tree is a truth. To say that the trees are truly trees is merely to put literary emphasis on the proposition, the trees are trees. If one said the trees are not truly trees, or, the trees are falsely trees, the meaning would simply be, the trees are not trees. In such illustrations no truth is found that is not propositional, and no evidence for two species of truth is provided. Carnell then describes a student taking an examination in ethics. The student may know the answers, even though he himself is not moral. But the students mother wants him not so much to know the truth as to be the truth. Carnell insists that the student can be truth. Now, obviously the mother wants her son to be moral, but what meaning can be attached to the phrase that the mother wants the son to be the
69
truth? Let it be that thinking is only preparatory to being moral, as Carnell says, not what can be meant by being the truth; that is, what more can be meant than being moral? The student could not be a tree. It seems therefore that Carnell is using figurative language rather than speaking literally. He then refers to Christs words, I am . . . the truth. Now, it would be ungenerous to conclude that when Christ says I am . . . the truth, and then the student may be said to be the truth, that Christ and the student are identified. But to avoid this identification, it is necessary to see what Christ means by his statement. As was said before, the Bible is literally true, but not every sentence in it is true literally. Christ said, I am the door; but he did not mean that he was made of wood. Christ also said, This is my body. Romanists think he spoke literally; Presbyterians take the sentence figuratively. Similarly the statement, I am . . . the truth, must be taken to mean, I am the source of truth; I am the wisdom and Logos of God; truths are established by my authority. But this could not be said of the student, so that to call a student the truth is either extremely figurative or altogether devoid of meaning. Carnell also says: Since their systems [the systems of thought of finite minds] are never complete, however, propositional truth can never pass beyond probability. But if this is true, it itself is not true but only probable. And if this is true, the propositions in the Bible, such as David killed Goliath and Christ died for our sins, are only probablethey may be false. And to hold that the Bible may be false is obviously inconsistent with verbal revelation. Conversely, therefore, it must be maintained that whatever great ignorance may characterize the systems of human thought, such ignorance of many truths does not alter the few truths the mind possesses. There are many truths of mathematics, astronomy, Greek grammar, and Biblical theology that I do not know; but if I know anything at all, and especially if God has given me just one item of information, my extensive ignorance will have no effect on that one truth. Otherwise, we are all engulfed in a skepticism that makes argumentation a waste of time. In the twentieth century it is not Thomas Aquinas but Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, the Neo-orthodox, and Existentialists who are the source of this skepticism to the detriment of revelation. Brunner writes:
Here it becomes unmistakably clear that what God wills to give us cannot be truly [eigentlich] given in words, but only by way of a hint [hinweisend]. . . . Therefore because he [Jesus] is the Word of God, all words
70
Ch. 6: The Bible as Truth have a merely instrumental significance. Not only the linguistic vessel of words, but also the conceptual content is not the thing itself, but only its form, vessel, and means.
The utter skepticism of this position in which not only verbal symbols but the conceptual content itself is not what God really wills to give us is disguised in pious phrases about a personal truth, or Du-Wahrheit, distinct from the subject-predicate relation called Es-Wahrheit. God cannot be an object of thought; he cannot be a Gegenstand for the human mind. Truth, instead of being a matter of propositions, is a personal encounter. Whatever words God might speak, Brunner not only reduces to hints or pointers, but he also holds that Gods words may be false. God can, if he wishes, speak his Word to man even through false doctrine. This is the culmination, and the comment should be superfluous. In conclusion, I wish to affirm that a satisfactory theory of revelation must involve a realistic epistemology. By realism in this connection, I mean a theory that the human mind possesses some truth not an analogy of the truth, not a representation of or correspondence to the truth, not a mere hint of the truth, not a meaningless verbalism about a new species of truth, but the truth itself. God has spoken his Word in words, and these words are adequate symbols of the conceptual content. The conceptual content is literally true, and it is the univocal, identical point of coincidence in the knowledge of God and man.
Chapter 7
A CALL FOR CHRISTIAN RATIONALITY

W. Gary Crampton, Ph.D. We live in a day when the Apostle Pauls sermon on Mars Hill to the first century philosophers concerning the worship of an unknown god (Acts 17) is all too relevant. Our age is awash in irrationalism; it may even be the age of irrationalism. And far too many in allegedly Christian circles are espousing an irrational theology in the name of Christ. Nonsense, as C. S. Lewis once predicted, has come. Twenty-three years ago John Robbins correctly assessed the situation:
There is no greater threat facing the true church of Christ at this moment than the irrationalism that now controls our entire culture. [Totalitarianism], guilty of tens of millions of murders, including those of millions of Christians, is to be feared, but not nearly so much as the idea that we do not know and cannot know the truth. Hedonism, the popular philosophy of America, is not to be feared so much as the idea that logic mere human logic, to use the religious irrationalists own phrase is futile.7
How did we get where we are? How did irrationalism become so predominant even in allegedly Christian circles? It did not happen overnight. The failure of seventeenth century Rationalism and Galileos (15641642) questioning of the Roman Church-States official position on geocentricity fostered a spirit of skepticism. Who are we to believe on this subject the Roman Church-State or Galileo (science)? How do we know? Is there truly a God who has created all things? If so, how can we be sure? Into this debate stepped David Hume (17111776). Being an empiricist, Hume denied that reason can ever give us knowledge of the external world, including God. But he also showed, perhaps reluctantly, that sense experience cannot yield such knowledge either. Observation is unreliable. Causal relationships are never observed. Neither can we know the continuing reality of the self, for we have no experience of it. And, of course, no experience can ever prove that the God of Scripture exists.
John W. Robbins, The Trinity Manifesto, 1978.
72
Ch. 7: A Call for Christian Rationality
David Hume created what Ronald Nash referred to as a Gap. Humes Gap, wrote Nash, is the rejection of the possibility of a rational knowledge of God and objective religious truth.8 According to Hume, man can have no knowledge of the transcendent. Any belief in God, therefore, must be irrational. Knowledge and faith have nothing in common. Immanuel Kant (17241804) acknowledged that reading David Hume awakened him from his dogmatic slumbers. Kant attempted to go beyond rationalism and empiricism by claiming that all human knowledge begins with sense experience (content), but in itself, sense experience is not sufficient to give us knowledge. The content needs a form or structure. Kant taught that this form is supplied by the mind, in apriori categories of understanding. But since men can never know what cannot first be experienced, knowledge cannot extend beyond the phenomenal world. The real world, Kants noumenal world, things in themselves rather than things as they appear, therefore, can never be known. Thus, Kant constructed a wall between the immanent and the transcendent, and God is unknowable.9 It is ironic that Kant believed that this agnosticism was an aid to Christianity. He had denied knowledge in order to make room for faith. Belief in God was still possible, but not on rational grounds. Like Hume before him, with Kant there is nothing in common between Christian faith and knowledge. 10 G. W. F. Hegel (17701831) attempted to correct the errors of Kant. Whereas Kant had asserted with certainty that the real world could not be known, Hegel pointed out the absurdity of affirming the unknowable. He constructed a system of Idealism in which unity and plurality are rationally blended together. For Hegel, the real is the rational and the rational is the real. All things, persons and objects, participate in the Absolute Mind or Spirit (Geist). Thought and being, essence and existence,
Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 22. Dr. Robbins had used this phrase in his 1974 book Answer to Ayn Rand to refer to the logical gap between the is and the ought by which Hume destroyed all theories of natural moral law, secular and religious. Perhaps other writers use the phrase in still other senses. 9 Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 2000), 309328. 10 Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 2528.
73
are one and the same. As Hegel developed it, his philosophy is a form of pantheism. And in Hegels pantheistic philosophy, a problem exists. One cannot know anything without knowing everything; the truth is the whole. But since we do not know everything, we do not know anything. Once again, we are left in a state of skepticism. Hegel cannot justify knowledge.11 Soren Kierkegaard (18131855), like Karl Marx, another irrationalist, was a student of Hegel. He strongly reacted against his teachers System. Reality, said Kierkegaard, cannot be obtained by reason. The real is not the rational. Truth is not something that can be taught; it cannot be communicated in a rational fashion. Truth does not exist in the form of propositions; it is inward and purely subjective. If one is going to know the real, he must grasp it by means of a leap of faith. That is, he must make a commitment to that which is irrational. For Kierkegaard, faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Knowledge is personal and passionate; it is anti-intellectual. God and truth exist only for one who leaps.12 Irrationality also passed into the realm of theology through the liberals Friedrich Schleiermacher (17681834) and Albrecht Ritschl (1822 1889), both of whom rejected the idea of Gods transcendence. God, they averred, is exclusively immanent. And being totally immanent, God is unable to speak divine truth to man. Hence, Schleiermacher and Ritschl both rejected revealed theology and the primacy of the intellect. Schleiermacher, sometimes called the father of liberalism, taught that the essence of religion is to be found, not in knowledge, but in experience: the feeling of absolute dependence. For Schleiermacher, God is unknowable to the human mind. To find God one must look within and experience Him. Ritschl, on the other hand, averred that the essence of true religion is ethics. A system of propositional truth is unattainable. Christianity needs to recognize that all knowledge has to do with value judgments, ethical decisions.13 Both of these immanentistic theologians denied an infallible standard by which to judge all things. By rejecting the divine propositional revelation of Holy Scripture, they cut the jugular of Christian theism. Man is
Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 1995), 6368. 12 Clark, Thales to Dewey, 377382. 13 Colin Brown, Philosophy & the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1968), 108116, 154155.
11
74
Ch. 7: A Call for Christian Rationality
left without an epistemic base. How does one know what he must feel? What is the standard of ethics by which man is to live? Schleiermacher and Ritschl leave men without answers. But to the irrational mindset, this is not a problem. In such an anti-system, what does it matter? In the twentieth century, the Swiss Neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth (18861968) condemned the immanentism of Schleiermacher and Ritschl as a denial of the Christian faith. Barth taught the divine transcendence of God, to the exclusion of His immanence. According to Barth, God is so transcendent that He is wholly other. The Swiss theologian went so far as to deny not only natural theology, but general revelation as well. God can be known only through His self-revelation.14 But to Barth, and Emil Brunner (18891966) as well, Gods self-revelation is not to be found in the propositional statements of Scripture. In Neo-orthodoxy, revelation is non-propositional. Revelation is an event; it is an encounter; it is something that happens. Revelation is not objective; it is subjective. According to Barth and Brunner, the Bible is not the Word of God in the usual sense; neither does it contain the Word of God. Rather, the Bible is a book that is full of errors. It contains errors of fact, doctrine, and logic. The Bible is merely a pointer to the Word, which is Jesus Christ. Christ is the only true revelation of God to man. The Bible, then, points to Christ. And when God makes Himself known to man through the fallible Biblical witness, then the Christ event occurs. Communication of truth takes place only in the personal divine-human encounter.15 Lamentably, irrationalism has greatly affected the visible church. The Charismatic movement is just one example of this. The primacy of the intellect and of truth has been replaced with emotionalism, ecstatic utterances, incoherent experiences, and anti-doctrinal statements (e.g., give me Jesus, not exegesis). Faith has nothing to do with thought, let alone logic. All too frequently we encounter what Ronald Nash referred to as the religious revolt against logic.16 Augustine had claimed that God thinks logically, and that logic has been divinely ordained to be trusted and used by man as Gods image bearer, but much of alleged modern day
See Gordon H. Clark, Karl Barths Theological Method (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 1997). 15 Robert L. Reymond, Introductory Studies in Contemporary Theology (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 91153. 16 Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 91101.
14
75
evangelicalism demurs. Logic is not to be trusted. Cornelius Van Til (18951987) is an example of one such thinker. Van Til maintained that there is no point at which mans logic and knowledge are the same as Gods. Due to this lack of a point of contact, logical paradox must exist in Scripture.17 Van Til went so far as to say that all teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory.18 Van Tils irrational thought opened the door to all sorts of theological and philosophical errors in putatively Reformed circles.19 Donald Bloesch is a contemporary theologian who has attempted to find a middle ground between Neo-orthodoxy, on the one hand, and right wing orthodoxy on the other hand. He claims to have a very high view of Scripture. He denounces liberalism, for example, and calls for a creedal theology based upon Holy Scripture. He insists on the primacy of Scripture over religious experiences, and he denies that the Apocrypha and church tradition have an equal standing with the Bible. But even though Bloesch attempts to remove himself from the Neo-orthodox camp, his writings betray him. The shadow of Karl Barth looms large across the pages of his works. And one of the points at which he finds himself in agreement with Barth is in his rejection of the trustworthiness of logic. For example, Bloesch is quick to take issue with the belief that human logic is identical with divine logic, that is, that God thinks the syllogism Barbara. Dr. Bloesch says we must never equate the two. He openly warns against reducing the message of faith to axioms of logic.20 Gordon Clark corrected this error when he wrote:
To avoid this irrationalism . . . we must insist that truth is the same for God and man. Naturally, we may not know the truth of some matters. But if we know anything at all, what we must know must be identical with what God knows. God knows all truth, and unless we know some-
Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 95110. 18 Cited in John W . Robbins, Cornelius Van Til: The Man and the Myth (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 1986), 25; see also W. Gary Crampton, Why I Am Not a Van Tilian, The Trinity Review, September 1993. 19 See John W . Robbins. Marstonian Mysticism, The Trinity Review, January/ February 1980, reprinted in Against the World (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 1996). 20 Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration, & Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 121, 293, 298; see W. Gary Crampton, The Neoorthodoxy of Donald Bloesch, The Trinity Review, August 1995.
17
76
Ch. 7: A Call for Christian Rationality thing God knows, our ideas are untrue. It is absolutely essential, therefore, to insist that there is an area of coincidence between Gods mind and our mind.21
Dr. Clark was not denying that there is a difference in the degree of Gods knowledge and mans knowledge. God always knows more propositions than man. What Dr. Clark asserted is that there is a point where Gods knowledge and mans knowledge are identical. There must be a point at which the mind of man coincides with the mind of God. Without this, man could never know any truth. Humes Gap reappears in the philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd (18941977) and a number of his followers (the Amsterdam Philosophy group). These philosophers emphasize the transcendence of God to the point of erecting a boundary which exists between God and man. The laws of logic are valid only on mans side of the boundary.22 If there were such a Dooyeweerdian boundary, of course, God could never reveal anything to His creatures, and man could never know anything about God, including the notion of the boundary. Dooyeweerd influenced Van Til greatly, and through Van Til, his many disciples. Another contemporary theologian of irrationalism is John Frame, formerly of Westminster Seminary, now of Reformed Seminary in Orlando, Florida. Professor Frame would have us believe that Scripture, for Gods good reasons, is often vague. Therefore, wrote Frame, there is no way out of escaping vagueness in theology. He continued:
Scripture does not demand absolute precision of us, a precision impossible for creatures. . . . Indeed, Scripture recognizes that for sake of communication, vagueness is often preferable to precision. . . . Nor is theology an attempt to state truth without any subjective influence on the formulation. Such objectivity, like absolute precision, is impos sible and would not be desirable if it could be achieved.23
Apparently clear and precise theology is a perspective that Professor Frames Perspectivalism cannot accommodate. But is it true that Scrip-
Gordon H. Clark, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 1993), 7677. 22 Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 9699. 23 John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), 226, 307. These thoughts are echoed by Professor Vern Poythress of W estminster Seminary, and Clarks comments on them may be found in Clark Speaks from the Grave, The Trinity Foundation, 1986.
21
77
ture, for Gods good reason, is often vague? Not according to Reformed orthodoxy, which holds to the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1:7) says it this way:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. All things in Scripture are not equally clear to all, the Confession says, but it never asserts that they are vague or imprecise or confused. It says different readers will be puzzled by some things that other readers will find to be clear. The problem is with our understandings, not with Scripture.
Vagueness in theology, which is what Frame is defending, is not something to be applauded. Obscurity is not a virtue. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). He does not speak to us in vague, illogical, paradoxical statements, as the Van Tilian school asserts. He reveals himself to us in rational, propositional statements that can be understood. The Bible is a divine revelation that God intends us to understand. Obviously, if it cannot be understood, if we cannot understand it, then it is not a revelation. But David writes: The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes (Psalm 19:8). John writes: And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true (1 John 5:20). The Psalmist knows more than his teachers, more than the ancients, because he knows Gods Word (Psalm 119:99100). The triune God of Scripture is a God of truth: Father (Psalm 31:5); Son (John 14:6); and Holy Spirit (1 John 5:6). The Bible refers to Christ as logic, wisdom, and reason incarnate (John 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30; Colossians 2:3). Logic is the way God thinks, and the laws of logic are eternal principles. Because man is an image bearer of God, these laws are part of man. There must be, then, a point of contact between Gods logic (and knowledge), and mans. Carl Henry wrote:
The insistence on a logical gulf between human conceptions and God as the object of religious knowledge is erosive of knowledge and cannot escape a reduction to skepticism. Concepts that by definition are inade quate to the truth of God cannot be made to compensate for logical deficiency by appealing either to Gods omnipotence or to His grace. Nor will it do to call for a restructuring of logic in the interest of knowledge
78
Ch. 7: A Call for Christian Rationality of God. Whoever calls for a higher logic must preserve the existing laws of logic to escape pleading the cause of illogical nonsense.24
What I am pleading for is a return to the Christian rationality of Augustine, Calvin, Clark, and the best of the Puritans. Such a system does not exalt the human mind as autonomous; rather, it affirms Biblical revelation as axiomatic. The divine revelation of Holy Scripture is a rational revelation. It is internally self-consistent. It is non-contradictory and nonparadoxical. Christian rationality reasons from revelation, not to it or apart from it. The Christian faith is intellectually defensible. In fact, as John Robbins has stated, it is the only intellectually defensible system of thought,25 for the God of Scripture has made foolish the wisdom of this world (1 Corinthians 1:20).
24 25
Cited in Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 95. John W. Robbins, The Trinity Manifesto, 1978.
Chapter 8
THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING LOGIC

John W. Robbins, Ph.D. The Trinity Foundation has just published Dr. Gordon Clarks textbook on logic, designed for use by Christian senior high schools, colleges, and seminaries. We believe that the book is extremely important because of the contemporary hostility of both liberal and conservative churches to logical thinking. This essay is Dr. Robbins foreword to Logic. If you are thinking of reading this book or taking a course in logic, then you need reasons for doing so. Why study logic? What can logic teach us that chemistry or history cannot? Can logic teach us anything, or are the mysteries of life deeper than logic? If you intend to study logic only because your course of study demands it, then another question immediately arises, Why does the curriculum demand a course in logic? Why did anyone think logic was important enough to make it a required course? There are questions that deserve an answer, but the answer may not be exactly what you might expect. Because many people disdain logic, it will be necessary to understand the relationship between logic and morality, for example. After all, many people think one should not study logic. Life is deeper than logic, were told. Life is green, but logic is gray and lifeless. The poets tell us that we murder to dissect. Many believe that ones time would be better spent in prayer, protesting, or preaching. Or if they are naturalistically minded, they might suggest contemplating ones navel, or the sunset, or performing experiments in laboratories. So why study logic? Perhaps if we understood what logic is, we could better answer the question. What Is Logic? In elementary school, you studied such things as reading, writing, and arithmetic. These subjects are correctly regarded as basic to all further education: One cannot study history, botany, or computers without being able to read. Reading, writing, and arithmetic are the basics, the tools that permit one to study further, and also to drive, to shop, and to get a job.
80
Ch. 8: The Importance of Studying Logic
But could there be something more basic than the three basics? Something so obvious that most people do not see it, let alone study it? What is there in common between calculating, reading, and writing? The answer of course is thought. One must think in order to read and write. Thinking, just as everything else, is supposed to follow certain rules, if we are to think correctly. Sometimes we make mistakes in thinking. We jump to conclusions; we make unwarranted assumptions; we generalize. There is a subject that catalogues these mistakes, points them out so that we can recognize them in the future, and then explains the rules for avoiding mistakes. That subject is logic. The Place of Logic Logic is not psychology. It does not describe what people think about or how they reach conclusions; it describes how they ought to think if they wish to reason correctly. It is more like arithmetic than history, for it explains the rules one must follow in order to reach correct conclusions, just as arithmetic explains the rules one must follow to arrive at correct answers. Logic concerns all thought; it is fundamental to all disciplines, from agriculture to astronautics. There are not several kinds of logic, one for philosophy and one for religion; but the same rules of thought that apply in politics, for example, apply also in chemistry. Some people have tried to deny that logic applies to all subjects, for they wish to reserve some special field theology and economics, to name two historical examples as a sanctuary for illogical arguments. What results is called polylogism many logics which is really a denial of logic. But in order to say that there are many different sorts of logic, one must use the rules of the logic there is. Let those who say there is another kind of logic express their views using that other logic. Its as though one were to claim that there are two (or more) sorts of arithmetic the arithmetic in which two plus two equals four, and a second arithmetic in which two plus two equals twenty-two. Anyone who disparages or belittles logic must use logic in his attack, thus undercutting his own argument. This can perhaps be better seen by specifically discussing one of the laws of logic. The Laws of Logic The first law of logic is called the law of contradiction, but recently some people have begun to call it the law of non-contradiction the
81
two phrases refer to the same law. Aristotle expressed the law in these words: The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect. The law is expressed symbolically as: Not both A and not-A. A maple leaf may be both green and not-green (yellow), but it cannot be both green and yellow at the same time and in the same respect it is green in the summer, yellow in the fall. If it is green and yellow at the same time, it cannot be green and yellow in the same respect; one part, however small, will be green, another yellow. Greenness and not-greenness cannot at the same time and in the same way belong to a maple leaf. To suggest another example: A line may be both curved and straight, but not in the same respect. One portion of it may be curved, another portion straight, but the same portion cannot be both curved and straight. The law of contradiction means something more. It means that every word in the sentence The line is straight has a specific meaning. The does not mean any, all, or no. Line does not mean dog, dandelion, or doughnut. Is does not mean is not. Straight does not mean white, or anything else. Each word has a definite meaning. In order to have a definite meaning, a word must not only mean something, it must also not mean something. Line means line, but it also does not mean not-line or dog, sunrise, or Jerusalem. If line were to mean everything, it would mean nothing; and no one, including you, would have the foggiest idea what you mean when you say the word line. The law of contradiction means that each word, to have a meaning, must also not mean something. Logic and Morality What do this law and the rest of logic have to do with morality? Simply this: When the Bible says, You shall not covet, each word has a specific meaning. Attacking logic means attacking morality. If logic is disdained, then the distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust, merciful and ruthless also disappear. Without logic, Gods words, You shall do no murder, really mean: You shall murder daily or Stalin was Prince of Wales. The rejection of logic means the end of morality, for morality and ethics depend on understanding. Without understanding, there can be no morality. One must understand the Ten Commandments before one can obey them. If logic is irrelevant or irre-
82
ligious, moral behavior is impossible, and the practical religion of those who belittle logic cannot be practiced at all. Something even worse, if anything could be worse, follows from rejecting logic. If logic does not govern all thought and expression, then one cannot tell true from false. If one rejects logic, then when the Bible says that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, and rose again the third day, these words actually mean that Jesus did not suffer, was not crucified, did not die, was not buried, and did not rise again as well as that Attila the Hun loved chocolate cake and played golf. The distinctions between true and false, right and wrong, all disappear, for there can be no distinctions made apart from using the law of contradiction. The rejection of logic has become very popular in the twentieth century. In matters of morality, one frequently hears that There are no blacks and whites, only shades of gray. What this means is that there is no good or evil; all actions and alternatives are mixtures of good and evil. If one abandons logic, as many people in this century have, then one cannot distinguish good from evil and everything is permitted. The results of this rejection of logic mass murder, war, government-caused famine, abortion, child abuse, destruction of families, crimes of all sorts are all around us. The rejection of logic has led and must lead to the abandonment of morality. In matters of knowledge, were told that truth is relative; whats true for you might not be true for me. So 2 plus 2 might be 4 for you and 6.7 for me. If logic is abandoned, then that also follows. Christianity is true for some Buddhism is true for others. One result has been a growing antipathy toward Christianity, which claims that all men, not some, are sinners; and that there is only one way to God, through belief in Christ. Absolute truth which is really a redundant phrase has been replaced by relative truth, which is really a contradiction in terms (like square circle). But once logic is gone, truth is also. The use of logic is not optional. Logic is so fundamental, so basic, that those who attack it must use logic in order to attack logic. They intend the words Logic is invalid to have specific meanings. The opponents of logic must use the law of contradiction in order to denounce it. They must assume its legitimacy, in order to declare it illegitimate. They must assume its truth, in order to declare it false. They must present arguments if they wish to persuade us that argumentation is invalid. Wherever they turn, they are boxed in. They cannot assault the object of
83
their hatred without using it in the assault. They are in the position of the Roman soldier who arrested Christ, but they do not realize, as the soldier did, that their position and action are dependent upon rules that they reject. They must use the rules of logic in order to belittle logic; he had to be healed by Christ before he could proceed with the arrest. The Bible and Logic In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, John wrote, In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. The Greek word Logos is usually translated Word, but it is better translated Wisdom or Logic. Our English word logic comes from this Greek word logos. John was calling Christ the Wisdom or Logic of God. In verse nine, referring again to Christ, he says that Christ is The true light who lights every man. Christ, the Logic of God, lights every man. Strictly speaking, there is no mere human logic as contrasted with a divine logic, as some would have us believe. The Logic of God lights every man; human logic is the image of God. God and man think the same way not exactly the same thoughts, since man is sinful and God is holy, but both God and man think that two plus two is four and that A cannot be not-A. Both God and Christians think that only the substitutionary death of Christ can merit a sinners entrance into Heaven. The laws of logic are the way God thinks. He makes no mistakes, draws no unwarranted conclusions, constructs no invalid arguments. We do, and that is one of the reasons why we are commanded by the Apostle Paul to bring all our thoughts into captivity to Christ. We ought to think as Christ does logically. Why Study Logic? To return to our first question, Why study logic? Our first answer must be that we are commanded by Scripture. Without learning how to think properly, we shall misunderstand Scripture. Peter warns against those who twist the Scripture to their own destruction. A study of logic will help us avoid twisting the Scripture and trying to make it imply something it does not imply. The Westminster Confession, written in England in 1648, says all things necessary for our faith and life are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. It is only through a study of logic that we can distinguish a valid deduction from an invalid deduction.
84
But logic is indispensable not only in reading the Bible, but also in reading history, botany, or computer programs. It is applicable to all thought, and mistaken arguments maybe found in every subject. The study of logic will help us understand all other subjects better, not just theology. Therefore, as God said through the prophet Isaiah, Come, let us reason together.
Chapter 9
A BIBLICAL VIEW OF SCIENCE

W. Gary Crampton, Ph.D. Many non-Christians, and all too many Christians, are of the opinion that science, (i.e., the physical or natural sciences) is an ever-growing body of truth about the universe. The progress of science, its technological triumphs, so we are told, demonstrate its truth. Science is seemingly unassailable. After all, it works doesnt it? And isnt success the measure of truth? This being the case, so it goes, when the Bible and science appear to be at odds, we need to re-interpret the Bible. For example, since science tells us (and the pope agrees) that (some sort of) evolution is a fact, not just a theory, we need to take a fresh look at Genesis 1. No longer can we assert with the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q 9) that the work of creation is Gods making all things of nothing, by the Word of His power, in the space of six days, and all very good. Six-day creationism needs to be re-examined. It is, we are assured, an obscurantist view of things. To speak against this sort of scientific thinking is almost blasphemous in some circles, because, for many, science is the god of this age. Yet, that is what this paper intends to do, that is, to blaspheme the god of science. Science, it will be seen, is not the main revealer of truth. In fact, science is not capable of revealing any truth at all. What then is the Biblical view of science? Science enables us to fulfill the mandate of Genesis 1:28: Then God blessed them [Adam and Eve], and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the Earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the Earth. Science gives us directions for doing things, or operating, in this world. It does not explain how the laws of nature work, nor does it accurately define or describe things. Science does not discover truth; it is a method for dominating and utilizing nature; it is merely a practical discipline that helps us live in Gods universe and subdue it. As strange as it might sound to the reader that science never gives us truth, it is precisely that belief that has been held by leading scientists
86
Ch. 9: A Biblical View of Science
and philosophers.26 Albert Einstein, for example, speaking of our knowledge of the universe, said: We know nothing about it at all . . . . The real nature of things, that we shall never know, never. The British philosopher Karl Popper wrote: We know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses. . . . In science there is no knowledge, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. Popper went on to say: It can even be shown that all [scientific] theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero. Then too, Bertrand Russell, who will be quoted below, asserted that all scientific laws are based on fallacious arguments. And philosopher Paul Feyerabend, in his book Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, writes:
On closer analysis we even find that science knows no bare facts at all but that the facts that enter our knowledge are already viewed in a certain way and are, therefore, essentially ideational. This being the case, the history of science will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as the ideas it contains, and these ideas in turn will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as are the minds of those that invented them.
John Robbins has pointed out that there are at least five logical difficulties with science, i.e., five reasons why science can never give us truth27: 1. Observation is unreliable. Scientists do not perform an experiment only once. Experiments are always repeated, and the results most always differ in some way. Why? Because the senses tend to deceive us; they are not to be trusted. Hence, numerous readings are taken in an attempt to guard against inaccurate observation. So much is this the case in science, that tests with unrepeatable results are never taken seriously. But if observation is unreliable, if the senses are so easily deceived, if the results frequently differ, why should one ever believe that he has discovered truth through observation? 2. All scientific experiments commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent. In syllogistic form this is expressed as: If p, then q. q; therefore, p. Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of Christianity, stated it this way:
The quotes used here are cited in the Foreword of Gordon H. Clarks The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (The Trinity Foundation, 1987). 27 John W. Robbins, Logic Seminar, Westminster Institute, July 1995.
26
Christian Philosophy Made Easy All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true. This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish m e; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing. If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fun damentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.
87
In the laboratory scientists work with a hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is: If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me. The scientist then attempts to deduce the predicted results that should occur if the hypothesis is true, such as this bread nourishes me. He then performs an experiment to test the hypothesis to see if the predicted results occur. So he sits down at the table and eats the bread, and wonder of wonders, the bread does nourish him. The hypothesis, he concludes, is confirmed: This bread is a stone and stones are nourishing. Silly you say? Yes! Yet, as Russell has asserted, it is not fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based. That is to say, all scientific laws are based on fallacious arguments. 3. Science commits the fallacy of induction. Induction is the attempt to derive a general law from particular instances. Science is necessarily inductive. For example, if a scientist is studying crows, he might observe 999 crows and find that they all are black. But is he ever able to assert that all crows are black? No; the next crow he observes might be an albino. One can never observe all crows: past, present, and future. Universal propositions can never be validly obtained by observation. Hence, science can never give us true statements. 4. Equations are always selected, they are never discovered. In the laboratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point of water. Since water hardly ever boils at the same temperature, the scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He then must average them. But what kind of average does he use: mean, mode, or median? He must choose; and whatever kind of average he selects, it is his own choice; it is not dictated by the data. Then too, the average he chooses is just that, that is, it is an average, not the actual datum yielded by the experiment. Once the test results have been averaged, the scientist will calculate the variable error in his readings. He will likely plot the data points or areas on a graph. Then he will draw a curve through
88
Ch. 9: A Biblical View of Science
the resultant data points or areas on the graph. But how many curves, each one of which describes a different equation, are possible? An infinite number of curves is possible. But the scientist draws only one. What is the probability of the scientist choosing the correct curve out of an infinite number of possibilities? The chance is one over infinity, or zero. Therefore, all scientific laws are false. They cannot possibly be true. As cited above, the statement of Karl Popper is correct: It can even be shown that all theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero. 5. All scientific laws describe ideal situations. As Clark has said, At best, scientific law is a construction rather than a discovery, and the construction depends on factors never seen under a microscope, never weighed in a balance, never handled or manipulated.28 Clark uses the law of the pendulum as an example:
The law of the pendulum states that the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the length. If, however, the weight of the bob is unevenly displaced around its center, the law will not hold. The law assumes that the bob is hom ogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point. No such bob exists, and hence the law is not an accurate description of any tangible pendulum. Second, the law assumes that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string. There is no such string, so that the scientific law does not describe any real pendu lum. And third, the law could be true only if the pendulum swung on an axis without friction. There is no such axis. It follows, therefore, that no visible pendulum accords with the mathematical formula and that the formula is not a description of any existing pendulum.
From our study of these five logical difficulties, it can be readily seen that science is not capable of giving us any truth. And if the scientific method is a tissue of logical fallacies, why should Christians seek to argue from science to the truth? Simply stated, they should not. Science is useful in accomplishing its purpose, i.e., subduing the Earth. But that is all it is useful for, nothing more. The question arises, If science never gives us truth, how can it be so successful? It all depends on how one defines success. We are now able to put a man on the moon; we are also able to destroy our fellow man with one push of a button. Are these measures of success? Scientific the-
28
Clark, Philosophy of Science and God, 57.
89
ories are always changing (whereas truth is eternal). Is constant change a measure of success? Science is successful when one understands its purpose, and when one understands that false theories sometimes work. Newtonian science, for example, worked for years. It has been replaced by Einsteins theory. But even though he believed his theory to be a better approximation of the truth than Newtons, Einstein declared that his own theory was false. Science has its place in a Christian philosophy, an important place. But science is never to be seen as a means of learning truth. Truth is found in the Scriptures alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth. It is Gods Word that must be believed, not the experiments of men. As Robbins has said: Science is false, and must always be false. Scripture is true and must always be true. The issue is as clear, and as simple, as that.
Chapter 10
A CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

Gordon H. Clark, Ph.D. For long periods of time human history moves placidly along, troubled only by minor disturbances. Then in a short span of years, everything seems to happen at once. A storm overtakes the race, breaking up all the fountains of the great deep; and when the waters subside, the course of history has been set for the next epoch. The sixteenth century was such an age of storm. Henry VIII, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Francis I, Ignatius Loyola, Caraffa, and a little later Philip II, Queen Elizabeth, Henry IV, the Duke of Alva, and John Knox all lived in the fifteen hundreds. During this period it was settled that Germany should be Lutheran, Scotland Presbyterian, England Episcopal; the Inquisition determined by murder that Italy and Spain should remain Romish; the mass murder of some 75,000 Calvinists on St. Bartholomews Eve in 1572 made France half Romish and half infidel. These results have endured for four hundred years. Not only did the sixteenth century witness the Reformation, it also saw in the Renaissance the birth of the modern scientific mind. While inventions and detailed scientific applications have been multiplied in more recent years, the general scientific world-view based on the application of mathematics to problems of physics was fixed for the coming centuries, even before Descartes was born. The twentieth century bids fair to rival the sixteenth. Two world wars have already occurred and with a third a constant threat, this century will truly be one of upheaval. Hitler wished to set the direction of history for the next thousand years. He may well have done so-aided, of course, by Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. The twentieth century, so far, lacks indications of impending religious cataclysms. Its changes, therefore, may parallel more closely the social and educational revolution of the Renaissance, or, more likely, the breakdown of the Roman Empire, than the spiritual quickening of the Reformation. From all that can be seen now, humanism and Communist hatred of Christianity will be the prevailing philosophy of the coming age. While the political situation that makes newspaper headlines occupies popular attention, the use which dictators have made of the means
92
Ch. 10: A Christian Philosophy of Education
of education shows clearly that the role of schools and universities is of more profound significance. Educational policy in the new society, whether for good or evil, will be a basic factor. The Need for a World View It is true that our best-trained men can invent radios and radar; it is true that they can reduce typhoid and infant mortality more power to them; it is true that they can produce bigger submarines and better explosives; but it ought to be as clear as a flare and as emphatic as a bomb that who uses these for what is a tremendously more important matter than their invention. In fact, the impact of Pearl Harbor, Korea, and Vietnam ought to have focused educational attention on this basic question. Telephones will multiply, but their wires may carry commands to massacre Jews and Christians; radio and television will be greatly developed, but it may be used for totalitarian propaganda; and young men who have not died of typhoid may make excellent KGB agents. Every mechanical aid, by which some judge that a society is good, can be used by bureaucrat or dictator to make his society bad. How can the people of the United States become competent to judge and therefore withstand the barrage of propaganda? The barrage has come. Time, Newsweek, and the news programs on television are supposed to be news media. They are actually propaganda outlets. For example, on Friday, August 15, 1969, Chet Huntley ended his news program with a vicious denunciation of Protestants. There was no news at all. It was unadulterated invective. He stopped just short of saying that the Roman Catholics of Eire should invade Ulster and massacre the Protestants. And of course the news is slanted, too. How slanted must the populace already be that such interpretation should be allowed on television? If some form of education prepares people to detect slanted news and thereby prevent a social climate where hate propaganda is accepted, it is not the present form of American education. Least of all is it a narrow technical training that produces expert ignoramuses. This is not to deprecate engineering, much less to oppose physics and chemistry. But something additional, some thing more important is needed. What is it? There is only one philosophy that can really unify education and life. That philosophy is the philosophy of Christian theism. What is needed is an educational system based on the sovereignty of God, for in such a system man as well as chemistry will be given his proper place, neither too high nor too low. In such a system there will be a chief end of man to
93
unify, and to serve as a criterion for, all his activities. What is needed therefore is a philosophy consonant with the greatest creed of Christendom, the Westminster Confession of Faith. In such a system, God, as well as man, will have his proper place. This alone will make education successful; for the social, moral, political, and economic disintegration of a civilization is nothing other than the symptom and result of a religious breakdown. The abominations of war, pestilence, and economic collapse are punishment for the crime, better, the sin, of forgetting God. The Myth of Neutrality There is no neutral ground between the proposition that God created the world out of nothing and the proposition that the universe is an eternal self-existing entity. But though objectors may admit that there is here a philosophic incompatibility, they may at the same time hold that philosophy is so remote from the practical business of teaching children that any concern over anti-religious influence is purely academic. Even the optimism or the pessimism of the teacher does not affect the contents of arithmetic. Philosophically, neutrality is impossible, they grant; but educationally neutrality is a fact. This seems to be the commonly held opinion about the decisions of the United States Supreme Court banning prayer and Bible reading from public education. Prayer is definitely a religious activity, and the State must not support any kind of religion. Let arithmetic be taught and religion ignored. Now, there is one good point at least in the Courts decision. The case originated in a school system whose officials had written out a prayer and had required the teachers to pray that prayer. The school officials had supposed their prayer to be innocuous and satisfactory to all religions that prayed at all. It was a nonsectarian prayer. Since the decision, various amendments to the Constitution have been proposed that would permit nonsectarian prayer. Presumably this would mean a prayer composed by the school board and imposed by them on the teachers. Insofar as this was and is the case, a Christian must view the Courts decision with favor. For, in the first place, it forces the teacher to make a prayer with which she disagrees, either because she is irreligious and does not want to pray at all and compliance makes her a hypocrite, or because she is religious and sees that this nonsectarian prayer is not neutral, but anti-Christian. The reason these nonsectarian prayers are anti-Christian can very clearly be stated. The Bible teaches that all prayer to God must be based
94
on the merits of Jesus Christ. No one can come to the Father but by Christ. There is no other name by which we can be saved. Hence to pray without including Christ in the prayer is an offense against God. It is far better to have no prayer at all in school than such a nonsectarian prayer. The use of the word sectarian or nonsectarian is itself an offense and insult. Sect has always had a pejorative sense, and to stigmatize a Christian prayer as sectarian is not an exercise in neutrality. It might seem then that the Supreme Court has maintained neutrality by its prohibition of prayer in the schools, and that only those who want prayer are anti-Christian. Of course, also, any who do not want prayer are anti-Christian; and it was quite a feat for the Court to satisfy devout Christians and loudmouthed atheists by the same decision. But whether the decision and its results can satisfy the Christian, and whether the schools are neutral now that the school board theologians can no longer impose their prayers still requires a little more discussion. That neutrality is impossible becomes clearer and clearer as the system of Christian theism is further understood. Mention has already been made of the fact that Christianity is not to be identified with and restricted to a bare belief in God. For example, Christianity has a theory of evil; it differs from the humanistic theory; and therefore a secular school cannot adopt the same policies a Christian school adopts in dealing with recalcitrant pupils. That there are recalcitrant pupils hardly needs to be said. But perhaps it does need to be said to those who conveniently forget what is going on. In addition to the material recounted in chapter one, there was the case of subversive, obscene, Black Panther literature sold to high school students in Indianapolis in 1969 with the approval of at least some of the teachers. But it is illegal for the Gideons to distribute New Testaments on school property. In the first two weeks of the 196970 school session, fifty robberies and beatings, including stabbings, were reported to the Indianapolis police. The police believed that they were less than half the crimes committed because children who are victimized are often afraid to report the attack for fear of reprisals. Some parents refuse to send their children to school in order to save them from violence at school. In one of the affluent Indianapolis high schools it is estimated that fifty percent of the pupils are drug addicts. Not all heroin addicts, to be sure; but on their way by means of glue, goofballs, LSD, and similar drugs. These evil conditions have been encouraged by the liberal, humanistic policy of dealing with lesser forms of student misconduct. Liberalism
95
has ridiculed the Christian notion of punishment. From babyhood children must be spoiled, not spanked, or in any way repressed. As early as 1922, John Dewey in Human Nature and Conduct (Part II, Section 2) encouraged youth to rebel against parental discipline. Parents have tamed the delightful originality of the child; they instill in him moral habits; and the result is a mass of irrationalities and infantilisms. When Deweys philosophy is translated into the penal code, with its emphasis on rehabilitation (for the criminal is sick, not wicked; and the community is guilty, not the criminal), twenty thousand people commit murder in a single year in the United States, and not one of them is executed. The following year, naturally, more people commit murder. Neither John Dewey, nor the liberal penologists, nor the public schools are to be blamed for the origin of these crimes. Liberal theologians and liberal educators are to be blamed for failing to repress evil. The public schools deserve ridicule when they claim to be the saviors of democracy. By their permissiveness they have encouraged arson, drug addiction, and sexual immorality. Even in strictly curricular affairs their permissiveness and their extension of the concept of democracy beyond its proper political meaning often have resulted in the attempt to make all pupils equal by reducing requirements to the minimum so everybody can pass. In such schools, more often in metropolitan areas, a student must not flunk; he must be promoted. In high schools that have come under the present writers observation, some juniors (no doubt seniors, too, but the following examples are restricted to personal knowledge) can not read fourth-grade material; in a botany lab a student could not read the instruction sheet, and a twenty-year-old boy graduated without being able to read well, without being able to read two paragraphs of anything. This sort of democracy, this permissiveness, these liberal policies encourage and augment evil; but they do not initiate evil. Evil is initiated in what John Dewey calls the delightful originality of the child. The present argument aims to show that a school system cannot operate as a neutral between the liberal and the Christian position. A school system must have some policy for delinquent children, or for those who begin to cause trouble, and this policy cannot be both left and right. It cannot be both Christian and humanistic; and there is no middle, neutral ground. The two philosophies and their educational implications differ on what to do, on what evil is, and on how it originates. Something has been said of the prevailing views of public educators; now it is required
96
to show that Christianity has a totally different view of evil and totally different policies for combating it. The Government Schools The early American colleges were distinctly Christian institutions. But the public school system, unlike the colleges, was not so inspired. On the other hand, the public schools were not intended to be irreligious. In the readers of our grandparents time, God and Jesus Christ were mentioned. Today no such references can be found in the books of the public schools. The reason is not hard to find. The public schools were founded with the idea of not favoring one religion above another, and the result is that they now favor no religion at all. They are completely secularized. Originally the public schools, while not supposed to favor one Christian denomination above another, were not intended to attack Christianity. The idea was that they should be neutral. And because the majority of Protestants believed the promises of the schoolmen that they would not attack religion, the Protestants did not found primary schools as the Romanists did. Now it is clear that the Romanists adopted the wiser course of action because the promises of the schoolmen were soon to be broken. Today Christianity is attacked all through the public school system. Reports from parents say that the evolutionary denial of the creation of the world by God is taught to the children of the second grade. How can a child of seven or eight stand up against an organized attack of the theistic worldview? How can parents protect their children? The public school makes no pretense of being neutral in religious matters, and when a parent here or there protests, he is promptly ridiculed and squelched. The notion of religious liberty, or even of the toleration of Christianity that is, the original claim to neutrality is not a part of the schoolmens mental equipment. Mention has already been made of the exclusion of Bible reading from the public schools. The result has been a generation of children who are handicapped in the English language and literature. It is an incontrovertible fact that the English Bible has had a greater influence on our language, our literature, our civilization, our morals, than any other book. The children who are deprived of the Bible are culturally deprived, as well as religiously deprived. Someone has well said that knowledge of the Bible without a college education is of more value than a college education without knowledge of the Bible. In view of this fact, the prohibition
97
of Bible reading is acutely significant of the hatred the public schools, and a large section of our society, have for Christianity. Books attacking Christianity are not illegal. Teachers can deny God, creation, and providence; but the law forbids them to recommend Christianity. Since the cultural deprivation of this policy is so obvious, some of the educators want to teach the Bible as literature. This reintroduction of the Bible into the schools might also allay some of the criticism. It may turn out, however, that the Bible as literature will be worse than no Bible at all. Will the Bible be taught as divine literature or as human literature mere literature, and not revelation? In one school where this was tried, the teacher required the pupils to write a paper. She was very flexible in her requirement: Each student could choose any part of the Bible for his subject. One little girl asked if she might write on Isaiah. The teacher asked, Do you mean first Isaiah or second Isaiah? Thus the teaching of the Bible as literature becomes an attack on its veracity. It will be used; it is being used, to undermine Christianity. When public schools first became popular, the Protestants generally were deceived by the specious promises of the public school people. They thought that if they maintained Christian colleges, the primary schools could be entrusted to the state. But not all the Protestants were deceived by these false promises not to attack Christianity. The Lutheran Church and the Christian Reformed people early established primary schools for their children. They believed that the influence of the Christian home and the preaching of the Christian church should be strengthened by a Christian school system. But both the Lutherans and the Christian Reformed, with their European background, have remained somewhat closed societies as it were; and unfortunately they have exercised little influence, in this respect at least, on the rest of American Protestantism. There was one man, however, among the English-speaking American churches who saw the implication of the public school system; he warned of what was to follow, but his warning went unheeded. It is interesting, sadly interesting, to read his warning today, now that ninety years have proved him to be right. For it was in lectures given prior to 1890 that A. A. Hodge made the predictions now to be quoted. In his Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, page 283, he wrote:
A comprehensive and centralized system of national education, separated from religion, as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social nihilistic ethics, individual, social, and political, which this sin-rent world has ever seen.
98
Two pages before, he had written:

It is capable of exact demonstration that if every party in the State has the right of excluding from the public schools whatever he does not believe to be true, then he that believes most must give way to him that believes least, and then he that believes least must give way to him that believes absolutely nothing, no matter in how small a minority the athe ists or agnostics may be. It is self-evident that on this scheme, if it is consistently and persistently carried out in all parts of the country, the United States system of national popular education will be the most efficient and wide instrument for the propagation of Atheism which the world has ever seen.
What A. A. Hodge did not see, at least what he did not explicitly say, is that although the irreligious have seized the right to exclude Christianity, the Christians are denied the right to exclude attacks on Christianity. There is no neutrality. Obviously the schools are not Christian. Just as obviously they are not neutral. The Scriptures say that the fear of the Lord is the chief part of knowledge; but the schools, by omitting all reference to God, give the pupils the notion that knowledge can be had apart from God. They teach in effect that God has no control of history, that there is no plan of events that God is working out, that God does not foreordain whatsoever comes to pass. Aside from definite anti-Christian instruction to be discussed later, the public schools are not, never were, can never be, neutral. Neutrality is impossible. Let one ask what neutrality can possibly mean when God is involved. How does God judge the school system, which says to him, O God, we neither deny nor assert thy existence; and O God, we neither obey nor disobey thy commandments; we are strictly neutral. Let no one fail to see the point: The school system that ignores God teaches its pupils to ignore God; and this is not neutrality. It is the worst form of antagonism, for it judges God to be unimportant and irrelevant in human affairs. This is atheism. Christian Education The curriculum and the administration of Christian education must be controlled by the Christian view of man. Like the plant, man is a living being, he needs food, he reproduces; but the nature of peculiarity of man is not found in so wide a genus. Like the animals, he has sensations and visual images; but if this were all, he would be merely another animal. Education supposedly deals with man as man; so-called physical education deals with man as a brute. What man is and what education is are
99
questions to be answered by appraising the different levels of human activity. Keen sensation does not mark an educated man, for savages often have keener sensation than the well educated. Carpentry and plumbing are distinctly human activities beyond all animal possibility, and factually beyond the savage; and yet these two useful and honorable trades are not an education. Music and art rank higher than carpentry and plumbing; colloquially we speak of a musical education, but strictly music and art require training. All these are different levels of activity all honorable but not all equal. Some men are born capable of one but not of the other. The Lord did not berate the man to whom he gave one talent for not being able to earn five; he condemned him for not using the one he had. However there is no denying the fact that it is better to have five. God does not require the unskilled laborer to write the critique of all future metaphysics nor to finish Schuberts symphony; but I. Q. 150 contains greater possibilities than I. Q. 85. All phases of life should glorify God, and if a man is a carpenter or a plumber, he should and can glorify God by his trade as well as a student or professor. To serve God acceptably, one does not need to be a monk; neither does he need to be a scholar. God has given some men five talents, some two, and some one. He has given scholastic aptitude to some and to others mechanical ability. What is required is that each should use faithfully what he has received. In view of this it cannot be said that education is in all respects democratic. In politics, representative democratic government amenable to the will of the people is decidedly preferable to irresponsible totalitarianism and arrogant bureaucracy. All men are created equal in the sense that political justice should be impartially administered. But economic and mental equality never have existed and never will. The economic handicaps can be equalized to a degree by private aid through scholarships. But there is no cure for mental inequalities. Education, like art, can never be democratic; both are inherently aristocratic. Some students simply cannot learn. Try as they may, they cannot grasp the significance of the material. And instead of benefiting by a college education, their spirit and self-respect may be ruined. As plumbers they could serve a useful purpose, and if they recognize that God is glorified in honest plumbing, they can walk among men with Christian dignity. A word about art too. Surely a great artist is superior to a great coal miner. Rembrandts Night Watch is indescribably impressive. Rembrandt knew how to paint. But I am not aware that he knew art. Beethoven knew
100
how to write music, but I doubt that he understood music. Artistic ability is one thing a precious gift from God. The intellectual understanding of art, of its function in society, of its relation to religion and morality, is another thing a still more precious gift from God. The latter is a subject of education. The former is skill. Christianity, however, is intellectualistic. God is truth, and truth is immutable. The humanists, of course, oppose any theistic conception of truth. Immersed in the flux of pragmatism, guided by Nietzsche, James, and Dewey, they hold that truth changes, moral values change, and the only fixed truth is that there is no fixed truth. What works is true. Skill and success make truth. Because there is no final truth in humanism, the humanist cannot consistently give adequate recognition to the intellect. If he praises intellectual endowments, he means only the vocational skill to get what you want. Yet secular humanism is not the only, nor even the most vociferous opponent of intellectualism. If Nietzsche, James, and Dewey have their disciples, including the existentialists, Kierkegaard, with Schleiermachers emphasis on emotion, is an even worse enemy of truth. So it happens that large numbers of religious people despise the intellect and exalt the emotions. Brunner says that God speaks falsehoods, that man should believe contradictions, and that God and the intellect are mutually exclusive. Man the Image of God We note for one thing that Christ is the image of God (Hebrews 1:3), and that he is the Logos and Wisdom of God. We note too that Adam was given dominion over nature. These two points, seemingly unrelated, suggest that the image of God is Logic or rationality. Adam was superior to the animals because he was a rational and not merely a sensory creation. The image of God therefore is reason. The image must be reason because God is truth, and fellowship with him a most important purpose in creation requires thinking and understanding. Without reason man would doubtless glorify God, as do the stars, stones, and animals, but he could not enjoy him forever. Even if in Gods providence animals survive death and adorn the future world, they cannot have what the Scripture calls eternal life because eternal life is to know the only true God, and knowledge is an exercise of the mind or reason. Without reason there can be no morality or righteousness: These
101
too require thought. Lacking these, animals are neither righteous nor sinful. The identification of the image as reason explains or is supported by a puzzling remark in John 1:9, It was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. How can Christ, in whom is the life that is the light of men, be the light of every man, when the Scriptures teach that some men are lost in eternal darkness? This puzzle arises from interpreting light in exclusively redemptive terms. If one thinks also in terms of creation, the Logos or Rationality of God, who just above was said to have created all things without a single exception, can be seen as having created man with the light of logic as his distinctive human characteristic. For such reasons as these, the fall and its effects, which have so puzzled some theologians as they studied the doc trine of the image, are most easily understood by identifying the image with mans mind. Since moral judgments are a species of judgment, subsumed under general intellectual activity, one result of the fall is the occurrence of incorrect evaluations by means of erroneous thinking. Adam thought, incorrectly, that it would be better to join Eve in her sin than to obey God and be separated from her. So he ate the forbidden fruit. The external act followed upon the thought. Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts. Note that in the Bible the term heart usually designates the intellect, and only once in ten times the emotions: It is the heart that thinks. Sin thus interferes with our thinking. It does not, however, prevent us from thinking. Sin does not eradicate or annihilate the image. It causes a malfunction, but man still remains man. The Bible stresses the malfunctioning of the mind in obviously moral affairs because of their importance. But sin extends its depraving influence into affairs not usually regarded as matters of morality. Arithmetic, for example. One need not suppose that Adam and Eve understood calculus, but they surely counted to ten. Whatever arithmetic they did, they did correctly. But sin causes a failure in thinking, with the result that we now make mistakes in simple addition. Such mistakes are pedantically called the noetic effects of sin. But moral errors are equally noetic. When men became vain in their imaginations and their foolish hearts were darkened; when they professed to be wise, but became fools; when God gave them over to a reprobate mind their sin was first of all a noetic, intellectual, mental malfunction. Regeneration and the process of sanctification reverse the sinful direction of the malfunctioning: The person is renewed in knowledge
102
after the image of him that created him. First the more obvious, the grosser sins, are suppressed because the new man begins to think and evaluate in conformity with Gods precepts. Second and third, the new man advances to restrain the more subtle, the more secret, the more pervasive sins that have made his heart deceitful above measure. Errors in arithmetic may seem trivial in comparison, but these, too, are effects of sin; and salvation will improve a mans thinking in all matters. The identification of the image as reason or intellect thus preserves the unity of mans person and saves theologians from splitting the image into schizophrenic parts. It also accords with all that the Scripture says about sin and salvation. Secular opposition to the image of God in man can be based only on a general nontheistic philosophy. Evolution views man as a natural development from the neutron and proton, through atoms, to plants, to the lower animals, until perhaps a number of human beings emerged in Africa, Asia, and the East Indies. Evolution can hardly assert the unity of the human race, for several individuals of subhuman species may have more or less simultaneously produced the same variation. This nontheistic, naturalistic view is difficult to accept because it implies that the mind, too (as well as the body) is an evolutionary product rather than a divine image. Instead of using eternal principles of logic, the mind operates with the practical results of biological adaptation. Concepts and propositions neither reach the truth nor even aim at it. Our equipment has evolved through a struggle to survive. Reason is simply the human method of handling things. It is a simplifying and therefore falsifying device. There is no evidence that our categories correspond to reality. Even if they did, a most unlikely accident, no one could know it; for to know that the laws of logic are adequate to the existent real, it is requisite to observe the real prior to using the laws. But if this ever happened with subhuman organisms, it never happens with the present species man. If now the intellect is naturally produced, different types of intellect could equally well be produced by slightly different evolutionary processes. Maybe such minds have been produced, but are now extinct like the dinosaurs and dodos. This means, however, that the concepts or intuitions of space and time the law of contradiction, the rules of inference are not fixed and universal criteria of truth, but that other races thought in other terms. Perhaps future races will also think in different terms. John Dewey insisted that logic has already changed and will continue to change. If now this be the case, our traditional logic is
103
but a passing evolutionary moment; our theories dependent on this logic are temporary reactions, parochial social habits, and Freudian rationalizations; and therefore the evolutionary theory, produced by these biological urges, cannot be true. The difference between naturalism and theism between the latest scientific opinions on evolution and creation; between the Freudian animal and the image of God; between belief in God and atheism is based on their two different epistemologies. Naturalism professes to learn by observation and analysis of experience; the theistic view depends on Biblical revelation. No amount of observation and analysis can prove the theistic position. Of course, no amount of observation and analysis can prove evolution or any other theory. The secular philosophies all result in total skepticism. In contrast, theism bases its knowledge on divinely revealed propositions. They may not give us all truth; they may even give us very little truth; but there is no truth at all otherwise. So much for the secular alternative. Therefore the Christian evaluation of subjects in the curriculum and of pupils or students in school is rational and intellectualistic, in opposition to the emotionalism and anti-intellectualism of the present age. The object of education is truth; the transmission of truth to the younger pupils and the discovery of new truth by more advanced students. The aim of education, at least the aim of the purest and best education, is intellectual understanding. The Subversion of Christianity Scott, Foresman and Company, publishers of an excellent line of grade school textbooks, has one called Our World and How We Use It, by Campbell, Sears, Quillen, Hanna. On page 97, in a chapter explaining the domestication and use of animals, there is a section entitled, Ideas about God.
You have seen how many of our ideas about property, about working together, and about war have come from these herdsmen of long ago. The herdsmen had many other ideas, too. The herdsman knew about the stars, because he had learned to read the sky as we read calendars. The sun was his clock by day, and the moon and stars told him the time at night. The night skies are very clear and the stars are bright in the dry climate of the grasslands and in the desert country. The herdsman watched the seasons come and go. He knew about times of plenty and about times of famine, too. He saw his animals born,
104
Ch. 10: A Christian Philosophy of Education grow, and die. He saw the head of the tribe punish his own children and his animals if they did not obey him, and reward them if they did right. Herdsmen had time to think about many, many things as they tended their animals. And so the herdsman came to know that there was a great God that took care of the world and everything in it, just as he himself took care of his own flocks and family. He taught his children to worship this God and to obey Him. The herdsman also knew that he had to protect his own animals and his family and his servants and w orkers. Many times he must have thought that the world would be a better place if there were no wild beasts or unfriendly people. And he came to believe that there must be something bad, something evil, which worked against God, just as wolves and bad men and famine worked against him. This evil thing he called Satan. Many of the thoughts of the herdsmen were made into songs. You can read some of them in the Bible, in the Psalms of David, the shepherd who became a king. Confessedly the aim of the section is to teach the pupils about God. Therefore it is a matter of religion; and religion, whether preached in a pulpit or taught in a primary grade, cannot be a neutral matter. To discover whether this textbook favors Christianity or opposes it, let us list the five chief points it teaches. It teaches first that the herdsmen discovered God or got ideas about God by thinking as they tended their animals; second, that they discovered God cared for them; third, that they taught their children to worship and obey God; fourth, that they learned, by reflection always, that there is a Devil; and fifth, that the Psalms of David are a result of this process.
Since this is the teaching of a textbook for the fourth grade, it may be deemed unfair to offer profound, philosophical criticism. And yet even pupils in the fourth grade can be told a few simple, though profound, philosophical principles. The section as written produces the impression that learning of God is a purely empirical process. No reference is made to what a philosopher would call the a priori equipment of learning. Now, Kants terminology is not for children, but even children can understand when they are told that all men are born with the idea of God. They may not know the terms a priori and innate, but they can understand as well as they can understand anything else that men are so made as to think of God spontaneously: They are born that way. However, no particular stress will be laid on the argument that the book teaches a non-Christian empiricism.
105
But stress, great stress, is to be laid on the omission of all reference to revelation. A true Christian, if asked how he has learned of God, will answer immediately, through the Bible, Gods word. When a person replies, by experience and reflection, it is instantly clear that that person is not a Christian. In the second place, the textbook teaches that the herdsmen knew God cared for them because they cared for their flocks. What sort of argument is this? The herdsmen take care of their flocks in order to shear them, and eat them. Does such reflection lead to an ultimate trust in God? Then third, the herdsmen taught their children to worship and obey God. This raises two questions. First, if there is no revelation, where do the herdsmen find the commands God requires us to obey? The Scripture speaks of the law of God as written on the hearts of men; it teaches that man was made in Gods image and has an innate knowledge that right is different from wrong and that God punishes wrong. But the Scripture also teaches that man suppresses this knowledge by his wickedness, that he does not wish to retain God in his knowledge, and that God has given him over to a reprobate mind. Obviously the fourth-grade text book and Christianity do not agree. And the second question is still more to the point: How can the herdsmen teach their children to worship God? The Scripture not only says that no one, apart from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, seeks after God and that there is none that doeth good, no, not one; the Scripture also teaches that no one comes to the Father except by Jesus Christ. And this is as true of Abraham of old as it is of men today. Jesus said, Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad. The textbook gives no hint of this necessary prerequisite of worship. It teaches rather that one can obey and worship God without any reference to Jesus Christ. The fourth point does not require any additional criticism, but the fifth point is the climax. Here it is stated that the Psalms of David are the products of purely human reflection. In direct antagonism to the Christian view, the textbook reduces the Bible to the level of the philosophically unjustifiable thoughts of a nomad. David wrote, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Is this a human fancy or a divine promise? David wrote:
The kings of the earth set themselves . . . against the Lord and against his Anointed. . . . He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall
106
Ch. 10: A Christian Philosophy of Education have them in derision.... Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.... The Lord hath said unto m e, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.... Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.
What is this? Nonsense? Or is it the voice of the Mighty God and Terrible? The textbook from which the quotation was taken is pedagogically and mechanically excellent; it displays all the marks of technical competence. The inclusion of the section quoted therefore cannot be attributed to ignorance. It was deliberately planned. For these reasons the only possible conclusion is that the book and the educators behind it are definitely aiming to destroy the Christian religion.

Christian Philosophy Made Easy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christian Philosophy Made Easy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY MADE EASY