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 stud-

ies 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 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. Christianity and the Basic Elements of Philosophy. . . . . . . . . . . 93. A Biblical Theodicy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334. False Philosophical Systems .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

PART II: Issues in Christian Philosophy

5. What Is Christian Philosophy? (W. Gary Crampton) . . . . . . . . . . 516. The Bible as Truth (Gordon Clark) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597. A Call for Christian Rationality (W. Gary Crampton) . . . . . . . . . . 718. The Importance of Studying Logic (John W. Robbins) . . . . . . . . . 799. A Biblical View of Science (W. Gary Crampton) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8510. A Christian Philosophy of Education (Gordon Clark). . . . . . . . . 91

PREFACE

Everyone has a worldview. A worldview is a set of beliefs, a systemof thoughts, about the most important issues of life. One’s worldview ishis philosophy. “Worldview” and “philosophy” are virtually synonymouswords. Great thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and ThomasAquinas, each had a system of belief regarding philosophy, that was writ-ten out in a systematic fashion. Each system expressed the worldview ofthe particular philosopher. But even though they may not realize it, all(mature) persons necessarily and inescapably have a worldview, a philo-sophical system of thought, as well. Their worldview may not be writtenout, or as well systematized as the four thinkers mentioned above, butthey have a worldview nonetheless.

This little book intends to raise the reader’s self-consciousness abouthis worldview so that he might gain a clearer understanding of a Christianworldview, which in the opinion of the present writers is the only viableworldview or philosophy. Scripture teaches us, as the Westminster Short-er Catechism (Q 1) aptly states, that “man’s chief end is to glorify God [1Corinthians 10:31; Romans 11:36], and to enjoy Him forever [Psalm 73:25-28].” This being so, we are enjoined to adopt a philosophy that honorsGod. We need, as the apostle Paul states, a philosophy that is “accordingto Christ” (Colossians 2:8). Herein we have a Christian philosophy, whichis based on the axiom of divine revelation: the Word of God. And the bestsummary of this system of belief is found in the Westminster Confessionof Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

Part IBASICS OF CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY

R. C. Sproul, Lifeviews (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, 1986), 29. 1

Chapter 1

THE NATURE OF A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW

True Versus False PhilosophyIn Colossians 2:8 the apostle Paul writes: “Beware lest anyone capture

you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition ofmen, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according toChrist.” In this verse the apostle warns his readers against being takencaptive by false philosophies. Rather he says that they should adopt aphilosophy “according to Christ.” This verse does not teach, as some havesaid, that philosophy itself is unworthy of Christian study. In fact, theverse teaches precisely the opposite. It is an imperative for the pursuitof the discipline. To guard against being captivated by a philosophy “ac-cording to the tradition of men,” one must have an awareness of sucherrant philosophy. And more importantly, he must have a knowledge ofthat which is true. Too many Christians are not aware of this fact. There-fore, they have neglected the study of philosophy in general. Sadly, theseare the ones most likely to be captivated by the false philosophies of thisworld.

R. C. Sproul writes that “no society can survive, no civilization canfunction, without some unifying system of thought. . . . What makes asociety a unified system? Some kind of glue is found in a unifying systemof thought, what we call a worldview.” The fact of the matter is that1

thoughts shape societies. Worldviews, or philosophies, are important.Christians, then, need to study philosophy. Stressing this point RonaldNash writes:

Because so many elements of a worldview are philosophical in nature,

Christians need to become more conscious of the importance of philo-

sophy. 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 Chris-

tian worldview has an intrinsic connection to philosophy and the world

2 Ch. 1: The Nature of a Christian Worldview

Ronald H. Nash, Faith & Reason (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 26. 2

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 philo-sophical worldviews: Christian and non-Christian. There is no neutralground. The non-Christian philosopher is committed to total indepen-dence from the God of Scripture. Thus, he views God, man, and the worldfrom a non-biblical standpoint.

The Christian philosopher, on the other hand, is committed toabsolute dependence on God and His Word. He philosophizes about Godand His creation from a wholly different perspective. He sees Christ, theWord of God incarnate, as central to all truth. In Him, writes Paul, “arehidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). ABiblical philosophy, therefore, must be “rooted and built up” in Christ(Colossians 2:7). The Christian philosopher is to analyze all things bymeans of God’s infallible revelation, seeking to “bring every thought intocaptivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

The Bible is replete with philosophical teachings. The book of Eccle-siastes is a prime example. The preacher (1:1), the author of the book,presents us with two distinct and opposing worldviews, both of withwhich he has personally been involved. He writes as an old man lookingback 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 standpointof 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 generalrevelation, a revelation which he suppresses (more will be said on thisbelow).

On the other hand, the preacher presents the proper worldview ofregenerate man, who makes use of special revelation. This man knowsGod as Savior, and is capable of true wisdom (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). With-out this wisdom, says the preacher, all things in life are folly (2:25–26).His conclusion is given in 12:13-14: a proper worldview must begin withthe fear of God: “Let us hear the conclusion of the matter: Fear God andkeep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God willbring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether itis good or whether it is evil.” Devoid of this, man is destined to philo-sophical vanity, a “chasing after the wind.”

Christian Philosophy Made Easy Ch. 1: The Nature of a Christian Worldview3

Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer (Westchester;3

Crossway Books, 1982), 3:259.

C. Gregg Singer, From Rationalism to Irrationality (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian4

and Reformed, 1979), 37.

The preacher’s message is clear: sound philosophy is sound Christi-anity. Without a Biblically based philosophy, philosophical endeavor isinane. As taught by Francis Schaeffer, the Christian worldview, based onthe Word of God alone, is not just a good philosophy, “it is the bestphilosophy . . . it is the only philosophy that is consistent to itself andanswers the questions of [life] . . . it deals with [life’s] problems and givesus answers.” 3

What, then, is the nature of Christian philosophy? It is a philosophythat is “according to Christ.” It seeks to study the entire philosophicalarena by means of Christ’s Word. It recognizes that only the triune Godof Scripture is wise: Father (Romans 16:27), Son (1 Corinthians 1:24,30),and Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2). And genuine Christian philosophy under-stands that only the Word of God can make one wise (Psalm 19:7).

Gregg Singer writes that the true Christian philosopher, using Scrip-ture as his starting point, “believes in Jesus Christ [and] commits himselfto much else besides, to a view of God, creation, man, sin, history, andall the cultural activities of the human race, and in this view he finds thecorrect interpretation and the motivating power to think God’s thoughtsand to do His will after Him.” 4

Biblical PresuppositionsAll worldviews or philosophies (as seen, these words are used as

virtual synonyms) have presuppositions, which are foundational. Thesepresuppositions are axioms, which, by definition, cannot be proved.Without such axioms, as first principles or starting points, a worldviewcould not get started, because there would be no foundation upon whichto base its beliefs. In a logically consistent Christian worldview, the firstand absolutely essential presupposition, is that the Bible alone is theWord of God, and it has a systematic monopoly on truth. This is theaxiomatic starting point. From the teachings of the axiom of Scripture,however, we find that there are several other doctrines which are “pre-suppositional” 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


God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruc-tion in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughlyequipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). And in the Westmin-ster Confession of Faith (1:6): we read: “The whole counsel of God,concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith,and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and neces-sary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing atany time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, ortraditions 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 withthe Bible, both teach the all sufficiency of Scripture.

By word derivation, “philosophy” (philosophia) means “the love ofwisdom.” Scripture teaches us that only God is wise (Romans 16:27; 1Timothy 1:17). The Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of wisdom” (Isaiah 11:2). AndJesus Christ, the Master Philosopher, is Wisdom itself (Proverbs 8:22–36;John 1:1–3,14; 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30). In Him “are hidden all the trea-sures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). And Christ has givenus these treasures in His Word, which is a part of His mind (1 Corinthians2:16). Therefore, if one is to be a Christian philosopher (a lover of wis-dom), he must go to God’s Word. Therein is where one learns “the fearof the Lord [which] is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10).

The Bible claims to be the infallible, inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21), and the Holy Spirit produces this belief in theminds of the elect (1 Corinthians 2:6–16). As stated in the Confession(1:4–5): “the authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to bebelieved and obeyed, depends . . . wholly upon God (who is truth itself),the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is theWord of God.” Further, “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallibletruth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the HolySpirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” There simplyis no higher authority than the Word of God. As the author of Hebrewsclaims: “because He [God] could swear by no one greater, He swore byHimself” (6:13).

Second, from the axiom of Scripture, we learn, as the WestminsterShorter Catechism (Q 5–6) teaches, that “there is one only living and trueGod . . . [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


J. I. Packer, A Quest For Godliness (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990), 129. 5

John Calvin, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 22. 6

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 1:22; On the Soul and Its Origin 4:20. 7

substance [essence], equal in power and glory” (see Deuteronomy 6:4;Matthew 28:19). We also learn that this triune God is self-existent andindependent, 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 tran-scendent (distinct from His creation) and immanent (omnipresent in Hiscreation) (Isaiah 57:15; Jeremiah 23:23–24). In Him all things “live andmove and have [their] being” (Acts 17:28).

Third, the Scriptures teach us that God, in His eternal decree hassovereignly foreordained all things which will ever come to pass (Ephe-sians 1:11). Furthermore, He executes His sovereign purposes throughthe works of creation (Revelation 4:11)and providence (Daniel 4:35). Notonly does God create all things ex nihilo (out of no pre-existing sub-stance), including man, but He sovereignly preserves, sustains, and gov-erns 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 “aunified philosophy of history which sees the whole diversity of processesand events that take place in God’s world as no more, and no less, thanthe outworking of His great preordained plan for His creatures and Hischurch.” 5

Fourth, God created man in His own image, both metaphysically andethically (Genesis 1:26–28). 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 God’s image bearer in a spiritualor mental sense. Writes Calvin: “The mind of man is His [God’s] trueimage.” That is, man is a spirit; man has a body. The body is the instru-6

ment of the soul or spirit. 7

According to Biblical Christianity, as taught by the Westminster Con-fession, man is a spiritual, rational, moral, immortal being, created withinnate, propositional knowledge, including knowledge of God, to have aspiritual relationship with his Creator. Herein he differs from the rest ofcreation. Says the Confession (4:2): “After God had made all other crea-tures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortalsouls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after Hisown image; having the law of God written in their hearts.” Calvin referred


John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. by John T. McNeill, trans.8

by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1:3:1–3.

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 inera-dicable 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 theo-logy), whereas special revelation (the verbal communications of Scrip-ture), on the other hand, is specific in audience (those who read theBible) and detailed in content. General revelation, as noted, reveals Godas Creator, thus leaving men without excuse (Romans 1:18–21; 2:14–15).But it does not reveal Christ as the only Redeemer. This latter knowledgeis found only in Scripture (Romans 1:16–17; 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 sal-

vation. 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 God’s revealing His will unto

his people being now ceased.

When properly studied, general and special revelation are in perfectharmony. But creation is always to be studied in light of special revela-tion. The Bible alone has a monopoly on truth. As clearly taught in Pro-verbs 8, a proper understanding of creation may only be derived from astudy of Scripture. This does not mean that we should avoid a study ofcreation. Rather, we are compelled by special revelation to interact withit (e.g., scientific and historical investigation), as seen in the dominionmandate of Genesis 1:26–28. But Scripture alone, not the study of scienceor history, gives us truth.

This brings us to our fifth consideration. Due to the Fall of man, sinhas affected the entire cosmos (Genesis 3; Romans 8:18–23). Man and theuniverse are in a state of abnormality. The effects of the Fall have greatly


Robert L. Reymond, A Christian View of Modern Science (Nutley: Presbyterian9

and Reformed, 1977), 10.

hindered man’s ability to philosophize. Metaphysically speaking, man isstill in the image of God, even though the image is defaced. He is still aspiritual, rational, moral, immortal being (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9). Butethically speaking, the image of God is effaced. Fallen man is in a stateof “total depravity,” incapable of doing anything to please God (Romans3:9–18; 8:7–8). As taught in the Confession (6:4), fallen man is “utterlyindisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclinedto all evil.” The ethical image is only restored through the salvific crosswork of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10). To properly philo-sophize, man must be regenerated (John 3:3–8). In the words of RobertReymond: “Until he is born again, man cannot see the kingdom of God,or, for that matter, anything else truly.” 9

Philosophy and WisdomAs 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; Co-lossians 2:3), cannot be “wise” (confirm John 14:6). The Bible describessuch an individual as a “fool.” The “fool” is one who hates knowledge(Proverbs 1:22), is naive in his thinking, ready to believe anything (Pro-verbs 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). Thefool may be a highly educated individual, one who is well versed in thediscipline of philosophy; nevertheless, he is a fool, because he rejects theGod of Scripture, and the Bible as the sole source of wisdom (Matthew7:26–27). Hence, he “seeks wisdom and does not find it,” because he isalways looking in the wrong place (Proverbs 14:6).

The apostle Paul describes the nature of this foolish, secular philoso-phy in Romans 1:18–25. The non-Christian suppresses the knowledge ofGod which he possesses, he rejects God’s Word as the only standard oftruth, and ascribes all of creation to that which is other than the God ofScripture (verses 18–21). Says the apostle, such fools have become “futilein their thoughts,” “their foolish hears [are] darkened” (verse 21); “pro-fessing to be wise, they became fools” (verse 22). And as false philoso-phers, they have chosen to “worship and serve the creature rather thanthe Creator” (verse 25).


Calvin, Institutes 1:6:1. 10

The Christian philosopher, on the other hand, is a wise man. Hebuilds his philosophical system upon the Rock of Christ and His Word(Matthew 7:24–25). He views all things (i.e., philosophizes) by means ofthe “spectacles” of Scripture. In this way, the Christian philosopher is10

not only homo spiritualis (“spiritual man”), he is also homo sapiens (“manhaving wisdom”).

Chapter 2

CHRISTIANITY AND THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF PHILOSOPHY

IntroductionAs we have seen, a worldview or philosophy is a set of beliefs con-

cerning the most important issues of life. Therefore, any well roundedworldview must be able to adequately deal with the four most basic ele-ments or tenets of philosophy: epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, andpolitics.

First, epistemology is that branch of philosophy which is concernedwith the theory of knowledge. How do we know what we know? What isthe 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 arethings what they are? Why is there something, rather than nothing? Howcan there be unity amidst diversity in the universe? Is the world a crea-tion? Is it a brute fact? Is there purpose in the universe?

Third, ethics concerns itself with how one should live. It is the studyof right and wrong thoughts, words, and deeds. What is the standard forethics? Is there an absolute law to which every man must conform? Isthere a logical reason for us to ask why someone “ought” to do this orthat? Is morality relative to individuals, cultures, or historical periods? Ordoes morality transcend these boundaries?

Fourth, politics is that branch of philosophy which has to do with thetheory of government. What kind of government is the correct one?Should government be limited? Do citizens have a right to private pro-perty? What is the function of the civil magistrate?

EpistemologyEpistemology is the key component to any theological or philoso-

phical system. Metaphysics, ethics, and political theory can only be estab-lished on an epistemological basis. Without a standard, a ground basis forbelief (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

Gordon H. Clark, “How Does Man Know God?” The Trinity Review (July/ Au-1

gust, 1989): 1.

can he know what the proper political theory is. An epistemic base is al-ways primary.

This is why the Westminster Confession of Faith begins with episte-mology, the doctrine of revelation. Chapter 1 is “Of the Holy Scripture.”Only after the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments have beenestablished as the starting point of Christian theology, does the Con-fession go on to consider the doctrine of God (metaphysics) in chapters2–5, the doctrine of the law (ethics) in chapter 19, and the doctrine of thecivil 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 answer to this ques-

tion, 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-Christiantheories of knowledge: (pure) rationalism, empiricism, and irrationalism.

First, pure rationalism avers that reason, apart from revelation orsensory experience, provides the prime, or only, source of truth. The sen-ses are untrustworthy, and our apriori knowledge (the knowledge wehave before any observation or experience) must be applied to our exper-ience 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 re-vealed propositions of Scripture. In pure rationalism, on the other hand,knowledge comes from reason alone. Unaided human reason becomes theultimate standard by which all beliefs are judged. Even revelation mustbe judged by reason. One false assumption made here by the rationalistis that man, apart from revelation, is capable of coming to a true know-ledge 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 logicis one example. Second, there is the issue of a starting point. Where does

Christian Philosophy Made Easy 11

one start in pure rationalism? Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza, allof whom were classified rationalists, had different starting points. Platobegan with his eternal Ideas, Descartes with his doubting of all things (hiscogito ergo sum), Leibniz with his system of monads, and Spinoza, whowas a pantheist, with his Deus sive Natura (“God, that is, nature”). It seemsthat rationalists do not agree on a starting point, an axiom on which theirsystem is to be based.

Third, how can reasoning apart from revelation determine if theworld is controlled by an omnipotent, good God, who has revealed to usthat two plus two equals four, or by an omnipotent demon who has allalong deceived us into believing that two plus two equals four, whereasit really equals five? Fourth, rationalism seems to commit the fallacy ofasserting the consequent. A rationalist argument may proceed as follows:If we begin with proposition A, we can justify the claim that we do in-deed have knowledge. Now, it is certain that we do have knowledge;therefore proposition A is true. This form of argumentation commits thelogical fallacy of asserting the consequent.

Finally, it is difficult in pure rationalism to avoid solipsism, which isthe 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 partic-ipate (such as in Christian theism), it is not possible for the individual toescape his own mind. This is at least one of the reasons that the ration-alists have adopted the ontological argument for the existence of God.The nineteenth century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel attempted tosolve this problem by positing an Absolute Mind, but a Mind from whichone could not rationally deduce individuals. In Hegel’s view, we have thedisappearance of the self into the Absolute Mind (or World Spirit). Thisis another form of pantheism, which is also a failure.

Second, empiricism maintains that all knowledge originates in the sen-ses. 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 dem-onstrate the truth of the empirical method. Science, of course, is basedon observation, and repetitive observation is emphasized. The idea be-ing, that with repetitive observation, knowledge and certainty are in-creased.

In a consistent empirical epistemology, the mind is considered to bea tabula rasa (“blank tablet”) at birth. It has no innate structure, form, orideas. Therefore, all knowledge must come through the senses.


Cited in Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians (Unicoi: Tenn.: Trinity Foundation,2

1991), 128.

Cited in John W. Robbins, The Trinity Review (August, 1993): 3. 3

While rationalists proceed by deduction, empiricists use inductivereasoning as well. One collects his experiences and observations anddraws inferences and conclusions from them. This empirical knowledgeis aposteriori, i.e., it comes after and through experience. One must beable to smell, taste, feel, hear, or see something in order to know it.Once something is experienced (or “sensed”), then the mind, which is ablank tablet prior to experience, somehow remembers, imagines, com-bines, transposes, categorizes, and formulates the sensory experienceinto knowledge.

The philosophical problems with empiricism are legion, some ofwhich will be exposed here. First, all inductive arguments are formal logi-cal fallacies. In inductive study, each argument begins with particularpremises and ends with a universal conclusion. The difficulty is that it isnot possible to collect enough experiences on any subject to reach a uni-versal conclusion. Simply because the system depends on the collectionof experiences for its conclusions, it can never be certain that some newexperience or observation will not change its previous conclusions. Thus,it can never be conclusive. For example, one may observe 1000 crows andfind them all to be black. But when crow number 1001 turns out to be analbino, the previous conclusion about crows being black must be revised.

Then too, along this line of thought, keep in mind how often scien-tists revise and overturn earlier conclusions. The fact is that science cannever give us truth; it deals only with theories, not absolutes. It wasEinstein who said: “We [scientists] know nothing abut it [nature] at all.Our knowledge is but the knowledge of school children . . . .We shallknow a little more than we do now. But the real nature of things — thatwe shall never know.” And philosopher of science Karl Popper wrote: “In2

science there is no knowledge in the sense that Plato and Aristotle usedthe word, in the sense which implies finality; in science we never havesufficient reason for belief that we have attained the truth.” 3

Second, the senses can and frequently (perhaps always) do deceiveus. No one can ever have the same experience twice. The ancient philoso-pher Heroclitus spoke to this in his well known dictum: “No one everstands in the same river twice.” Finite things continue to change, even asthe water in a river continues to flow. In such a system, verification, that


John W. Robbins, “An Introduction to Gordon H. Clark: Part 1,” The Trinity4

Review (July, 1993): 4.

Clark, First Corinthians, 78. 5

is the inferring of a conclusion by good and necessary consequence, isnot possible. In fact, the basic axiom of empiricism — that everythingneeds to be either verified or falsified by sense observation — cannotitself be verified or falsified by sense observation. Thus, empiricism restson a self-contradictory and therefore false starting point.

Third, as we have seen, empiricists maintain that all men are bornwith a blank mind. But this is not possible. A consciousness which isconscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. Here too empiricism isself-contradictory. 4

Fourth, how can the truths of mathematics be derived from thesenses? Can the laws of logic be abstracted or obtained from sensation?How can the senses give us ideas such as “equal,” “parallel,” or “justi-fication?” These are never found in sense experience. No two things weexperience are ever perfectly equal.

These are insuperable difficulties with empiricism. Empiricism cannottell us how the senses alone give us conceptions. If the “knower” is notalready equipped with conceptual elements or ideas (i.e., innate know-ledge), how can he ever conceptualize the object sensed? Whereas ra-tionalism, with its concept of universal ideas, gives us an explanation forcategories and similarities, empiricism does not. And without these,rational discourse would not be possible.

Fifth, like pure rationalism, solipsism is inescapable in an empiricistepistemology. One’s sensations are just that: one’s sensations. No oneelse can experience them. But if this is the case, how can one know thatthere is an external world? Any evidence that might be offered is justanother subjective experience.

Finally, in ethics, even if we assume that empiricism (at best) can tellus what is, it can never tell us what ought to be. “Ought-ness” can neverbe derived from “is-ness.” Empirical observations can never give us moralprinciples. As Gordon Clark states: “A moral principle can only be adivinely revealed prohibition or command.” Even in the Garden of Eden,5

before the Fall, man was dependent on propositional revelation from Godfor knowledge. By observation he could not have determined his dutybefore God. After the Fall, of course, the problem is worsened.


John W. Robbins, Scripture Twisting in the Seminaries (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity6

Foundation, 1985), 110.

In 1 Corinthians 2:9–10, the apostle Paul distinguishes between philo-sophies built on pure rationalism and empiricism, and propositional reve-lation 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 ration-alism] the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.’ ButGod has revealed them to us through His Spirit.” What is Paul’s con-clusion? Simply this: that neither pure rationalism nor empiricism canyield knowledge. Rather, maintains the apostle, propositional revelationis the sine qua non of knowledge.

Third, irrationalism, fostered by such men as Soren Kierkegaard, (toa certain extent) Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and neo-orthodox theologians, is a form of skepticism. It is anti-rational and anti-intellectual. Actual truth, say the skeptics, can never be attained. Rationalattempts to explain the world leave us in despair. Reality cannot be com-municated propositionally, it must be grasped “personally and passion-ately” (Kierkegaard). Truth is subjective. Even though man may neverknow if there is a god who gives purpose and meaning to life, he mustnevertheless take a “leap of faith” (Kierkegaard). He must live life as ifthere is a god, a higher being, a meaningful universe, because not to doso would be worse (Kant).

Irrationalism manifests itself in theological circles in the neo-ortho-doxy 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, God’s logicis different than “mere human logic,” so we can only find truth in themidst of paradox and contradiction. In this “theology of paradox,” Godcan even teach us through false statements.

Sadly, irrationality has also affected the orthodox church. Far toomany of those within Christian circles have fallen prey to the anti-reason,anti-intellectual, anti-logic movement. The present authors agree withJohn Robbins who writes: “There is no greater threat facing the truechurch of Christ at this moment then the irrationalism that controls ourentire culture.” We are living, says Robbins, “in the age of irrationalism.”And as many philosophical foes as the Christian church has to face, asmany false ideas that would vie for supremacy, there is no idea asdangerous “as the idea that we do not and cannot know the truth.” 6


The law of contradiction (or non-contradiction) states that A (which could7

be any proposition or object) cannot be both B and non-B at the same time and

in the same sense.

Gordon H. Clark, “God and Logic,” The Trinity Review (November/December,8

1980): 4.

The problem with irrationalism is that when one divorces logic fromepistemology, he is left with nothing. Skepticism is self-contradictory, forit asserts with certainty that nothing can be known for certain. Christiantheism, 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 HolySpirit (1 John 5:6), and that truth is logical. The law of contradiction is a7

negative test for truth. The reason being that a contradiction is always asign of error. If something is contradictory, it cannot be true (1 Corin-thians 14:33; 1 Timothy 6:20).

In fact, the Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ is the Logic (Logos) ofGod (John 1:1). He is Reason, Wisdom, and Truth incarnate (1 Corinthians1:24, 30; Colossians 2:3; John 14:6). The laws of logic are not created byGod or man; they are the way God thinks. And since the Scriptures are apart of the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:16), they are God’s logicalthoughts. The Bible expresses the mind of God in a logically coherentfashion to mankind.

Man, as the image bearer of God (Genesis 1:26-28), possesses logicinherently as part of the image. Man is “God’s breath” (Genesis 2:7; Job33:4), for the Spirit of God breathed into man his spirit or mind, which isthe image. Contrary, then, to the platitudinous nonsense of the irration-alists, Scripture teaches us that there is no such thing as “mere humanlogic.” We read in John 1:9 that Christ, as the Logos (Logic) of God is “thetrue Light which gives light to every man.” This being the case, it isevident that God’s logic and man’s logic are the same logic.

We are to understand, then, that to reason logically is to reason ac-cording to Scripture (Romans 12:2), which is a part of God’s logicalthoughts. Redeemed man is to learn progressively to think God’sthoughts (2 Corinthians 10:5). To quote Clark: “Logic is fixed, universal,necessary, and irreplaceable. Irrationality contradicts the Biblical teachingfrom beginning to end. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not in-sane. God is a rational being, the architecture of whose mind is logic.”8


Singer, From Rationalism to Irrationality, 33. 9

Christian EpistemologyAs 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 empiri-cism, 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 11:7–9, Proverbs20:24, Ecclesiastes 3:11; 7:27–28; 8:10,17, Matthew 16:17, 1 Corinthians2:9–10, just to list a few, make it abundantly clear that apart from Biblicalrevelation, man cannot truly know God or His creation. Gregg Singeraptly 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 startingpoint which is axiomatic, that is, it cannot be proved. And the startingpoint for Christian philosophy is the Word of God. This is the axiom: theBible alone is the Word of God, and it has a systematic monopoly ontruth. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit pro-duces this belief in the minds of God’s elect. Therein, they acquiesce tothe self-authenticating Scriptures. As stated in the Confession (1:4–5), theBible “is to be received [simply] because it is the Word of God,” and eventhough it abundantly manifests itself to be God’s Word, “our full persua-sion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, isfrom the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with theWord 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 thanquestion begging (petitio principii); it is circular reasoning; it assumes whatought to be proved. One cannot assume that the Bible is the Word ofGod, just because the Bible claims to be the Word of God. First, it isalleged, 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 manyfalse claims and claimants. But it cannot be rationally denied that the


Augustine, Letters 143:7. 10

Bible claims to be the infallible, inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16–17;2 Peter 1:20–21). And this is significant. It is a claim that few writingsattribute to themselves. Therefore, since the Bible makes such a claim,explicitly and pervasively, it is very proper to believe the witness of theBible itself.

Second, the ad hominem (“to the man”) reply to the critic is that allsystems must begin with an indemonstrable starting point. Otherwise,the system could never get started. “Question begging,” in this broadsense of the phrase, is not a characteristic unique to Christianity. It is asituation in which all philosophical systems find themselves.

If one could prove that the Bible is the Word of God, then the Biblewould not be the starting point. There would be something even beforethe starting point, which would be absurd. Simply stated, according toScripture, there is no higher authority than God’s self-authenticatingWord. Again, to cite the author of Hebrews: “because He [God] couldswear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (6:13). One must acceptthe 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as axiomatic, or there is noknowledge possible at all.

Further, in Christian epistemology, there is no dichotomy betweenfaith (revelation) and reason (logic). The two go hand in hand, because itis 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 com-municates 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. 10


Note is also made that there is an important philosophical distinctionbetween “knowledge” and “opinion.” There is a difference between thatwhich we “know” and that which we “opine.” Knowledge is not only pos-sessing ideas or thoughts; it is possessing true ideas or thoughts. Know-ledge is knowledge of the truth. It is justified true belief. Only the Wordof God gives us such knowledge.

Opinions, on the other hand, may be true or false. Natural science isopinion; archaeology is opinion; history (with the exception of Biblicalhistory) is opinion. In these disciplines we are not dealing with facts.Here there is no justified true belief. To opine something is not to knowit, even though the opinion may be true. A schoolboy may guess thecorrect answer to an arithmetic question, but unless he can show how hegot 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 andnecessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture,” gives us “know-ledge.” Justified truth is found only in the Word of God. Paul speaks tothis in 1 Timothy 6:3–5. According to the apostle, those who do notagree with the “wholesome” words of Jesus Christ, “the doctrine whichis 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 coherencetheory of truth avers that whenever a person knows the truth, he knowsthat which exists in the mind of God; he does not have a mere represen-tation of the truth (as in the correspondence theory of truth); a repre-sentation of the truth is not the truth.

In the Biblical view, a proposition is true because God thinks it to betrue. And since God is omniscient (knowing all things), if man is going toknow the truth, he must know that which is in the mind of God. Thesame 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 bothpart of one system, a system in which all parts are in perfect accord, be-cause they are found in the mind of God.

MetaphysicsThe word “metaphysics” is derived from the Greek meta phusika,

meaning “beyond physics.” As seen, metaphysics has to do with the the-ory of reality, not just the physical, but even that which transcends thephysical. Physical objects may appear to the senses in various ways, but


R. J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many (Fairfax, Vir.: Thoburn, 1978), 2n. 11

Francis A. Schaeffer, He is There and He is Not Silent (Wheaton: Tyndale,12

1972), 31–67, 14.

the metaphysician is concerned with what the object truly is. Metaphysicsis a study of ultimates.

In the history of non-Christian thought, metaphysicians have usuallyfallen into one of two camps: monists and pluralists (or atomists). Theformer aver that all things are forms of one substance or essence, where-as the latter maintain that all things are forms of several substances oressences. Some monists are materialists (Thales, Heraclitus), and othersare idealists or spiritualists (Parmenides). Then too, some pluralists arematerialists (Democritus, Epicurus, Empedocles), while others are ideal-ists (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 questionof “the one and the many.” How can there be so many diverse things inthe world, while there also seems to be a basic unity? Amidst much com-plexity, how is there still simplicity? Which is the basic fact of life, unityor 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 otherhand, the answer is “the many,” then the individual and particulars havepriority. If “the one” is ultimate, then the particulars are degraded. If “themany” is ultimate, then the reverse is true. 1

1

According to Francis Schaeffer, this question has plagued non-Christian thinkers throughout the history of philosophy. Plato empha-sized the universals and Aristotle the particulars. Aquinas (at leastimplicitly) separated the two in his errant theory of nature (particulars)and grace (universals). Kant and Hegel both attempted to synthesize theone and the many problem by means of reason apart from revelation.Kierkegaard concluded that the answer can only be found in a leap offaith into the realm of universals. Linguistic Analysis philosophers assertthat only a perfect language can bring about the desired unity. But allnon-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. SaysSchaeffer, “without the high order of personal unity and diversity as givenin the Trinity, there are no answers.” 1

2


See Richard E. Bacon, “Two Essays,” a review of Lord God of Truth, by Gor-13

don H. Clark, and Concerning the Teacher, by Aurelius Augustine (Unicoi, Tenn.:

Trinity Foundation, 1994), in The Blue Banner (March / April, 1995), 13–15.

See Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man (Grand Rapids:14

Zondervan, 1982), chs. 6 and 8.

God is “one” in essence, yet three (“many”) distinct persons. He is theeternal “One and Many.” As sovereign God, He created all of the manythings in the universe, and He gives them a unified structure. The uni-verse, then, is the temporal “one and many.” Thus, the particular thingsof the universe act in accordance with the universal dictates of the triuneGod (Psalm 147:15–18). There is order in the universe because there is asovereign God who created and providentially controls it.

Augustine asserted that the one and many problem finds its solutionin that the particulars of this world have their archetypes in the mind ofGod. Augustine called these archetypes the “eternal reasons.” God’seternal reasons are the architectural plans from which He created theworld. The world is patterned after the divine propositions of the triuneGod. Therefore, there is unity amongst diversity. 1

3

Augustine went on to teach that Jesus Christ, the eternal Logos ofGod, is the one who gives us a coherence between the infinite and thefinite, the Creator and the creation. In other words, it is Christ who re-veals the solution to the one and many problem. Apart from a properunderstanding of Logos theology (i.e., Christ as the eternal Word whocame 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 Godof Scripture is the Creator and Sustainer of all things. As taught in theWestminster 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 Godis the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, the world is neither a brutefact, nor a purposeless machine. There is order, meaning, and purpose inthe universe because it is the purposeful work of the Master Craftsman.


And this order, meaning, and purpose is found in the covenant that Godhas entered into with His creation (Genesis 1; 2:15–17; 3:15; 9:9–17;Jeremiah 33:19–26). It is “in Him [that] we live and move and have ourbeing” (Acts 17:28).

EthicsEven 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 onmankind. It has to do with what one “ought” to do. Ethics is a matter ofauthority. Morals, on the other hand, describe the behavior patterns ofindividuals and societies, i.e., what people do. One’s ethics should deter-mine his morals.

Christian ethics depends on revelation. Christianity maintains thatthere is only one ethical standard for mankind, and that is the law of God.As stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (19:5): God’s “moral lawdoes for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to theobedience thereof.” And sin is properly defined, as per the WestminsterShorter Catechism (Q 14), as “any want of conformity unto, or transgres-sion of the law of God.” If there were no law of God, then there would beno sin. Our moral conduct, then, is to be guided by the ethical standardof the Word of God. Again to cite the Confession (16:1): “Good works areonly 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, orupon any pretense of good intention.”

Behind the validity of the moral law of God, is, of course, the author-ity of the God who gives us the law. The prologue of the Ten Command-ments is: “I am the Lord.” Theology and not ethics is primary. Thedistinction between right or wrong is entirely dependent upon the com-mandments of God, because He is “the Lord.” And the Christian systemof ethics is based on the very nature of God Himself. “You shall be holyfor I [God] am holy” (Leviticus 11:44; 1 Peter 1:16).

All non-Christian ethics (and morals) are perversions of the only truestandard. As Paul points out in the first two chapters of his epistle to theRomans, 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. Unregen-erate man is now unable to do anything that pleases God (Romans


R. C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1983), Part Four.15

Pelagius was a fourth century British monk who propagated this system of16

legalism. His teachings were staunchly opposed by Augustine.

3:9–18; 8:7–8). His ethical standard is autonomous; it has no eternalreference point. Non-Christian man is on the horns of a dilemma: he isseeking to build an ethical system without a divine, eternal authoritybehind it. In the words of Christ, fallen man is on sinking sand (Matthew7:26–27).

The Scriptures are clear on this matter. There is a noticeable linkbetween non-Christian worldviews and the practice of those who adhereto them. Psalm 14 states the matter plainly. It is “the fool who has saidin his heart [that] there is no God” (verse 1a) And, as the Psalmist goes onto say, it is because of this denial of God that “they are corrupt, they havedone abominable works, there is none who does good” (verse 1b). Paulteaches the same thing in Romans 3. In verses 10–17, he gives us a cata-logue of the sins which infect the unregenerate. Then in verse 18, hesums up the indictment by saying that “there is no fear of God beforetheir 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. Sproulnotes that there are presently at least eighty different theories of ethicswhich are competing for acceptance. Perhaps the two that have had themost (negative) impact on Christianity are legalism and antinomianism,both of which are on what Jesus referred to as “the broad way that leadsto destruction” (Matthew 7:13–14). 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 con-formity to a standard of law, a standard which is always, in one way oranother, a man-made law. As Paul writes, men, “seeking to establish theirown righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God”(Romans 10:3). This form of legalism was adopted by the Pharisees ofJesus’ day (Matthew 15:1–9; 23:1–39). It is also the error of Pelagianism. 1

6

Equally false and dangerous is the semi-Pelagian teaching of the RomanCatholic Church, that justification is a co-mixture of grace and works.

Sometimes, in a less severe fashion, legalism comes in the form ofnon-biblical lists of “do’s” and “don’ts.” Other times it is found in meretradition. But it is always humanistic in origin. Man’s law is set in oppo-sition to the law of God.


Legalism asserts, with Protagoras, that “man is the measure” of allthings. But if man is the measure of all things, then what I believe is everybit as true as what you believe. We are both correct. So if I believe thatyou are wrong, then you are necessarily wrong. And if you believe that Iam wrong, then I am necessarily wrong. Hence, we are both right andwrong at the same time, which is a contradiction. And, as we have seen,that which is contradictory is inescapably erroneous. Jesus speaks againstlegalism in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. And Paul condemns it in the book ofGalatians.

Antinomianism (“anti-lawism”) takes several forms: libertinism,gnostic spiritualism, and situation ethics. Libertinism, in one way oranother, denies that the moral law of God is binding on mankind today.Sadly, it has found its way into the (pseudo) church. This view isprevalent in Dispensational circles, where Paul’s statement in Romans6:14 is frequently stated to make the point that in the New Testamentage Christians are no longer under law, but under grace: “For sin shall nothave 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 West-minster Confession of Faith, that although the ceremonial laws given tothe nation of Israel, “as a church under age,” “are now abrogated,”nevertheless, the Ten Commandments, and “the general equity” ofIsrael’s judicial laws, do continue “for ever to bind all, as well justifiedpersons as others, to the obedience thereof,” and that “neither doesChrist in the Gospel [New Testament age] any way dissolve, but muchstrengthens this obligation.” That is to say, as the Confession goes on tosay (citing Romans 6:14 as a proof text), that “although true believers benot under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified orcondemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, asa 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, theapostle Paul is not denying that Christians are obligated to obey the lawof God; rather, he is teaching that they are no longer under the law as acurse (confirm Galatians 3:10–13). Further, he makes this clear in anearlier passage in the same epistle, where he writes: “Do we then makevoid the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establishthe law” (Romans 3:31).

Gnostic spiritualism, often found in Charismatic and Pentecostalchurches, elevates feelings and mystical experiences above the law ofGod. Those who are “in the know” claim a superior source of knowledge.


The mandates of Scripture should be set aside, it is alleged, when suchan experience occurs. The Spirit of God, say the Gnostics, guides themapart 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” (John16:13). But He does so by means of Scripture, not apart from it (John16:13–15; 1 Corinthians 2:10–16). It is the Scripture, writes Paul, notmystical experiences, that thoroughly equips the church “for every goodwork” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). Further, writes Solomon: “He who trusts inhis own heart [feelings] is a fool” (Proverbs 28:26).

Situation ethics, or the “new morality,” is a construct which deniesthat there are any absolute truths. Rather, “the law of love” is to dictateone’s ethics in each specific situation. That is, love always “trumps” law,and makes the action correct. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Emil Brunner, theMarquis de Sade, and Bishop J. A. T. Robinson, to name just a few, arenotable proponents of this system. Joseph Fletcher, however, is perhapsthe major popularizer of situation ethics.

As noted, in situation ethics, the only absolute, if it may be calledthat, is “the law of love.” But it is a “law” defined by Fletcher, not by theWord of God. Whereas “love,” from a Biblical standpoint, is objective innature — defined by Jesus as “keep[ing] My commandments” (John14:15), and by Paul as “the fulfillment of the law [of God]” (Romans 13:10)— to Fletcher and the situation ethicists, it is merely personal andsubjective. The “situation” dictates; there is no norm, no absolute stan-dard by which all is to be judged. Situation ethics is in contradistinctionto Christian ethics, where love is manifested in living life in obedience tothe law of God: “This is love, that we walk according to His [God’s] com-mandments” (2 John 6).

All non-Christian ethical systems are bankrupt. They have no eternalstandard upon which to stand. They have no basis from which to makeassertions. Having rejected divine revelation, these systems provide nocertain ground for any moral laws (Matthew 7:26–27). The Preacher(qoheleth) of Ecclesiastes summarizes man’s ethical obligation when hewrites: “Let us hear the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep Hiscommandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bringevery work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether it isgood or whether it is evil” (12:13–14).


For a further study of the doctrine of the church, see W. Gary Crampton17

and Richard E. Bacon, Built Upon The Rock (Dallas: Blue Banner Ministries, 1999).

Augustine, City of God 19:13–15. 18

PoliticsThe Christian worldview maintains that there are three main Biblical

institutions ordained by God: the family, the church, and the civil magi-stracy (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 toauthority. All three are governed by Scripture. The family is the primaryBiblical institution. It was the first one established (Genesis 1–2), and, ina sense, the other two institutions are founded upon the family.

The second Biblical institution is the church. Theologians disting-17

uish between the visible and the invisible church. The former, accordingto the Confession (25:1), “consists of all those throughout the world whoprofess the true religion, and of their children.” The invisible church, onthe other hand, comprises the true saints (the elect) of all time, eventhose not yet born. Teaches the Confession (25:1): “The catholic or uni-versal church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of theelect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ theHead thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fillsall in all.”

The third Biblical institution, which is the focus of our study, is thecivil magistracy. The difference between this institution and the othertwo is that it is, in the words of Augustine, a “necessary evil.” That is,18

the civil magistracy is itself made necessary due to the Fall. Because themajor purpose of the state is to punish evil doers (Romans 13:1–7; 1Peter 2:13–17). And for this purpose the state is “God’s minister”(Romans 13:4, 6). As taught in the Confession (23:1): “God, the supremeLord 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 defenseand encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment ofevil doers.”

Two major errors have developed in the history of the church-staterelationship: Papalism and Erastianism. The former avers that the church(namely, the pope) is to rule both church and state. The latter maintainsthat both institutions are to be under the headship of the civil magistrate.


John W. Robbins, “The Ethics and Economics of Health Care,” Journal of Bib-19

lical Ethics in Medicine, 8:2 (1994): 23–24. 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.

The Biblical view avoids both errors, and teaches that both the churchand 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, itis certainly a fair statement that any attempt to base a theory of the civilmagistrate on secular axioms, rather than on Scripture, will logically re-sult in either anarchy or totalitarianism. Surely, this has been the casethrough the centuries of time.

In Proverbs 14:34, we read: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin isa reproach to any people.” What constitutes the righteousness that exaltsa nation? How is righteousness defined? First, the triune God of Scriptureis righteous: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His [God’s]throne” (Psalm 97:2). And, writes the Psalmist, so is God’s Word: “Therighteousness of Your testimonies is everlasting . . . . For all Your com-mandments are righteous” (Psalm 119:144, 172). The apostle Paul, inagreement with the Old Testament, writes: God’s law is “holy and justand good” (Romans 7:12).

It would seem, then, that a nation is considered righteous when itseeks to honor the God of Scripture by applying His righteous standard(i.e., His Word) to every facet of the nation’s interests. This is theteaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith (19:2, 5), which statesthat God’s law is a “perfect rule of righteousness,” which does “for everbind all, as well justified persons as others [to include nations], to theobedience thereof.”

Turning away from God’s law as the infallible standard of the nation,on the other hand, constitutes the “sin [which] is a reproach to anypeople.” This is confirmed in Proverbs 29:18, where we read: “Wherethere is no vision [Biblical revelation], the people perish, but happy is hewho keeps the law.”

The present writers agree with John Robbins, that according to theScriptures, there are at least seven basic values which are essential for anation to be considered righteous: 19

First: A Recognition of the Sovereignty of God. God’s sovereignty isuniversal: “The Lord has established His throne in heaven, and His


kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:19); “Our God is in heaven, He doeswhatever He pleases” (Psalm 115:3). As stated in the Confession (5:1):“God, the great Creator of all things, does uphold, direct, dispose, andgovern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to theleast, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallibleforeknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will.”

Regarding national matters, writes Dr. Robbins, the recognition of thesovereignty of God “means that God, not the state, society, race, orchurch is the source of security.” Says the Psalmist: “It is better to trustin the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lordthan to put confidence in princes [magistrates]” (118:8–9); “Vain is thehelp of man. Through God we will do valiantly, for it is He who will treaddown our enemies” (60:11–12). When the people of a nation look to thecivil magistrate, or to the church (as in Roman Catholicism), rather thanto God, to meet their needs, they have denied the sovereignty of God.

Second: Limited Government. The fact that God is sovereignnecessitates limiting the power and authority of all human institutions.In a Biblical society, the civil government would not have the authorityto regulate banking practices, to impose taxes over ten percent, to runthe postal department, to redistribute property, to make zoning laws, tobuy and sell real estate, to borrow money, and so forth. In Romans 13and 1 Peter 2, we read that the authority of the magistrate is limited tothat 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 magistratesto 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 thedefense and encouragement of them that are good, and for thepunishment of evil doers.”

Third: The Primacy of the Individual. The Reformation stressed thisprinciple. It is likewise rooted in the teaching of the Westminster Confes-sion’s doctrine of individual election (chapter 3), individual calling orregeneration (chapter 10), individual justification (chapter 11), individualadoption (chapter 12), individual sanctification (chapter 13), and indivi-dual glorification (chapters 32–33).

The primacy of the individual in no way denies that God has from alleternity entered into a covenant with His elect people (chapter 7), whichis the church of Jesus Christ (chapter 25), and is a communion of saints(chapter 26). But God fulfills His covenant historically through thesalvation of individual saints. Every man, woman, and child is individually


Interestingly, the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United20

States of America (the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”) was based on

1 Samuel 13:19–22.

responsible unto God. One’s blood line does not save him: “But as manyas received Him [Christ], to them He gave the authority to becomechildren 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 ofGod” (John 1:12–13).

The numerous individual freedoms and protections that citizens ofa nation should enjoy, are derived from this doctrine: freedom of religion,freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and so forth. Also derived fromthis doctrine is individual responsibility within society. No able-bodiedperson should be “on the government dole.” The state should not beinvolved in welfare. In the words of Paul: “If anyone will not work, neithershall he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Further, God has revealed specificnon-governmental approaches to poverty relief (i.e., the family, thechurch). Government opposes God when it opposes His revelation.

Fourth: The Right to Private Property. Two of the Ten Command-ments, at least implicitly, teach the right to private property: “You shallnot steal; [and] you shall not covet” (Exodus 20:15,17). If all propertywere 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 wisheswith his own possessions (verse 15). Then there is the Biblical teachingon Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kings 21, where we are taught that the civil ma-gistrate is forbidden to expropriate private property. This considerationmakes “eminent domain” laws for “public projects” nothing other thanungodly intrusions.

Included in the right to private property is the Biblical right to beararms. In Exodus 22:1–2 and 1 Samuel 13:19–22, for example, we readthat individual citizens have the Biblical right to defend themselves,implicitly teaching that they have a right “to keep and bear arms.” And20

in Luke 22:36, Jesus explicitly tells His disciples to go out and “buy asword.” In fact, teaches Jesus, it is so important that a man be able todefend himself, that, if necessary, he should “sell his garment” to securethe weapon.

Fifth: The Protestant Work Ethic. This principle is rooted in theFourth Commandment: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work”


(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 (Genesis2:15). In Proverbs 14:23 we read that “in all labor there is profit.” Man isto work for a living. As Robbins says: “What Max Weber called theProtestant work ethic is itself a bundle of economic virtues: Honesty,punctuality, diligence, obedience to the Fourth Commandment – ‘six daysyou shall labor,’ obedience to the Eighth Commandment — ‘you shall notsteal,’ and obedience to the Tenth Commandment — ‘you shall notcovet.’ A recognition of the significance of productive work grew out ofthe Bible and the Reformation.”

The Protestant work ethic also includes a proper understanding ofthe Sabbath principle. Man is to work six days a week, but he is to realizethat “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shalldo no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant,nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is withinyour gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, thesea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore, theLord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:10–11).

Sixth: The Rule of Law. According to chapter 19 of the Confession, arighteous nation must establish legal principles which are founded uponthe Ten Commandments and the “general equity” of the Judicial lawswhich God gave to Israel. All substantive law is to be founded on theteaching of Scripture. It is also mandatory that the settled laws of thenation be applicable to all persons, including leaders. No one within thenation is above the law. This is the Puritan principle of lex rex (“the lawis king”), rather than rex lex (“the king is law”).

William Symington sums up the obligation of the nations to adoptthe 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 con-

sulting its interests, solely by the light of nature . . . .The truth is, that


William Symington, Messiah the Prince (Edmonton: Still Waters Revival,21

1990), 234–35.

Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer (Westchester;22

Crossway Books, 1982), 4:27.

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

God’s 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 reli-

gious 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. 21

Seventh: Republicanism. Modeled on the Presbyterian form of churchgovernment, a Biblical nation is to be a republic, not a monarchy or de-mocracy. God warned Israel against a monarchy in 1 Samuel 8. Amongother things, said the Lord, the monarch would use compulsory labor,establish bureaucracies, establish a standing army, impose excessivetaxes, and nationalize the means of production. In a monarchy, the voiceof the king is as the voice of God.

A democratic society, on the other hand, is one based on majorityrule. It is law by majority opinion, what Schaeffer refers to as “the dicta-torship of 51%, with no controls and nothing with which to challenge themajority.” When a nation is governed by the majority, the voice of the22

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 establishedlaws. A Christian republic is to be governed by constitutional and Biblical


law, and administered by representatives elected by the people. There isto be a division of powers and separation of powers, so that no govern-ment or branch of government has a monopoly of jurisdiction. As Dr.Robbins writes, a republican form of government “is designed to frag-ment political power so that it cannot threaten the lives, liberties, andproperty” of the citizens.

Interestingly, Isaiah 33:22 was an important verse in the founding ofthe United States of America. Outlined in this verse are the three bran-ches of government: judicial, legislative, and executive: “For the Lord isour Judge [judicial], the Lord is our Lawgiver [legislative], the Lord is ourKing [executive]; He will save us.”

These seven values are foundational to any society that would berighteous. They are foundational because they are based upon the infalli-ble, inerrant Word of God. If these are abandoned or subverted, themoral power and authority of a nation will be lost. “Righteousness exaltsa nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).

ConclusionChristianity is a complete philosophical system that is founded upon

the axiomatic starting point of the Bible as the Word of God. As theWestminster Confession (1:6) teaches: “The whole counsel of God con-cerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, andlife, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessaryconsequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at anytime is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or tradi-tions of men.” Therefore, the whole Christian system proceeds from thesingle axiom, that the Bible alone is the Word of God, and thereforeauthoritative, to thousands of theorems.

In this system, each of the parts we have studied — epistemology,metaphysics, ethics, and politics — is important. And the ideas foundtherein are all arranged in a logical system, with each part mutuallyreinforcing the others. If the reader is concerned about following thedictates of Scripture, by having his mind transformed by the teachings ofScripture (Romans 12:1–2), and bringing all thoughts into captivity to theobedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5), then he must learn to think asthe Logos of God Himself thinks: logically and systematically. This accom-plished, the reader will have learned the only viable philosophy, a philo-


John W. Robbins, What is Christian Philosophy? (Trinity Foundation, 1994),23

7.

sophy “according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8), which is founded upon theWord of God. 2

3

Thomas B. Warren, Have Atheists Proved There is No God? (Nashville: Gospel1

Advocate, 1972), vii.

Ronald H. Nash, Faith & Reason (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 177. 2

Chapter 3

A BIBLICAL THEODICY

According to 1 Peter 3:15, it is the responsibility of the Christian the-ist to defend the Christian worldview against the many challengesbrought against it. Writes Peter: “But sanctify the Lord God in yourhearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks youa reason for the hope that is in you.” Certainly, one of the most seriouschallenges has to do with the problem of evil. Thomas Warren, forexample, writes that “it is likely the case that no charge has been madewith a greater frequency or with more telling force against theism ofJudeo-Christian (Biblical) Christian tradition” than the complication of theexistence of evil. Ronald Nash agrees; he states that “the most serious1

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 andevil. The prophet Habakkuk complained: “You [God] are of purer eyesthan to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness. Why do You look onthose who deal treacherously, and hold Your tongue when the wickeddevours one more righteous than he?” (Habakkuk 1:13). And Gideoncontemplated: “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 omnibe-nevolent, has eternally decreed all that ever comes to pass, and if Hesovereignly and providentially controls all things in His created universe,how is He not the author of evil? How can evil exist in the world? Howdo we justify the actions of God in the midst of evil, suffering, and pain?This is the question of “theodicy.” The word, which was supposedlycoined by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, is derived from twoGreek words (theos “God” and dike “justice”), and has to do with thejustification of the goodness and righteousness of God in light of the evilin the world.

34 Ch. 3: A Biblical Theodicy

Gordon H. Clark, God and Evil: The Problem Solved (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity3

Foundation, 1996), 7. In the opinions of the present authors, this is the best book

ever written on the subject of theodicy.

As we will see, the problem of evil is not nearly the problem it ismade out to be. In fact, as Gordon Clark says, “whereas various otherviews [philosophies] disintegrate at this point, the system known asCalvinism and expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith offers asatisfactory and completely logical answer.” The answer, as we will see,3

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 theChristian Scientist Church, for one, simply denies that evil exists, i.e., itis illusory. Others, such as E. S. Brightman and Rabbi Harold Kushner, optfor a finite god, who is limited in power. Hence, he cannot be blamed forthe existence of evil in the world.

Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, on the other hand, posit some formof ultimate dualism. Good and evil co-exist independently, thus accoun-ting for the mixture of good and evil in the world. Aristotle conceived ofgod as the Unmoved Mover, who was not really concerned about thethings of this world. This being so, the relation of Aristotle’s god to eviland the moral endeavors of men is inconsequential. Leibniz rational-istically contended that God was morally bound to create “the best of allpossible worlds.” Since there is evil in the world, God must have seenthat it was the best of all worlds to create.

These theories, of course, fall far short of a Biblical theodicy. Scrip-ture clearly teaches that sin is not illusory (Genesis 3). Further, the Godof Scripture is no finite deity. He is the ex nihilo Creator and Sustainer ofheaven and earth (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:1–3), who is very muchconcerned with His universe (Psalm 104) and the moral affairs of men(Exodus 20:1–17). Moreover, the God of Scripture brooks no competition(Job 33:13; Psalm 115:3), so that there can be no form of ultimate dual-ism.

Leibniz is also in error. He speaks of God’s moral responsibility tocreate the best out of a number of possible worlds, each of which is moreor less good. Leibniz has things in reverse. God did not choose this worldbecause it was the best. It was the best because He chose it. Calvinclearly understood this principle. He writes:


Calvin, Institutes 3:23:2. 4

Clark, God and Evil, 9. 5

For God’s 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 some-

thing greater and higher than God’s will, which cannot be found. 4

Likewise, Leibniz’s view tends to eliminate man’s responsibility forsin by representing sin as little more than a misfortune that has befallenhim. Again, the Bible is very clear that man is responsible for his sin. InDavid’s 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 inthe chain leading to his sinful actions. David, under the inspiration of theHoly Spirit, places the blame squarely upon the immediate cause: himself.

The great Christian philosopher, Augustine, also pondered thetheodicy issue. He taught that since God created all things good, evil can-not have a separate or independent existence. Evil is the absence ofgood, as darkness is the absence of light. Evil is parasitic, in that is can-not exist apart from good.

This being so, said Augustine, evil cannot be the efficient cause ofsin; rather, it is a deficient cause in man. Evil is the result of man’s turn-ing away from the good commands of God, to seek a lesser good: the willof 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 abolishsin and guarantee that men always choose the highest good.” 5

Arminianism, an ostensible Christian system, also fails to give us aBiblical theodicy. Arminian theologians attribute the problem of evil tothe free will of man. In his freedom, Adam chose to sin, apart from God’swill. Adam had a “liberty of indifference” to the will of God. God merelypermitted man to sin.

The idea of God’s merely permitting man to sin, however, is whollyunbiblical, and does not give us a solution. God permitted Satan to afflictJob (Job 1–2). But because this permission was necessary prior to theaffliction, God is hardly exonerated. If He could have prevented Job’s trial,and yet willingly approved it, how can God be considered as less repre-hensible than if He decreed it. This notion of permission and free willcannot exist with the omnipotence of God.


Neither is the Arminian view of free will compatible with God’s omni-science, because omniscience renders the future certain. If God fore-knows all things, then of necessity they will come to pass; otherwise,they could not have been “foreknown.” God foreknew, even foreor-dained, the crucifixion of His Son by the hands of sinful men. Yet,Scripture tells us that the godless men who carried out the crucifixion areheld responsible for their actions (Acts 2:22–23; 4:27–28). Could theyhave done differently? Could Judas Iscariot not have betrayed JesusChrist? To ask these questions is to answer them; of course not! TheBible 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,Arminianism’s attempted refuge in free will is both futile and false; forthe Bible consistently denies the Arminians’ view of free will.

Reformed theology does not disavow the fact that Adam (and all menafter him) had a “free will” in the sense of “free moral agency.” All menhave freedom of choice in this sense of the term. Men of necessitychoose 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 ofindifference.” His freedom to choose is always governed by factors: hisown intellections, habits, and so forth. Of course, all choices are subjectto the eternal decrees of God.

As mentioned, this is not only true of man after the Fall. It was alsotrue of Adam prior to Genesis 3. The major difference is that post-fallman, who still maintains his free moral agency, has lost that which Adamoriginally possessed: the ability to choose what God requires. Fallen man,in his state of “total depravity,” always chooses to do that which hedesires, but his sin nature dictates that he always chooses evil (Romans3:9–18; 8:7–8; Ephesians 4:17–19). This “ability” to choose good is onlyrestored through regeneration (John 3:3–8; 2 Corinthians 3:17).

Man, then, is never indifferent in his willing to do anything. God hasdetermined all things that will ever come to pass. Yet, this does not un-dermine the responsibility of man. There is no disjunction here. TheWestminster 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


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.

God, says the Confession, is the sovereign first cause of all things,many of which occur through the free acts of men, which are secondcauses. The end which is decreed by God must never be separated fromthe means which He has also decreed, as second causes. And this is thereason, 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 conceptof “determinism.” The word determinism often carries with it an evil con-notation, but this should not be the case. In actuality, determinismexpresses a very Biblical and high view of God, and it gives us the onlyplausible theodicy. God determines or decrees every event of history andevery action of man.

Moreover, whatever God decrees is right simply because He decreesit. God can never err. God, says the Scripture, answers to no one: “Hedoes not give an accounting of any of His words” (Job 33:13). He is thelawgiver (Isaiah 33:22); man is under the law (sub lego). God is accountableto no one. He is ex lex (“above the law”). The Ten Commandments arebinding on man, not God. And the only precondition for responsibility isa lawgiver — in this case God. Thus man is necessarily responsible for hissin, and God is completely absolved of being the author of sin.

The determinism taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith is notthe same thing as fatalism. In fatalism, god, or the gods, or the Fates, de-termine all things, while man remains completely passive. Hence, mancannot logically be held responsible for his sinful actions. In Biblicaldeterminism, 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 determinedto occur.


Cited in Gordon H. Clark, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy (Unicoi,6

Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 1993), 113–14.

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 10. 7

But someone will ask: “Is not murder sin and contrary to the will ofGod? How can it be that God wills it? The answer is found in Deuter-onomy 29:29: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but thosethings which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, thatwe may do all the words of this law.” In this verse, Moses distinguishesbetween the decretive will of God (“secret things”) and the preceptivewill of God (“those things which are revealed”). God’s preceptive will isfound in Scripture. Therein we learn what God requires of man. God’sdecretive will, on the other hand, is the cause of every event. Man isresponsible for the preceptive will, not the decretive will. In the exampleused above, God from all eternity decreed Christ’s crucifixion (Revelation13:8), yet when it was carried out by the hands of sinful men (Acts2:22–23; 4:27–28), it was contrary to the moral law of God, i.e., God’spreceptive will.

Standing on the “rock foundation” of the Word of God as our axio-matic starting point (Matthew 7:24–25), the Christian theist has ananswer to the theodicy issue. God, who is altogether holy and who cando no wrong, sovereignly decrees evil things to take place for His owngood purposes (see Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6). And just because He hasdecreed 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 so-

vereign 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 workingfor 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 theworld militates against the existence of the Christian God. Hume arguesas follows: First, an omnibenevolent deity will prevent evil from occur-7

ring. Second, an omniscient, omnipotent deity is able to prevent evil.Third, evil exists in the world. Fourth, therefore, either God is not omni-benevolent, or He is not omniscient or omnipotent.


The problem with Hume’s argument is his starting point. His firstpremise is false, therefore, his conclusion is invalid. The Christian theistwould counter with the following argument: First, the omnibenevolentGod of Scripture will prevent all evil, unless He, as all wise, has a purposefor its existence. Second, the omniscient and omnipotent God of Scrip-ture is able to prevent all evil. Third, Scripture teaches us that evil existsin the world. Fourth, therefore, the omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipo-tent God of Scripture, in His wise plan for His creation, does have apurpose for the existence of evil. And ultimately it will accomplish Hisgood purpose.

It is all a matter of one’s starting point, his epistemic base. With theBible as the axiom, the existence of evil is not really the problem it ismade out to be. In fact, the existence of evil is far more problematic ina non-Christian worldview. Without an eternal reference point to tell uswhat is right and wrong, good and bad, how does one define evil? Whatmakes evil, evil? How do we know? The Christian has an answer to thesequestions, whereas the non-believer does not.

Chapter 4

FALSE PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS

From a Biblical standpoint, a false philosophical system is one thatteaches anything contrary to the Word of God. In Genesis 3 we learn whyfalse philosophical systems exist. It is due to sin and the Fall of man. Andin Romans 1, the apostle Paul elaborates on this. The full-orbed Gospelof Jesus Christ, says the apostle “is the power of God unto salvation.” Italone provides solutions to the problems of life; it alone answers life’squestions; it is the “salvation” of every area, every aspect, of life. For init is revealed “the righteousness of God . . . from faith to faith” (verses16–17).

But, writes Paul, fallen man has turned aside from God’s revelation.He inescapably knows the God of Scripture from general revelation, yethe suppresses, or holds in unrighteousness, the knowledge which hepossesses (verses 18–21). Man’s “reasoning” has become faulty (verse 21).Man’s philosophical problem stems from his “knowing” rebellion againstthe true God. And, having rejected God, he has chosen to serve thecreation, rather than the Creator (verses 22–25). The noetic effects of sinhave corrupted fallen man’s 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 makesthat to which it is affixed a worldview. John Calvin, for example, was asixteenth century Reformer, and a master theologian. “Calvinism,” on theother hand, is that system of thought (or worldview) adopted by thosewho adhere to the basic teachings of John Calvin, and which is best sum-marized in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shor-ter Catechisms. This system is frequently referred to as Reformed theolo-gy. Another example of an “ism” is “secular humanism.” According toScripture, “humans” (human beings) are persons created in the image ofGod (Genesis 1:26–28). “Secular humanism,” however, is a worldviewwhich makes man the measure of all things. It basically elevates man tothe 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 areover 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, tra-ditional Judaism, and Islam are all theistic worldviews.

Christianity is both monotheistic and trinitarian. As taught in theWestminster Shorter Catechism (Q 5–6): “There is but one only, the livingand true God . . . .[Further] there are three persons in the Godhead; theFather, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, thesame in substance [essence], equal in power and glory.” Herein lies oneof the major differences between Christianity and these other two the-istic systems. Whereas both traditional Judaism and Islam are monothe-istic, neither is trinitarian.

Two other major heresies within theistic systems are subordina-tionism (Arianism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism) and modalism(Sabellianism). Subordinationists teach that there is only one God: theFather. The Son and the Holy Spirit are lesser deities, if divine at all. Theyare not eternal beings; thus they are subordinated to the Father.

Modalism, on the other hand, avers that God is one in essence andone in person. “Son” and “Holy Spirit” are names used with “Father” todescribe the different roles, or “modes,” of God. When we speak of Godas Creator we call Him Father; when we speak of Him as Redeemer wecall Him Son; and when we refer to God as Illuminator and Regeneratorwe use the name Holy Spirit. But, according to this false theory, these aremerely names for the various roles or modes of the divine being.

AtheismAtheism 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, allthere 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 exis-tence of God, but which questions His knowability. An agnostic is skept-ical, 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


Confirm Ludwig Feuerbach, Lectures on the Essence of Religion (New York:1

Harper and Row, 1967), 17; where Feuerbach writes: “This doctrine of mine is

briefly as follows: Theology is anthropology.”

A consistent Darwinist would not call man a “creature,” because that would2

imply that man was created by a creator God.

R. C. Sproul, Lifeviews (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, 1986), 71. 3

The word atheistic is added in parentheses before existentialism because4

there is a form of existentialism referred to as “Christian existentialism,” which

is a contradiction of terms.

certain statement about that which he says we cannot be certain. Andsuch a statement is self-referentially absurd.

On the other end of the spectrum of atheism we have humanism ornaturalism (Karl Marx, Ludwig Feuerbach). This system of thought ispurely anthropocentric, wherein man, as the measure of all things, is vir-tually 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 classicstatement of Feuerbach that “a man is what he eats.” It is also noticeablein the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin. Evolutionism is a form ofhumanism which absolutizes the origin of the biotic aspect of the uni-verse. Man is purely a material being. Man does not have a mind (hethinks with his brain), and belief in life beyond the grave is pure super-stition.

In summarizing some of humanism’s central teachings, R. C. Sproulpoints 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] of supreme dignity. He lives his life between two poles2

of meaninglessness. He comes from nothing; he goes to nothing. His

origin is meaningless, his destiny is meaningless. Yet, somehow, be-

tween 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) existentialism. Existentialism4

teaches, as per the dictum of Jean-Paul Sartre, that “existence precedesessence.” 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 createsor produces the essence of man.


Soren Kierkegaard is considered by some to be a “Christian existentialist.”5

There are some scholars who consider him to be the father of existentialism.

Existentialism is closely related to pragmatism (where the endjustifies the means), relativism (where truth is relative), and secularism(with its accent on the temporal, the here and now). In elevating exis-tence above essence, men become their own masters; freedom reignssupreme. When Sartre describes man as a “useless passion,” we are tounderstand that in existentialism, men are not to be viewed so much interms 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 pre-sent 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 permis-sible.” Existentialism logically leads to either nihilism and utter despair(Friedrich Nietzsche) or to irrationalism (Soren Kierkegaard ). 5

DeismDeists (Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin), recognizing that there

is a need for a creator of the existing universe, maintain that there is agod who creates the world. But this god remains transcendent; he doesnot enter into the affairs of his creation. This god is not the immanentGod of Biblical Christianity. The god of Deism is similar to the “watch-maker,” 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; heis an absolute unity. It is not surprising, then, to learn that Unitarianismgrew out of Deism. A consistent Deist might praise his god, but he wouldnot pray to him. Because this god does not enter into the everyday affairsof men. In Deism, there is no special revelation, there is only generalrevelation. Any system of ethics in Deism, then, must come from “naturallaw,” or that which is common in human nature. In a Deistic worldview,reason and science are the primary “tools” of life.

Finite TheismFinite theism, espoused by such men as E. S. Brightman, William

James, and Rabbi Harold Kushner, posits the existence of a finite god. He


is limited in his perfections or attributes. He may be omnibenevolent, buthe is certainly not omnipotent. Evil is one thing that limits god. We can-not, then, blame god for the existence of evil in the world, because eventhough this god would like to expunge evil from the world, he is simplynot able to do so. Kushner goes so far as to say that we must forgive godfor his limitations.

Since the world operates under the rubric of natural law, say thefinite theists, ethical absolutes must not be posited. Neither are we tobelieve in miracles. Further, because there is no special revelation, wecannot be certain about the destiny of mankind. All we can say for certainis that “perhaps” there is life beyond the grave.

One form of finite theism is henotheism, which teaches that there aremany finite gods, one of whom is supreme. Sometimes henotheism hasone god per nation or ethnic group, such as Baal of the Canaanites, orDagon of the Philistines. Henotheism is a transitional stage betweenmonotheism and polytheism.

PantheismThe word pantheism is derived from two Greek words pan (all) and

theos (God) — all is God. In a pantheistic worldview (Hinduism, the “newage” movement), the world is god and god is the world; god is all and allis god. Pantheism stresses the immanence of god, while denying his tran-scendence. In this sense it is the opposite of Deism.

In general, pantheists are not so crass as to assert that everything isactually god. This would render the word “god” virtually meaningless; itwould be the same as saying “everything is everything.” What pantheistsnormally mean when they claim that “all is god,” is that god is manifestedin everything. The transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson, for example,said it this way: “When one is in touch with a flower, he is in touch withgod.”

Some pantheists teach that god is impersonal, and the worldemanates from him. And due to the fact that there is no special revela-tion, there are no ethical absolutes. It is alleged that man’s need is to beunited with god (which is self-contradictory since man is already, in somesense, identical with god). History is considered to be cyclical, and rein-carnation is therefore frequently posited, based on one’s karma. The onething that Pantheism and materialism have in common is that in neitherworldview is there anything or anyone “outside of” or “beyond” the uni-verse.


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, justas a soul is in a body; that is, god indwells the world. In this system godis not identical with the world (as in Pantheism). He is more than theworld and has an identity of his own, albeit, he is not transcendent. Infact, in Panentheism, god (who is personal) and the world (which is im-personal) are co-eternal and interdependent. God needs the world andthe world needs god.

Panentheists, such as Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne,and Schubert M. Ogden, teach that god is bipolar. There is a concrete orconsequent pole, in which god is spoken of as finite, dependent, andcontingent. But there is also an abstract pole, in which god is said to beinfinite, independent, and immutable. God is constantly in the “processof becoming,” or moving from the former pole to the latter. And sincegod and the world are co-eternal and interdependent, all things are inthis same process of becoming. History has no beginning and no end.Hence, the name “process philosophy,” or “process theology” is appliedto this worldview.

In Panentheism, man is a completely free moral agent. Thus, thereare no ethical absolutes. Man has no personal immortality; he merelylives in the memory of a constantly “becoming” god.

PolytheismPolytheism, sometimes found among the ancient Greeks, Egyptians,

and Persians, teaches that there are two or more finite gods which existin the universe, each with his own sphere of authority and activity. Thegods often have a direct influence on the affairs of human events (unlikeDeism). They may even appear to man in revelations, dreams, and visions.Some polytheists, such as the Mormons, teach that the various gods arein the process of changing; that is, there are degrees of perfection whichthey may be undergoing.

Unlike the Polytheism of the Mormons (which posits ethical stan-dards), in most polytheistic systems, there are usually no strict ethicalstandards. Normally, ethics are relative and localized to the authoritylevel of the gods. Yet, paradoxically, man may someday answer to thegods for how he has lived his life on this earth. In Mormonism, for exam-


ple, an exemplary man may even ascend to the level of deity and rule hisown universe.

ConclusionChristian theism is the only true worldview, or philosophy. Jesus

Christ, the Master Philosopher, makes it clear that He is “the way, thetruth, and the life” (John 14:6). There is no neutrality. One is either withChrist or against Him (Luke 11:23). There is no tertium quid, no thirdalternative. Christianity, then, is not a species, it is a genus. As taught inGenesis 3, all false worldviews are a result of the Fall. Due to the Fall manis estranged from the God of Scripture, giving rise to the many falseworldviews that have arisen throughout history. It is the job of the Chris-tian theist to defend the truth of Christian theism against all false world-views. Hopefully, this brief overview of some of the false “isms” thatexist, will be of some aid in this task.

Part IIISSUES 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 inChrist Jesus.” “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is pro-fitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in right-eousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equippedfor every good work.” The Bible tells us how we may know truth, whatreality is like, how we should think and act, and even what governmentsshould do. Philosophers usually call these studies (1) epistemology: thetheory of knowing; (2) metaphysics: the theory of reality; (3) ethics: thetheory of conduct; and (4) politics: the theory of government. The first ofthese, epistemology, is the most important, for it is the most basic.

Knowledge: The Bible Tells Me SoChristianity holds that knowledge is revealed by God. Christianity is

propositional truth revealed by God, propositions that have been writtenin the 66 books of the Bible. Divine revelation is the starting point ofChristianity, its axiom. The axiom, the first principle, of Christianity isthis: “The Bible alone is the Word of God.”

An axiom, by definition, is a beginning. Nothing comes before it; itis a first principle. All men and all philosophies have axioms; they all muststart their thinking somewhere. It is impossible to prove everything. Todemand proof for everything is an irrational demand. Christianity beginswith 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 some-thing that men discover on their own power. Just as men do not attainsalvation themselves, on their own power, but are saved by divine grace,so men do not gain knowledge on their own power, but receive know-ledge 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 inthe Bible. We can know their logical implications as well. The Westmin-ster Confession of Faith, written in the seventeenth century and one ofthe 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, man’s 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” iseither expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced from it. Every-thing 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 atany time. Only logical deduction from the propositions of Scripture ispermitted.

Logic: Thinking God’s Thoughts After HimThe principles of logic — reasoning by good and necessary conse-

quence — are contained in the Bible itself. Every word of the Bible, fromBereshith (“In the beginning”) in Genesis 1:1 to Amen in Revelation 22:21,exemplifies the fundamental law of logic, the law of contradiction. “In thebeginning” means in the beginning, not a hundred years or even onesecond after the beginning. “Amen” expresses agreement, not dissent.When God gave his name to Moses, “I am that I am,” he was stating thelogical law of identity. The laws of logic are embedded in every word ofScripture. Deductive reasoning is the principal tool of understanding theBible.

The Bible is our only source of truth. Neither science, nor history, norarchaeology, nor philosophy can furnish us with truth. A Christian musttake seriously Paul’s warning to the Colossians: “Beware lest anyonecheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradi-tion of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not ac-cording to Christ. For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godheadbodily, and you are complete in him.”

Salvation: Believe on the Lord Jesus ChristThe doctrine of salvation is a branch of the doctrine of knowledge.

The doctrine of salvation is not a branch of metaphysics, for men are notchanged into gods when they are saved; saved men, even in the perfec-


tion of Heaven, remain temporal and limited creatures. Only God is eter-nal; only God is omniscient; only God is omnipresent.

The doctrine of salvation is not a branch of ethics, for men are notsaved by doing good works. We are saved in spite of our works, not be-cause of them.

The doctrine of salvation is not a branch of politics, for the notionthat salvation, either temporal or eternal, can be achieved by politicalmeans is an illusion. Attempts to bring Heaven to Earth have broughtnothing but blood and death.

Salvation is through faith alone. Faith is belief of the truth revealedby God. Faith, the act of believing, is itself a gift of God. “For by gracehave you been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is thegift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

Peter says that we have received everything we need for life and god-liness through knowledge. James says we are regenerated by the word oftruth. Paul says we are justified through belief of the truth. Christ says weare sanctified by truth.

Just as we are regenerated by truth, and justified through belief ofthe truth, we are sanctified by truth as well.

Science: In Him, Not Matter, We LiveThose 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 fallacyof induction; induction, in fact, is a problem for all forms of empiricism(learning by experience). The problem is simply this: Induction, arguingfrom the particular to the general, is always a logical fallacy. No matterhow many crows, for example, you observe to be black, the conclusionthat all crows are black is never warranted. The reason is quite simple:Even assuming you have good eyesight, are not color blind, and areactually looking at crows, you have not, and cannot, see all crows. Mil-lions have already died. Millions more are on the opposite side of theplanet. Millions more will hatch after you die. Induction is always afallacy.

There is another fatal fallacy in science as well: the fallacy of assertingthe consequent. The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell put the matterthis way:


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 ofscience in the twentieth century, in an effort to defend science, devel-oped the notion that science does not rely on induction at all. Instead, itconsists of conjectures, experiments to test those conjectures, and refu-tations of conjectures. But in their attempts to save science from logicaldisgrace, the philosophers of science had to abandon any claim to know-ledge: Science is only conjectures and refutations of conjectures. KarlPopper, one of the twentieth century’s greatest philosophers of science,wrote:

First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we areconscious 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 Aris-totle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science,we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained thetruth. . . . Einstein declared that his theory was false : he said that itwould be a better approximation to the truth than Newton’s, but he gavereasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regardit as a true theory . . . . Our attempts to see and to find the truth are notfinal, but open to improvement: . . . our knowledge, our doctrine is con-jectural; . . . it consist of guesses, of hypotheses rather than of final andcertain truths.

Observation and science cannot furnish us with truth about theuniverse, let alone truth about God. The secular worldview, which beginsby denying God and divine revelation, cannot furnish us with knowledgeat all.

Ethics: We Ought to Obey God Rather Than MenThe Bible teaches that the distinction between right and wrong

depends entirely upon the commands of God. There is no natural law thatmakes actions right or wrong, and matters of right and wrong certainlycannot be decided by majority vote. In the words of the Westminster


Shorter Catechism, “sin is any want of conformity to or transgression ofthe law of God.” Were there no law of God, there would be no right orwrong.

This may be seen very clearly in God’s command to Adam not to eatthe fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Only the command ofGod made eating the fruit sin. It may also be seen in God’s command toAbraham to sacrifice Isaac. God’s command alone made the sacrificeright, and Abraham hastened to obey. Strange as it may sound to modernears 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 donot exist: Only God’s commands make some things right and other thingswrong. 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 ahuman being and eating pork right or wrong is not some quality inherentin men and pigs, but merely the divine command itself.

Human Rights: In the Image of God He Made ManIf we had rights because we are men — if our rights were natural and

inalienable — then God himself would have to respect them. But God issovereign. He is free to do with his creatures as he sees fit. So we do nothave natural rights. That is good, for natural and inalienable rights arelogically incompatible with punishment of any sort. Fines, for example,violate the inalienable right to property. Imprisonment violates theinalienable right to liberty. Execution violates the inalienable right to life.The natural right theory is logically incoherent at its foundation. Naturalrights are logically incompatible with justice. The Biblical idea is notnatural rights, but imputed rights. Only imputed rights, not intrinsicrights--natural and inalienable rights — are compatible with liberty andjustice. And those rights are imputed by God.

All attempts to base ethics on some foundation other than the Biblefail. Natural law is a failure, because “oughts” cannot be derived from“ises.” In more formal language, the conclusion of an argument can con-tain no terms that are not found in its premises. Natural lawyers, whobegin their arguments with statements about man and the universe,statements in the indicative mood, cannot end their arguments withstatements in the imperative mood.

The major ethical theory competing with natural law theory today isutilitarianism. Utilitarianism tells us that the moral action is one thatresults in the greatest good for the greatest number. It furnishes an


elaborate method for calculating the effects of choices. Unfortunately,utilitarianism is also a failure, for it not only commits the naturalisticfallacy of the natural lawyers, it requires a calculation that cannot be exe-cuted as well. We cannot know what is the greatest good for the greatestnumber.

The only logical basis for ethics is the revealed commands of God.They furnish us not only with the basic distinction between right andwrong, but with detailed instructions and practical examples of right andwrong. They actually assist us in living our daily lives. Secular attemptsto provide an ethical system fail on both counts.

Politics: Proclaim Liberty Throughout the LandChristian political philosophy is grounded squarely on divine reve-

lation, not on natural law, nor on majority rule, nor on the exercise ofmere force.

Attempts to base a theory of government on secular axioms result ineither anarchy or totalitarianism. Only Christianity, which grounds the le-gitimate 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 ofevildoers, as Paul put it in Romans 13. That is the only function of govern-ment that Paul mentions. Education, welfare, housing, parks, roads,retirement income, health care, or any of the other programs in whichgovernment is involved today are illegitimate. The fact that governmentis involved in all these activities is a primary reason why government isnot doing its own job well: The crime rate is rising, and the criminal jus-tice system is a growing threat to a free people. The innocent are pun-ished and the guilty remain unpunished.

The Bible teaches a distinctly limited role for government. TheBiblical goal is not a bureaucracy staffed by Christians, but no bureau-cracy. There should be no Christian Department of Education, no Chris-tian Housing Department, no Christian Agriculture Department — simplybecause there should be no Departments of Education, Housing, andAgriculture, period. We do not need and should oppose a ChristianBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or a Christian Internal RevenueService. Some so-called Christians are engaged in a pursuit of politicalpower that makes their activities almost indistinguishable from theactivities of the social gospelers in the early and mid-twentieth century.This sort of political action has nothing to do with Scripture.


The Philosophical SystemEach of the parts of this philosophical system — epistemology (know-

ledge), soteriology (salvation), metaphysics (reality), ethics (conduct), andpolitics (government) — is important, and the ideas gain strength frombeing arranged in a logical system. In such a system, where propositionsare logically dependent on and logically imply other propositions, eachpart mutually reinforces the others. Together they make an impregnablefortress that can withstand and defeat whatever other philosophies andreligions may say. Historically — though not in this decadent century —Christians have been criticized for being “too logical.” The criticism issilly. If we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, if we areto bring all our thoughts into conformity with Christ, we must learn tothink as Christ does, logically and systematically.

Christianity is a complete philosophical system that proceeds by rig-orous deduction from one axiom to thousands of theorems. It is a wholeview of things thought out together. It meets all non-Christian philo-sophies on every field of intellectual engagement. It offers a theory ofknowledge, a way to Heaven, a refutation of science, a theory of theworld, a coherent and practical system of ethics, and the principlesrequired for political liberty and justice. It is our hope and prayer thatChristianity will conquer the world in the next century. If it does not, ifthe church continues to decline in confusion and unbelief, at least a fewChristians can take refuge in the impregnable intellectual fortress thatGod has given us in his Word.

Editor’s note: “The Bible As Truth” was first published in Bibliotheca Sacra6

(April 1957) and reprinted in God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics (1995). The

Bible and its system of truth are still under attack today, even from so-called con-

servative theologians. The church needs to be brought back to its only authority

— the Bible, for the Bible alone is the Word of God.

Chapter 6

THE BIBLE AS TRUTH6

Gordon H. Clark, Ph.D.

In a game of chess a player can become so engrossed in a compli-cated situation that, after examining several possibilities and projectingeach one as far ahead as he is able, he finally sees a brilliant combinationby which he may possibly win a pawn in five moves, only to discover thatit would lose his queen. So, too, when theological investigations havebeen pursued through considerable time and in great detail, it is possibleto overlook the obvious. In the present state of the discussions on revel-ation, it is my opinion that what needs most to be said is somethingobvious and elementary. This paper, therefore, is a defense of the simplethesis that the Bible is true.

This thesis, however, does not derive its main motivation from anyattack on the historicity of the Bible narratives. The destructive criticismof the nineteenth century still has wide influence, but it has received amortal wound at the hand of twentieth-century archaeology. A new formof unbelief, though it may be forced to accept the Bible as an excep-tionally accurate account of ancient events, now denies on philosophicalgrounds that it is or could be a verbal revelation from God. So persuasiveare the new arguments, not only supported by impressive reasoning buteven making appeals to Scriptural principles, which every orthodoxbeliever would admit, that professedly conservative theologians haveaccepted them more or less and have thus betrayed or vitiated the thesisthat the Bible is true.

Because the discussion is philosophical rather than archaeological,and hence could be pursued to interminable lengths, some limits andsome omissions must be accepted. Theories of truth are notoriously intri-cate, and yet to avoid considering the nature of truth altogether is impos-

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 thesame type of truth as is claimed for ordinary statements, such as:Columbus discovered America, two plus two are four, and a falling bodyaccelerates at thirty-two feet per second per second. So far as themeaning of truth is concerned, the statement “Christ died for our sins”is on the same level as any ordinary, everyday assertion that happens tobe true. These are examples, of course, and do not constitute a definitionof truth. But embedded in the examples is the assumption that truth isa characteristic of propositions only. Nothing can be called true in theliteral sense of the term except the attribution of a predicate to a subject.There are undoubtedly figurative uses, and one may legitimately speakof a man as a true gentleman or a true scholar. There has also been dis-cussion as to which is the true church. But these uses, though legitimateare derivative and figurative. Now, the simple thesis of this paper is thatthe Bible is true in the literal sense of true. After a thorough under-standing of the literal meaning is acquired, the various figurative mean-ings may be investigated; but it would be foolish to begin with figures ofspeech before the literal meaning is known.

This thesis that the Bible is literally true does not imply that the Bibleis true literally. Figures of speech occur in the Bible, and they are not trueliterally. They are true figuratively. But they are literally true. Thestatements may be in figurative language, but when they are called truethe 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 speaka truth, but speaks so that no one could possibly hear, that truth wouldnot be a revelation. Hence the double thesis of this paper, double butstill elementary, is that the Bible — aside from questions and commands— consists of true statements that men can know. In fact, this is soelementary that it might appear incredible that any conservative theolo-gian would deny it. Yet there are some professed conservatives who denyit explicitly and others who, without denying it explicitly, undermine andvitiate it by other assertions. The first thing to be considered, then, willbe the reasons, supposedly derived from the Bible, for denying orvitiating human knowledge of its truths.


The Effect of Sin on Man’s KnowledgeThe doctrine of total depravity teaches that no part of human nature

escapes the devastation of sin, and among the passages on which thisdoctrine is based are some which describe the effects of sin on humanknowledge. For example, when Paul in 1 Timothy 4:2 says that certainapostates have their conscience seared with a hot iron, he must mean notonly that they commit wicked acts but also that they think wickedthoughts. Their ability to distinguish right from wrong is impaired, andthus they give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. Therefore,without in the least denying that sin has affected their volition, it mustbe asserted that sin has also affected their intellect. And though Paul hasin 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 conclu-sion 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 vainin their imaginations and whose foolish hearts were darkened; when theyno longer wanted to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them overto a reprobate mind. In Ephesians 4:17 Paul again refers to the vanity ofmind and the darkened understanding of the Gentiles, who are alienatedfrom the life of God through ignorance and blindness. That ignorance andblindness are not Gentile traits only but characterize the Jews also, andtherefore the human race as a whole, can be seen in summary condem-nation of all men in Romans 3:10–18, where Paul says that there is nonewho understands. And, of course, there are general statements in the OldTestament: “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperatelywicked” (Jeremiah 17:9).

These noetic effects of sin have been used to support the conclusionthat an unregenerate man cannot understand the meaning of any sen-tence in the Bible. From the assertion “there is none who understands,”it might seem to follow that when the Bible says, “David . . . took out astone . . . and struck the Philistine in his forehead,” an unbeliever couldnot know what the words mean.

The first representative of this type of view, to be discussed here, arecentered in the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary in Phila-delphia, Pennsylvania. Cornelius Van Til and some of his colleagues pre-pared and signed a document in which they repudiate a particularstatement of the unregenerate man’s epistemological ability. A certainprofessor, they complain, “makes no absolute qualitative distinctionbetween the knowledge of the unregenerate man and the knowledge of


the regenerate man” (The Text of a Complaint, page 10, column 2). Thisstatement not only implies that an unbeliever finds it less easy tounderstand that David smote the Philistine, but in asserting an absolutequalitative distinction between whatever knowledge he derives from thatstatement and the knowledge a regenerate man derives, the quotationalso suggests that the unregenerate man simply cannot understand pro-positions revealed to man.

In another paper, two of Van Til’s associates declare that it is “erro-neous” to hold that “regeneration . . . is not a change in the under-standing 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 isregenerated, his understanding of the proposition may undergo nochange at all [but] that an unregenerate man may put exactly the samemeaning on the words . . . as the regenerate man” (6). Since these are thepositions they repudiate, their view must be precisely the contradictory;namely, an unregenerate man can never put exactly the same meaning onthe words as a regenerate man, that regeneration necessarily and alwayschanges the meaning of the words a man knows, and that the unregen-erate and regenerate cannot possibly understand a sentence in the samesense. These gentlemen appeal to 2 Corinthians 4:3–6, where it is saidthat the Gospel is hidden to them that are lost, and to Matthew 13:3–23,where the multitudes hear the parable but do not understand it. Thesetwo passages from Scripture are supposed to prove that a Christian’s“understanding is never the same as that of the unregenerate man.”

As a brief reply, it may be noted that though the Gospel be hiddenfrom the lost, the passage does not state that the lost are completelyignorant and know nothing at all. Similarly, the multitudes understoodthe literal meaning of the parable, though neither they nor the disciplesunderstood what Christ was illustrating. Let us grant that the Holy Spiritby regeneration enlightens the mind and leads us gradually into moretruth, but the Scripture surely does not teach that the Philistines couldnot understand that David had killed Goliath. Such a view has not beencommon among Reformed writers; just one, however, will be cited as anexample. Abraham Kuyper, in his Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology (110–111), after specifying eight points at which we are subjected to errorbecause 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.


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 mis-

takes in reasoning.

In thus defending the epistemological ability of sinful man, Kuypermay have even underestimated the noetic effects of sin. Perhaps the hu-man consciousness is not always able to overcome the sluggishness andcorrect mistakes in reasoning. The point I wish to insist on is that this issometimes possible. An unregenerate man can know some true propo-sitions and can sometimes reason correctly.

To avoid doing an injustice to Van Til and his associates, it must bestated that sometimes they seem to make contradictory assertions. In thecourse of their papers, one can find a paragraph in which they seem toaccept the position they are attacking, and then they proceed with theattack. What can the explanation be except that they are confused andare attempting to combine two incompatible positions? The objection-able one is in substantial harmony with Existentialism or Neo-orthodoxy.But the discussion of the noetic effects of sin in the unregenerate mindneed not further be continued because a more serious matter usurpsattention. The Neo-orthodox influence seems to produce the result thateven the regenerate man cannot know the truth.

Man’s Epistemological LimitationsThat the regenerate man as well as the unregenerate is subject to

certain epistemological limitations, that these limitations are not alto-gether 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 statedor implied in a number of Scriptural passages. What these limitations arebears directly on any theory of revelation, for they may be so insignificantthat man is almost divine, or they may be so extensive that man canunderstand nothing about God. First, a few but not all of the Scripturalpassages used in this debate will be listed: “Can you search out the deepthings 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 ofhis years be discovered” (Job 36:26); “Such knowledge is too wonderfulfor me; it is high, I cannot attain it” (Psalm 139:6); “for my thoughts arenot your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways” (Isaiah 55:8–9); “Oh, thedepth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! Howunsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out! For who


has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become his counselor?”(Romans 11:33–34); “Even so no one knows the things of God except theSpirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:11).

These verses are simply samples, and many similar verses are easilyremembered. Several of them seem to say that it is impossible for manto know God. We cannot search him out; we know him not; I cannotattain this knowledge; God’s thoughts are not ours; no none knows themind of the Lord; and no one knows the things of God. It could easily beconcluded that man is totally ignorant and that no matter how diligentlyhe searches the Scripture, he will never get the least glimmering of God’sthought. Of course, in the very passage which says that no man knowsthe things of God, there is the strongest assertion that what the eye ofman has not seen and what the heart of man has never grasped has beenrevealed to us by God’s Spirit “that we might know the things that havebeen freely given to us by God.” It will not be surprising, therefore, ifsome attempts to expound the Biblical position are as confused actuallyas the Biblical material seems to be. With many statements of such theo-logians we all ought to agree; but other statements, misinterpreting theScripture in the interest of some esoteric view of truth, ought to berejected.

Man’s Knowledge in Relation to God’sThe professors above referred to assert, “there is a qualitative

difference between the contents of the knowledge of God and the con-tents of the knowledge possible to man” (The Text, 5:1). That there is amost important qualitative difference between the knowledge situationin the case of God and the knowledge situation for man cannot possiblybe denied without repudiating all Christian theism. God is omniscient; hisknowledge is not acquired, and his knowledge, according to commonterminology, is intuitive while man’s is discursive. These are some of thedifferences and doubtless the list could be extended. But if both God andman know, there must with the difference be at least one point of simi-larity; for if there were no point of similarity, it would be inappropriateto use the one term knowledge in both cases. Whether this point of simi-larity is to be found in the contents of knowledge, or whether thecontents differ, depends on what is meant by the term contents. There-fore, more specifically worded statements are needed.

The theory under discussion goes on to say: “We dare not maintainthat his knowledge and our knowledge coincide at any single point” (The


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 identifiescontent and meaning so that the content of God’s knowledge is not itsintuitive character, for example, but the meaning of the propositions,such as David killed Goliath. Twice it is denied that a proposition canmean the same thing for God and man, and to make it unmistakable theysay that God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge do not coincide at anysingle point. Here it will stand repetition to say that if there is not asingle point of coincidence, it is meaningless to use the single termknowledge for both God and man. Spinoza in attacking Christianity arguedthat the term intellect as applied to God and as applied to man was com-pletely equivocal, just as the term dog is applied to a four-legged animalthat barks and to the star in the sky. In such a case, therefore — if know-ledge be defined — either God knows and man cannot, or man knows andGod cannot. If there is not a single point of coincidence, God and mancannot have the same thing, namely, knowledge.

After these five professors had signed this cooperative pronounce-ment, 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 minda conception of eternity that is identical or that coincides with God’s ownthought of eternity” (A Committee for the Complainants, The Incompre-hensibility of God, 3). In this explanatory statement, it is asserted that thesame truth may and does occur in man’s mind and in God’s. This ofcourse means that there is at least one point of coincidence betweenGod’s knowledge and ours. But while they seem to retract their formerposition in one line, they reassert it in what follows. It seems that whenman says God is eternal, he cannot possibly have in mind what Godmeans when God asserts his own eternity. Presumably the concept eter-nity is an example standing for all concepts, so that the general positionwould be that no concept can be predicated of a subject by man in thesame sense in which it is predicated by God. But if a predicate does notmean the same thing to man as it does to God, then, if God’s meaning isthe correct one, it follows that man’s meaning is incorrect and he istherefore ignorant of the truth that is in God’s mind.

This denial of univocal predication is not peculiar to the professorsquoted, nor need it be considered particularly Neo-orthodox. Althoughthe approach is different, the same result is found in Thomas Aquinas.


This medieval scholar, whose philosophy has received the papal sanction,taught that no predicate can univocally be applied to God and createdbeings. Even the copula is cannot be used univocally in these two ref-erences. When therefore a man thinks that God is good or eternal oralmighty, he not only means something different from what God meansby good or eternal or almighty, but, worse (if anything can be worse) hemeans something different by saying that God is. Since as temporalcreatures we cannot know the eternal essence of God, we cannot knowwhat God means when he affirms his own existence. Between God’smeaning of existence and man’s meaning there is not a single point of co-incidence.

The Scholastics and Neo-scholastics try to disguise the skepticism ofthis position by arguing that although the predicates are not univocal,neither are they equivocal, but they are analogical. The five professorsalso assert that man’s “knowledge must be analogical to the knowledgeGod possesses” (The Text, 5:3). However, an appeal to analogy — thoughit may disguise — does not remove the skepticism. Ordinary analogiesare legitimate and useful, but they are so only because there is a univocalpoint of coincident meaning in the two parts. A paddle for a canoe maybe said to be analogical to the paddles of a paddle-wheel steamer; thecanoe paddle may be said to be analogous even to the screw propeller ofan ocean liner; but it is so because of a univocal element. These threethings — 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 screwpropeller is analogous to his canoe paddle, will have learned something.He may not have learned much about screw propellers and, comparedwith an engineer, he is almost completely ignorant–almost but not quite.He has some idea about propellers, and his idea may be literally true. Theengineer and the savage have one small item of knowledge in common.But without even one item in common, they could not both be said toknow. For both persons to know, the proposition must have the samemeaning 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 hedoes not have the truth. An analogy of the truth is not the truth; even ifman’s knowledge is not called an analogy of the truth but an analogicaltruth, the situation is no better. An analogical truth, except it contain aunivocal point of coincident meaning, simply is not the truth at all. Inparticular (and the most crushing reply of all) if the human mind were


limited to analogical truths, it could never know the univocal truth thatit was limited to analogies. Even if it were true that such was the case; hecould only have the analogy that his knowledge was analogical. Thistheory, therefore, whether found in Thomas Aquinas, Emil Brunner, orprofessed conservatives is unrelieved skepticism and is incompatible withthe acceptance of a divine revelation of truth. This unrelieved skepticismis clearly indicated in a statement made in a public gathering andreported in a letter dated March 1, 1948, to the Directors of CovenantHouse. The statement was made, questioned, and reaffirmed by one ofthe writers mentioned above that the human mind is incapable ofreceiving any truth; the mind of man never gets any truth at all. Suchskepticism must be completely repudiated if we wish to safeguard adoctrine of verbal revelation.

Truth Is Propositional Verbal revelation — with the idea that revelation means the

communication of truths, information, propositions — brings to lightanother factor in the discussion. The Bible is composed of words andsentences. Its declarative statements are propositions in the logical senseof the term. Furthermore, the knowledge that the Gentile possesses ofan original revelation can be stated in words: “Those who practice suchthings are worthy of death.” The work of the law written on the heartsof the Gentiles results in thoughts, accusations, and excuses which canbe and are expressed in words. The Bible nowhere suggests that thereare any inexpressible truths. To be sure, there are truths which God hasnot 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 weface the problem of equivocation. If there could be a truth inexpressiblein logical, grammatical form, the word truth as applied to it would haveno more in common with the usual meaning of truth than the Dog Starhas in common with Fido. It would be another case of one word withouta single point of coincidence between its two meanings.

The five professors, on the contrary, assert, “we may not safely con-clude that God’s knowledge is propositional in character.” And a doctoraldissertation of one of their students says: “It appears a tremendous as-sumption without warrant from Scripture and therefore fraught with dan-gerous speculation impinging upon the doctrine of God to aver that alltruth in the mind of God is capable of being expressed in propositions.”


To me, the tremendous assumption without warrant from Scripture isthat God is incapable of expressing the truth he knows. And that hisknowledge is a logical system seems required by three indisputable evi-dences: first, the information he has revealed is grammatical, proposi-tional, and logical; second, the Old Testament talks about the wisdom ofGod and in the New Testament Christ is designated as the Logos in whomare hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; and third, we aremade in the image of God, Christ being the light that lights every man.

Certainly, the burden of proof lies on those who deny the propo-sitional construction of truth. Their burden is twofold. Not only must theygive evidence for the existence of such truth, but first of all they mustmake clear what they mean by their words. It may be that the phrasenonpropositional truth is a phrase without meaning.

What I apprehend to be this confusion as to the nature of truth hasspread beyond the group criticized above. The thought of Edward J.Carnell would presumably not find favor with them, and yet on this pointhe seems to have adopted much the same position. Consider his argu-ment in A Philosophy of the Christian Religion (450–453). He begins by dis-tinguishing two species of truth: first, “the sum total of reality itself,” andsecond, “the systematic consistency or propositional correspondence toreality.” It is not irrelevant to the argument to consider the correspon-dence theory of truth, but it might lead to a discussion too extended forthe immediate purpose. Suffice it to say that if the mind has somethingwhich only corresponds to reality, it does not have reality; and if it knowsreality, 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 theyard are truly trees.” No doubt they are, but this does not convince onethat a tree is a truth. To say that the trees are truly trees is merely to putliterary emphasis on the proposition, the trees are trees. If one said thetrees are not truly trees, or, the trees are falsely trees, the meaningwould simply be, the trees are not trees. In such illustrations no truth isfound that is not propositional, and no evidence for two species of truthis provided. Carnell then describes a student taking an examination inethics. The student may know the answers, even though he himself is notmoral. But the student’s mother wants him not so much to know thetruth 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 meaningcan be attached to the phrase that the mother wants the son to be the


truth? Let it be that thinking is only preparatory to being moral, as Car-nell says, not what can be meant by being the truth; that is, what morecan be meant than being moral? The student could not be a tree. Itseems therefore that Carnell is using figurative language rather thanspeaking literally. He then refers to Christ’s 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 Christand the student are identified. But to avoid this identification, it isnecessary 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 ofwood. Christ also said, “This is my body.” Romanists think he spokeliterally; Presbyterians take the sentence figuratively. Similarly thestatement, “I am . . . the truth,” must be taken to mean, I am the sourceof truth; I am the wisdom and Logos of God; truths are established by myauthority. But this could not be said of the student, so that to call a stu-dent the truth is either extremely figurative or altogether devoid ofmeaning.

Carnell also says: “Since their systems [the systems of thought offinite minds] are never complete, however, propositional truth can neverpass beyond probability.” But if this is true, it itself is not true but onlyprobable. And if this is true, the propositions in the Bible, such as Davidkilled Goliath and Christ died for our sins, are only probable–they may befalse. And to hold that the Bible may be false is obviously inconsistentwith verbal revelation. Conversely, therefore, it must be maintained thatwhatever great ignorance may characterize the systems of humanthought, such ignorance of many truths does not alter the few truths themind possesses. There are many truths of mathematics, astronomy,Greek grammar, and Biblical theology that I do not know; but if I knowanything at all, and especially if God has given me just one item of infor-mation, my extensive ignorance will have no effect on that one truth.Otherwise, we are all engulfed in a skepticism that makes argumentationa waste of time.

In the twentieth century it is not Thomas Aquinas but Karl Barth, EmilBrunner, the Neo-orthodox, and Existentialists who are the source of thisskepticism 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 [hin-

weisend]. . . . Therefore because he [Jesus] is the Word of God, all words


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 sym-bols but the conceptual content itself is not what God really wills to giveus — is disguised in pious phrases about a personal truth, or Du-Wahr-heit, distinct from the subject-predicate relation called Es-Wahrheit. Godcannot be an object of thought; he cannot be a Gegenstand for the humanmind. Truth, instead of being a matter of propositions, is a personalencounter. Whatever words God might speak, Brunner not only reducesto hints or pointers, but he also holds that God’s words may be false.“God can, if he wishes, speak his Word to man even through false doc-trine.” This is the culmination, and the comment should be superfluous.

In conclusion, I wish to affirm that a satisfactory theory of revelationmust involve a realistic epistemology. By realism in this connection, Imean a theory that the human mind possesses some truth — not an ana-logy 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 newspecies of truth, but the truth itself. God has spoken his Word in words,and these words are adequate symbols of the conceptual content. Theconceptual content is literally true, and it is the univocal, identical pointof coincidence in the knowledge of God and man.

John W. Robbins, The Trinity Manifesto, 1978. 7

Chapter 7

A CALL FOR CHRISTIAN RATIONALITYW. Gary Crampton, Ph.D.

We live in a day when the Apostle Paul’s sermon on Mar’s Hill to thefirst century philosophers concerning the worship of an unknown god(Acts 17) is all too relevant. Our age is awash in irrationalism; it may evenbe the “age of irrationalism.” And far too many in allegedly Christiancircles are espousing an irrational theology in the name of Christ. Non-sense, as C. S. Lewis once predicted, has come. Twenty-three years agoJohn 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 sopredominant even in allegedly Christian circles? It did not happen over-night. The failure of seventeenth century Rationalism and Galileo’s(1564–1642) questioning of the Roman Church-State’s official position ongeocentricity fostered a spirit of skepticism. Who are we to believe onthis subject — the Roman Church-State or Galileo (science)? How do weknow? Is there truly a God who has created all things? If so, how can webe sure? Into this debate stepped David Hume (1711–1776).

Being an empiricist, Hume denied that reason can ever give us know-ledge of the external world, including God. But he also showed, perhapsreluctantly, that sense experience cannot yield such knowledge either.Observation is unreliable. Causal relationships are never observed. Nei-ther can we know the continuing reality of the self, for we have no exper-ience of it. And, of course, no experience can ever prove that the God ofScripture exists.

72 Ch. 7: A Call for Christian Rationality

Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man (Grand Rapids: Zonder-8

van, 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.

Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 2000),9

309–328.

Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 25–28. 10

David Hume created what Ronald Nash referred to as a “Gap.”“Hume’s Gap,” wrote Nash, “is the rejection of the possibility of a rationalknowledge of God and objective religious truth.” According to Hume,8

man can have no knowledge of the transcendent. Any belief in God,therefore, must be irrational. Knowledge and faith have nothing in com-mon.

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) acknowledged that reading David Humeawakened him from his “dogmatic slumbers.” Kant attempted to gobeyond rationalism and empiricism by claiming that all human knowledgebegins with sense experience (content), but in itself, sense experience isnot sufficient to give us knowledge. The content needs a form or struc-ture. Kant taught that this form is supplied by the mind, in apriori cate-gories of understanding. But since men can never know what cannot firstbe experienced, knowledge cannot extend beyond the phenomenalworld. The real world, Kant’s “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 toChristianity. He had “denied knowledge in order to make room for faith.”Belief in God was still possible, but not on rational grounds. Like Humebefore him, with Kant there is nothing in common between Christianfaith and knowledge. 10

G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831) attempted to correct the errors of Kant.Whereas Kant had asserted with certainty that the real world could notbe known, Hegel pointed out the absurdity of affirming the unknowable.He constructed a system of Idealism in which unity and plurality arerationally blended together. For Hegel, “the real is the rational and therational is the real.” All things, persons and objects, participate in theAbsolute Mind or Spirit (Geist). Thought and being, essence and existence,


Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foun-11

dation, 1995), 63–68.

Clark, Thales to Dewey, 377–382. 12

Colin Brown, Philosophy & the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity13

Press, 1968), 108–116, 154–155.

are one and the same. As Hegel developed it, his philosophy is a form ofpantheism. And in Hegel’s pantheistic philosophy, a problem exists. Onecannot know anything without knowing everything; “the truth is thewhole.” But since we do not know everything, we do not know anything.Once again, we are left in a state of skepticism. Hegel cannot justifyknowledge.11

Soren Kierkegaard (1813–1855), like Karl Marx, another irrationalist,was a student of Hegel. He strongly reacted against his teacher’s System.Reality, said Kierkegaard, cannot be obtained by reason. The real is notthe rational. Truth is not something that can be taught; it cannot becommunicated in a rational fashion. Truth does not exist in the form ofpropositions; it is inward and purely subjective. If one is going to knowthe real, he must grasp it by means of a “leap of faith.” That is, he mustmake a commitment to that which is irrational. For Kierkegaard, faith andreason are mutually exclusive. Knowledge is personal and passionate; itis anti-intellectual. God and truth exist only for one who leaps.12

Irrationality also passed into the realm of theology through theliberals Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) and Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889), both of whom rejected the idea of God’s transcendence. God,they averred, is exclusively immanent. And being totally immanent, Godis unable to speak divine truth to man. Hence, Schleiermacher and Ritschlboth rejected revealed theology and the primacy of the intellect.

Schleiermacher, sometimes called the father of liberalism, taught thatthe essence of religion is to be found, not in knowledge, but in experi-ence: the “feeling of absolute dependence.” For Schleiermacher, God isunknowable to the human mind. To find God one must look within andexperience Him. Ritschl, on the other hand, averred that the essence oftrue religion is ethics. A system of propositional truth is unattainable.Christianity needs to recognize that all knowledge has to do with valuejudgments, ethical decisions.13

Both of these immanentistic theologians denied an infallible standardby which to judge all things. By rejecting the divine propositional reve-lation of Holy Scripture, they cut the jugular of Christian theism. Man is


See Gordon H. Clark, Karl Barth’s Theological Method (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity14

Foundation, 1997).

Robert L. Reymond, Introductory Studies in Contemporary Theology (Phila-15

delphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 91–153.


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? Schleiermacherand Ritschl leave men without answers. But to the irrational mindset, thisis not a problem. In such an anti-system, what does it matter?

In the twentieth century, the Swiss Neo-orthodox theologian KarlBarth (1886–1968) condemned the immanentism of Schleiermacher andRitschl as a denial of the Christian faith. Barth taught the divine transcen-dence of God, to the exclusion of His immanence. According to Barth,God is so transcendent that He is “wholly other.” The Swiss theologianwent so far as to deny not only natural theology, but general revelationas well. God can be known only through His self-revelation. 14

But to Barth, and Emil Brunner (1889–1966) as well, God’s self-reve-lation is not to be found in the propositional statements of Scripture. InNeo-orthodoxy, revelation is non-propositional. Revelation is an event;it is an encounter; it is something that happens. Revelation is not objec-tive; it is subjective.

According to Barth and Brunner, the Bible is not the Word of God inthe usual sense; neither does it contain the Word of God. Rather, theBible 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 JesusChrist. Christ is the only true revelation of God to man. The Bible, then,points to Christ. And when God makes Himself known to man throughthe fallible Biblical witness, then the “Christ event” occurs. Communica-tion of truth takes place only in the personal divine-human encounter.15

Lamentably, irrationalism has greatly affected the visible church. TheCharismatic movement is just one example of this. The primacy of theintellect and of truth has been replaced with emotionalism, ecstatic utter-ances, incoherent experiences, and anti-doctrinal statements (e.g., “giveme Jesus, not exegesis”). Faith has nothing to do with thought, let alonelogic. All too frequently we encounter what Ronald Nash referred to as“the religious revolt against logic.” Augustine had claimed that God16

thinks logically, and that logic has been divinely ordained to be trustedand used by man as God’s image bearer, but much of alleged modern day


Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nash-17

ville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 95–110.

Cited in John W. Robbins, Cornelius Van Til: The Man and the Myth (Unicoi,18

Tenn.: Trinity Foundation, 1986), 25; see also W. Gary Crampton, Why I Am Not

a Van Tilian, The Trinity Review, September 1993.

See John W. Robbins. Marstonian Mysticism , The Trinity Review, January/ Feb-19

ruary 1980, reprinted in Against the World (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity Foundation,

1996).

Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration, & Interpretation20

(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 121, 293, 298; see W. Gary Crampton,

The Neo–orthodoxy of Donald Bloesch, The Trinity Review, August 1995.

“evangelicalism” demurs. Logic is not to be trusted. Cornelius Van Til(1895–1987) is an example of one such thinker. Van Til maintained thatthere is no point at which man’s logic and knowledge are the same asGod’s. Due to this lack of a point of contact, logical paradox must existin Scripture. Van Til went so far as to say that “all teaching of Scripture17

is apparently contradictory.” Van Til’s irrational thought opened the18

door to all sorts of theological and philosophical errors in putatively Re-formed circles.19

Donald Bloesch is a contemporary theologian who has attempted tofind a middle ground between Neo-orthodoxy, on the one hand, and“right wing” orthodoxy on the other hand. He claims to have a very highview of Scripture. He denounces liberalism, for example, and calls for acreedal theology based upon Holy Scripture. He insists on the primacy ofScripture over “religious experiences,” and he denies that the Apocryphaand church tradition have an equal standing with the Bible. But eventhough Bloesch attempts to remove himself from the Neo-orthodoxcamp, his writings betray him. The shadow of Karl Barth looms largeacross the pages of his works. And one of the points at which he findshimself in agreement with Barth is in his rejection of the trustworthinessof logic. For example, Bloesch is quick to take issue with the belief thathuman logic is identical with divine logic, that is, that God thinks the syl-logism Barbara. Dr. Bloesch says we must never equate the two. Heopenly 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-


Gordon H. Clark, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy (Unicoi, Tenn.: Trinity21

Foundation, 1993), 76–77.


John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg: Presby-23

terian and Reformed, 1987), 226, 307. These thoughts are echoed by Professor

Vern Poythress of Westminster Seminary, and Clark’s comments on them may be

found in Clark Speaks from the Grave, The Trinity Foundation, 1986.

thing God knows, our ideas are untrue. It is absolutely essential, there-

fore, to insist that there is an area of coincidence between God’s mind

and our mind.21

Dr. Clark was not denying that there is a difference in the degree ofGod’s knowledge and man’s knowledge. God always knows more propo-sitions than man. What Dr. Clark asserted is that there is a point whereGod’s knowledge and man’s knowledge are identical. There must be apoint at which the mind of man coincides with the mind of God. Withoutthis, man could never know any truth.

Hume’s Gap reappears in the philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd(1894–1977) and a number of his followers (the Amsterdam Philosophygroup). These philosophers emphasize the transcendence of God to thepoint of erecting a “boundary” which exists between God and man. Thelaws of logic are valid only on man’s side of the boundary. If there were22

such a Dooyeweerdian boundary, of course, God could never reveal any-thing to His creatures, and man could never know anything about God,including the notion of the boundary. Dooyeweerd influenced Van Tilgreatly, and through Van Til, his many disciples.

Another contemporary theologian of irrationalism is John Frame,formerly of Westminster Seminary, now of Reformed Seminary in Orlan-do, Florida. Professor Frame would have us believe that “Scripture, forGod’s good reasons, is often vague.” Therefore, wrote Frame, “there isno way out of escaping vagueness in theology.” He continued:

Scripture does not demand absolute precision of us, a precision impos-

sible 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 ProfessorFrame’s “Perspectivalism” cannot accommodate. But is it true that “Scrip-


ture, for God’s good reason, is often vague?” Not according to Reformedorthodoxy, which holds to the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture. TheWestminster 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 understand-

ing 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 Scrip-

ture.

Vagueness in theology, which is what Frame is defending, is not some-thing to be applauded. Obscurity is not a virtue. God is not the author ofconfusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). He does not speak to us in vague, illogi-cal, paradoxical statements, as the Van Tilian school asserts. He revealshimself to us in rational, propositional statements that can be under-stood. The Bible is a divine revelation that God intends us to understand.Obviously, if it cannot be understood, if we cannot understand it, then itis not a revelation. But David writes: “The commandment of the Lord ispure, enlightening the eyes” (Psalm 19:8). John writes: “And we know thatthe Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we mayknow Him who is true” (1 John 5:20). The Psalmist knows more than histeachers, more than the ancients, because he knows God’s Word (Psalm119:99–100). The triune God of Scripture is a God of truth: Father (Psalm31:5); Son (John 14:6); and Holy Spirit (1 John 5:6). The Bible refers toChrist as logic, wisdom, and reason incarnate (John 1:1; 1 Corinthians1:24, 30; Colossians 2:3). Logic is the way God thinks, and the laws oflogic are eternal principles. Because man is an image bearer of God, theselaws are part of man. There must be, then, a point of contact betweenGod’s logic (and knowledge), and man’s.

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 de-

ficiency by appealing either to God’s omnipotence or to His grace. Nor

will it do to call for a restructuring of logic in the interest of knowledge


Cited in Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 95. 24

John W. Robbins, The Trinity Manifesto, 1978.25

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 ofAugustine, Calvin, Clark, and the best of the Puritans. Such a system doesnot exalt the human mind as autonomous; rather, it affirms Biblical reve-lation as axiomatic. The divine revelation of Holy Scripture is a rationalrevelation. It is internally self-consistent. It is non-contradictory and non-paradoxical. Christian rationality reasons from revelation, not to it orapart from it. The Christian faith is intellectually defensible. In fact, asJohn Robbins has stated, “it is the only intellectually defensible systemof thought,” for the God of Scripture “has made foolish the wisdom of25

this world” (1 Corinthians 1:20).

Chapter 8

THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING LOGICJohn W. Robbins, Ph.D.

The Trinity Foundation has just published Dr. Gordon Clark’s text-book on logic, designed for use by Christian senior high schools, colleges,and seminaries. We believe that the book is extremely important becauseof the contemporary hostility of both liberal and conservative churchesto 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 logicteach 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 logiconly because your course of study demands it, then another questionimmediately arises, Why does the curriculum demand a course in logic?Why did anyone think logic was important enough to make it a requiredcourse?

There are questions that deserve an answer, but the answer may notbe exactly what you might expect. Because many people disdain logic, itwill be necessary to understand the relationship between logic and mora-lity, for example. After all, many people think one should not study logic.“Life is deeper than logic,” we’re told. “Life is green, but logic is gray andlifeless.” The poets tell us that “we murder to dissect.” Many believe thatone’s time would be better spent in prayer, protesting, or preaching. Orif they are naturalistically minded, they might suggest contemplatingone’s navel, or the sunset, or performing experiments in laboratories. Sowhy study logic? Perhaps if we understood what logic is, we could betteranswer 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 furthereducation: One cannot study history, botany, or computers without beingable to read. Reading, writing, and arithmetic are the basics, the toolsthat permit one to study further, and also to drive, to shop, and to get ajob.

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? Theanswer of course is thought. One must think in order to read and write.Thinking, just as everything else, is supposed to follow certain rules, ifwe are to think correctly. Sometimes we make mistakes in thinking. Wejump to conclusions; we make unwarranted assumptions; we generalize.There is a subject that catalogues these mistakes, points them out so thatwe can recognize them in the future, and then explains the rules foravoiding mistakes. That subject is logic.

The Place of LogicLogic is not psychology. It does not describe what people think about

or how they reach conclusions; it describes how they ought to think ifthey wish to reason correctly. It is more like arithmetic than history, forit explains the rules one must follow in order to reach correct conclu-sions, just as arithmetic explains the rules one must follow to arrive atcorrect answers.

Logic concerns all thought; it is fundamental to all disciplines, fromagriculture to astronautics. There are not several kinds of logic, one forphilosophy and one for religion; but the same rules of thought that applyin politics, for example, apply also in chemistry. Some people have triedto deny that logic applies to all subjects, for they wish to reserve somespecial field — theology and economics, to name two historical exam-ples — as a sanctuary for illogical arguments. What results is called poly-logism — many logics — which is really a denial of logic.

But in order to say that there are many different sorts of logic, onemust use the rules of the logic there is. Let those who say there is ano-ther kind of logic express their views using that other logic. It’s as thoughone were to claim that there are two (or more) sorts of arithmetic — thearithmetic in which two plus two equals four, and a second arithmetic inwhich two plus two equals twenty-two. Anyone who disparages or belit-tles logic must use logic in his attack, thus undercutting his own argu-ment. This can perhaps be better seen by specifically discussing one ofthe laws of logic.

The Laws of LogicThe 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


two phrases refer to the same law. Aristotle expressed the law in thesewords: “The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not be-long to the same subject and in the same respect.” The law is expressedsymbolically as: “Not both A and not-A.” A maple leaf may be both greenand not-green (yellow), but it cannot be both green and yellow at thesame time and in the same respect — it is green in the summer, yellowin the fall. If it is green and yellow at the same time, it cannot be greenand yellow in the same respect; one part, however small, will be green,another yellow. Greenness and not-greenness cannot at the same timeand 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, anotherportion straight, but the same portion cannot be both curved andstraight.

The law of contradiction means something more. It means that everyword in the sentence “The line is straight” has a specific meaning. Thedoes not mean any, all, or no. Line does not mean dog, dandelion, or dough-nut. Is does not mean is not. Straight does not mean white, or anythingelse. Each word has a definite meaning. In order to have a definite mean-ing, a word must not only mean something, it must also not mean some-thing. 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 saythe word line. The law of contradiction means that each word, to have ameaning, must also not mean something.

Logic and MoralityWhat do this law and the rest of logic have to do with morality? Sim-

ply this: When the Bible says, You shall not covet, each word has a spe-cific meaning. Attacking logic means attacking morality. If logic isdisdained, then the distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil,just and unjust, merciful and ruthless also disappear. Without logic, God’swords, “You shall do no murder,” really mean: “You shall murder daily”or “Stalin was Prince of Wales.” The rejection of logic means the end ofmorality, for morality and ethics depend on understanding. Without un-derstanding, there can be no morality. One must understand the TenCommandments before one can obey them. If logic is irrelevant or irre-


ligious, moral behavior is impossible, and the “practical” religion of thosewho belittle logic cannot be practiced at all.

Something even worse, if anything could be worse, follows fromrejecting logic. If logic does not govern all thought and expression, thenone cannot tell true from false. If one rejects logic, then when the Biblesays that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, andburied, and rose again the third day, these words actually mean that Jesusdid not suffer, was not crucified, did not die, was not buried, and did notrise again — as well as that Attila the Hun loved chocolate cake andplayed golf. The distinctions between true and false, right and wrong, alldisappear, for there can be no distinctions made apart from using the lawof contradiction.

The rejection of logic has become very popular in the twentieth cen-tury. In matters of morality, one frequently hears that “There are noblacks and whites, only shades of gray.” What this means is that there isno 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 onecannot distinguish good from evil — and everything is permitted. The re-sults of this rejection of logic — mass murder, war, government-causedfamine, 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, we’re told that truth is relative; what’s“true” for you might not be “true” for me. So 2 plus 2 might be 4 for youand 6.7 for me. If logic is abandoned, then that also follows. Christianityis “true” for some — Buddhism is “true” for others. One result has beena growing antipathy toward Christianity, which claims that all men, notsome, are sinners; and that there is only one way to God, through beliefin Christ. Absolute truth — which is really a redundant phrase — hasbeen 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 in-tend the words “Logic is invalid” to have specific meanings. The oppo-nents of logic must use the law of contradiction in order to denounce it.They must assume its legitimacy, in order to declare it illegitimate. Theymust assume its truth, in order to declare it false. They must presentarguments if they wish to persuade us that argumentation is invalid.Wherever they turn, they are boxed in. They cannot assault the object of


their hatred without using it in the assault. They are in the position ofthe Roman soldier who arrested Christ, but they do not realize, as thesoldier did, that their position and action are dependent upon rules thatthey reject. They must use the rules of logic in order to belittle logic; hehad to be healed by Christ before he could proceed with the arrest.

The Bible and LogicIn the first chapter of the Gospel of John, John wrote, “In the begin-

ning 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 trans-lated Wisdom or Logic. Our English word logic comes from this Greekword logos. John was calling Christ the Wisdom or Logic of God. In versenine, referring again to Christ, he says that Christ is “The true light” wholights every man. Christ, the Logic of God, lights every man. Strictlyspeaking, there is no “mere human logic” as contrasted with a divinelogic, 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, butboth God and man think that two plus two is four and that A cannot benot-A. Both God and Christians think that only the substitutionary deathof Christ can merit a sinner’s entrance into Heaven. The laws of logic arethe way God thinks. He makes no mistakes, draws no unwarranted con-clusions, constructs no invalid arguments. We do, and that is one of thereasons why we are commanded by the Apostle Paul to bring all ourthoughts 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 tothink properly, we shall misunderstand Scripture. Peter warns againstthose who twist the Scripture to their own destruction. A study of logicwill help us avoid twisting the Scripture and trying to make it implysomething it does not imply. The Westminster Confession, written inEngland in 1648, says all things necessary for our faith and life are eitherexpressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and neces-sary consequence from Scripture. It is only through a study of logic thatwe can distinguish a valid deduction from an invalid deduction.


But logic is indispensable not only in reading the Bible, but also inreading history, botany, or computer programs. It is applicable to allthought, and mistaken arguments maybe found in every subject. Thestudy of logic will help us understand all other subjects better, not justtheology. Therefore, as God said through the prophet Isaiah, Come, letus reason together.

Chapter 9

A BIBLICAL VIEW OF SCIENCEW. Gary Crampton, Ph.D.

Many non-Christians, and all too many Christians, are of the opinionthat science, (i.e., the physical or natural sciences) is an ever-growingbody of truth about the universe. The progress of science, its technologi-cal triumphs, so we are told, demonstrate its truth. Science is seeminglyunassailable. After all, it works doesn’t it? And isn’t success the measureof truth?

This being the case, so it goes, when the Bible and science appear tobe at odds, we need to re-interpret the Bible. For example, since sciencetells us (and the pope agrees) that (some sort of) evolution is a fact, notjust a theory, we need to take a fresh look at Genesis 1. No longer can weassert with the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q 9) that “the work ofcreation is God’s 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 tobe re-examined. It is, we are assured, an obscurantist view of things.

To speak against this sort of scientific thinking is almost blasphe-mous 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 godof science. Science, it will be seen, is not the main revealer of truth. Infact, science is not capable of revealing any truth at all.

What then is the Biblical view of science? Science enables us to fulfillthe 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 subdueit; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, andover every living thing that moves on the Earth.’†” Science gives usdirections for doing things, or “operating,” in this world. It does not ex-plain how the laws of nature work, nor does it accurately define ordescribe things. Science does not discover truth; it is a method for domi-nating and utilizing nature; it is merely a practical discipline that helps uslive in God’s universe and subdue it.

As strange as it might sound to the reader that science never gives ustruth, it is precisely that belief that has been held by leading scientists

86 Ch. 9: A Biblical View of Science

The quotes used here are cited in the Foreword of Gordon H. Clark’s The26

Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (The Trinity Foundation, 1987).

John W. Robbins, Logic Seminar, Westminster Institute, July 1995.27

and philosophers. Albert Einstein, for example, speaking of our know-26

ledge of the universe, said: “We know nothing about it at all . . . . Thereal nature of things, that we shall never know, never.” The British philo-sopher Karl Popper wrote: “We know that our scientific theories alwaysremain hypotheses. . . . In science there is no knowledge, in the sense inwhich Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense whichimplies finality; in science we never have sufficient reason for the beliefthat we have attained the truth.” Popper went on to say: “It can even beshown that all [scientific] theories, including the best, have the sameprobability, namely zero.” Then too, Bertrand Russell, who will be quotedbelow, asserted that all scientific laws are based on fallacious arguments.And philosopher Paul Feyerabend, in his book Against Method: Outline ofan 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 diffi-culties with science, i.e., five reasons why science can never give ustruth :27

1. Observation is unreliable. Scientists do not perform an experimentonly once. Experiments are always repeated, and the results most alwaysdiffer in some way. Why? Because the senses tend to deceive us; they arenot to be trusted. Hence, numerous readings are taken in an attempt toguard against inaccurate observation. So much is this the case in science,that tests with unrepeatable results are never taken seriously. But ifobservation is unreliable, if the senses are so easily deceived, if theresults frequently differ, why should one ever believe that he has disco-vered 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.” Ber-trand Russell, certainly no friend of Christianity, stated it this way:


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 fun-damentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are

based.

In the laboratory scientists work with a hypothesis. In this case thehypothesis is: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then thisbread will nourish me.” The scientist then attempts to deduce the predic-ted results that should occur if the hypothesis is true, such as “this breadnourishes me.” He then performs an experiment to test the hypothesisto see if the predicted results occur. So he sits down at the table and eatsthe bread, and wonder of wonders, the bread does nourish him. Thehypothesis, he concludes, is confirmed: “This bread is a stone and stonesare nourishing.” Silly you say? Yes! Yet, as Russell has asserted, it is not“fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific lawsare based.” That is to say, all scientific laws are based on fallacious argu-ments.

3. Science commits the fallacy of induction. Induction is the attempt toderive a general law from particular instances. Science is necessarily in-ductive. For example, if a scientist is studying crows, he might observe999 crows and find that they all are black. But is he ever able to assertthat all crows are black? No; the next crow he observes might be analbino. One can never observe all crows: past, present, and future. Univer-sal 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 labo-ratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point of water. Sincewater hardly ever boils at the same temperature, the scientist conductsa number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He thenmust average them. But what kind of average does he use: mean, mode,or median? He must choose; and whatever kind of average he selects, itis his own choice; it is not dictated by the data. Then too, the average hechooses is just that, that is, it is an average, not the actual datum yieldedby the experiment. Once the test results have been averaged, thescientist will calculate the variable error in his readings. He will likely plotthe data points or areas on a graph. Then he will draw a curve through

88 Ch. 9: A Biblical View of Science

Clark, Philosophy of Science and God, 57.28

the resultant data points or areas on the graph. But how many curves,each one of which describes a different equation, are possible? An infi-nite number of curves is possible. But the scientist draws only one. Whatis the probability of the scientist choosing the correct curve out of aninfinite number of possibilities? The chance is one over infinity, or zero.Therefore, all scientific laws are false. They cannot possibly be true. Ascited above, the statement of Karl Popper is correct: “It can even beshown 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 construc-tion depends on factors never seen under a microscope, never weighedin a balance, never handled or manipulated.” Clark uses the law of the28

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 homogeneous, 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 seenthat science is not capable of giving us any truth. And if the scientificmethod is a tissue of logical fallacies, why should Christians seek to arguefrom science to the truth? Simply stated, they should not. Science is use-ful in accomplishing its purpose, i.e., subduing the Earth. But that is allit is useful for, nothing more.

The question arises, “If science never gives us truth, how can it be sosuccessful?” It all depends on how one defines success. We are now ableto put a man on the moon; we are also able to destroy our fellow manwith one push of a button. Are these measures of success? Scientific the-


ories are always changing (whereas truth is eternal). Is constant changea measure of success?

Science is successful when one understands its purpose, and whenone understands that false theories sometimes work. Newtonian science,for example, worked for years. It has been replaced by Einstein’s theory.But even though he believed his theory to be a better approximation ofthe truth than Newton’s, 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 isfound in the Scriptures alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth. It isGod’s Word that must be believed, not the experiments of men. As Rob-bins has said: “Science is false, and must always be false. Scripture is trueand must always be true. The issue is as clear, and as simple, as that.”

Chapter 10

A CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATIONGordon H. Clark, Ph.D.

For long periods of time human history moves placidly along, trou-bled only by minor disturbances. Then in a short span of years, every-thing seems to happen at once. A storm overtakes the race, breaking upall the fountains of the great deep; and when the waters subside, thecourse of history has been set for the next epoch. The sixteenth centurywas such an age of storm. Henry VIII, Martin Luther, John Calvin, FrancisI, Ignatius Loyola, Caraffa, and — a little later — Philip II, Queen Eliza-beth, Henry IV, the Duke of Alva, and John Knox all lived in the fifteenhundreds. During this period it was settled that Germany should be Lu-theran, Scotland Presbyterian, England Episcopal; the Inquisition deter-mined by murder that Italy and Spain should remain Romish; the massmurder of some 75,000 Calvinists on St. Bartholomew’s Eve in 1572 madeFrance half Romish and half infidel. These results have endured for fourhundred years.

Not only did the sixteenth century witness the Reformation, it alsosaw in the Renaissance the birth of the modern scientific mind. Whileinventions and detailed scientific applications have been multiplied inmore recent years, the general scientific world-view — based on theapplication of mathematics to problems of physics — was fixed for thecoming centuries, even before Descartes was born.

The twentieth century bids fair to rival the sixteenth. Two world warshave already occurred and with a third a constant threat, this century willtruly be one of upheaval. Hitler wished to set the direction of history forthe next thousand years. He may well have done so-aided, of course, byRoosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. The twentieth century, so far, lacks indi-cations of impending religious cataclysms. Its changes, therefore, mayparallel more closely the social and educational revolution of the Renais-sance, or, more likely, the breakdown of the Roman Empire, than thespiritual quickening of the Reformation. From all that can be seen now,humanism and Communist hatred of Christianity will be the prevailingphilosophy of the coming age.

While the political situation that makes newspaper headlines occu-pies 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 ofmore profound significance. Educational policy in the new society, whe-ther for good or evil, will be a basic factor.

The Need for a World ViewIt 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 tothem; it is true that they can produce bigger submarines and better ex-plosives; but it ought to be as clear as a flare and as emphatic as a bombthat who uses these for what is a tremendously more important matterthan their invention. In fact, the impact of Pearl Harbor, Korea, andVietnam ought to have focused educational attention on this basic ques-tion. Telephones will multiply, but their wires may carry commands tomassacre Jews and Christians; radio and television will be greatlydeveloped, but it may be used for totalitarian propaganda; and youngmen who have not died of typhoid may make excellent KGB agents. Everymechanical aid, by which some judge that a society is good, can be usedby bureaucrat or dictator to make his society bad.

How can the people of the United States become competent to judgeand therefore withstand the barrage of propaganda? The barrage hascome. Time, Newsweek, and the news programs on television are supposedto be news media. They are actually propaganda outlets. For example, onFriday, August 15, 1969, Chet Huntley ended his news program with avicious denunciation of Protestants. There was no news at all. It wasunadulterated invective. He stopped just short of saying that the RomanCatholics of Eire should invade Ulster and massacre the Protestants. Andof course the news is slanted, too. How slanted must the populacealready be that such interpretation should be allowed on television? Ifsome form of education prepares people to detect slanted news andthereby prevent a social climate where hate propaganda is accepted, itis not the present form of American education. Least of all is it a narrowtechnical training that produces expert ignoramuses. This is not to depre-cate engineering, much less to oppose physics and chemistry. But somet-hing 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 isan educational system based on the sovereignty of God, for in such a sys-tem man as well as chemistry will be given his proper place, neither toohigh nor too low. In such a system there will be a chief end of man to


unify, and to serve as a criterion for, all his activities. What is neededtherefore is a philosophy consonant with the greatest creed of Christen-dom, the Westminster Confession of Faith. In such a system, God, as well asman, will have his proper place. This alone will make education success-ful; for the social, moral, political, and economic disintegration of a civi-lization is nothing other than the symptom and result of a religiousbreakdown. The abominations of war, pestilence, and economic collapseare punishment for the crime, better, the sin, of forgetting God.

The Myth of NeutralityThere is no neutral ground between the proposition that God created

the world out of nothing and the proposition that the universe is aneternal self-existing entity. But though objectors may admit that there ishere a philosophic incompatibility, they may at the same time hold thatphilosophy is so remote from the practical business of teaching childrenthat any concern over anti-religious influence is purely academic. Eventhe optimism or the pessimism of the teacher does not affect the con-tents 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 ofthe United States Supreme Court banning prayer and Bible reading frompublic education. Prayer is definitely a religious activity, and the Statemust not support any kind of religion. Let arithmetic be taught and reli-gion ignored. Now, there is one good point at least in the Court’s deci-sion. The case originated in a school system whose officials had writtenout a prayer and had required the teachers to pray that prayer. Theschool officials had supposed their prayer to be innocuous and satis-factory to all religions that prayed at all. It was a “nonsectarian” prayer.Since the decision, various amendments to the Constitution have beenproposed that would permit nonsectarian prayer. Presumably this wouldmean a prayer composed by the school board and imposed by them onthe teachers. Insofar as this was and is the case, a Christian must view theCourt’s decision with favor. For, in the first place, it forces the teacher tomake a prayer with which she disagrees, either because she is irreligiousand does not want to pray at all — and compliance makes her a hypo-crite, or because she is religious and sees that this nonsectarian prayeris not neutral, but anti-Christian.

The reason these nonsectarian prayers are anti-Christian can veryclearly be stated. The Bible teaches that all prayer to God must be based


on the merits of Jesus Christ. No one can come to the Father but byChrist. There is no other name by which we can be saved. Hence to praywithout including Christ in the prayer is an offense against God. It is farbetter 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 pray-er as sectarian is not an exercise in neutrality.

It might seem then that the Supreme Court has maintained neutralityby its prohibition of prayer in the schools, and that only those who wantprayer are anti-Christian. Of course, also, any who do not want prayer areanti-Christian; and it was quite a feat for the Court to satisfy devoutChristians and loudmouthed atheists by the same decision. But whetherthe decision and its results can satisfy the Christian, and whether theschools are neutral — now that the school board theologians can nolonger impose their prayers — still requires a little more discussion.

That neutrality is impossible becomes clearer and clearer as thesystem of Christian theism is further understood. Mention has alreadybeen made of the fact that Christianity is not to be identified with andrestricted to a bare belief in God. For example, Christianity has a theoryof evil; it differs from the humanistic theory; and therefore a secularschool cannot adopt the same policies a Christian school adopts in dea-ling with recalcitrant pupils.

That there are recalcitrant pupils hardly needs to be said. But perhapsit does need to be said to those who conveniently forget what is goingon. In addition to the material recounted in chapter one, there was thecase of subversive, obscene, Black Panther literature sold to high schoolstudents in Indianapolis in 1969 with the approval of at least some of theteachers. But it is illegal for the Gideons to distribute New Testaments onschool property. In the first two weeks of the 1969–70 school session,fifty robberies and beatings, including stabbings, were reported to theIndianapolis police. The police believed that they were less than half thecrimes committed because children who are victimized are often afraidto report the attack for fear of reprisals. Some parents refuse to sendtheir children to school in order to save them from violence at school. Inone of the affluent Indianapolis high schools it is estimated that fiftypercent 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, human-istic policy of dealing with lesser forms of student misconduct. Liberalism


has ridiculed the Christian notion of punishment. From babyhood chil-dren must be spoiled, not spanked, or in any way repressed. As early as1922, John Dewey in Human Nature and Conduct (Part II, Section 2)encouraged youth to rebel against parental discipline. Parents havetamed “the delightful originality of the child”; they instill in him moralhabits; and the result is a mass of “irrationalities” and “infantilisms.”When Dewey’s philosophy is translated into the penal code, with itsemphasis on rehabilitation (for the criminal is sick, not wicked; and thecommunity is guilty, not the criminal), twenty thousand people commitmurder in a single year in the United States, and not one of them isexecuted. The following year, naturally, more people commit murder.

Neither John Dewey, nor the liberal penologists, nor the publicschools are to be blamed for the origin of these crimes. Liberal theolo-gians and liberal educators are to be blamed for failing to repress evil.The public schools deserve ridicule when they claim to be the saviors ofdemocracy. By their permissiveness they have encouraged arson, drugaddiction, and sexual immorality. Even in strictly curricular affairs theirpermissiveness and their extension of the concept of democracy beyondits proper political meaning often have resulted in the attempt to makeall pupils equal by reducing requirements to the minimum so everybodycan pass. In such schools, more often in metropolitan areas, a studentmust not flunk; he must be promoted. In high schools that have comeunder the present writer’s 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 notread the instruction sheet, and a twenty-year-old boy “graduated” with-out being able to read — well, without being able to read two para-graphs of anything. This sort of democracy, this permissiveness, theseliberal policies encourage and augment evil; but they do not initiate evil.Evil is initiated in what John Dewey calls the delightful originality of thechild.

The present argument aims to show that a school system cannot op-erate as a neutral between the liberal and the Christian position. A schoolsystem must have some policy for delinquent children, or for those whobegin to cause trouble, and this policy cannot be both left and right. Itcannot be both Christian and humanistic; and there is no middle, neutralground. The two philosophies and their educational implications differon what to do, on what evil is, and on how it originates. Something hasbeen said of the prevailing views of public educators; now it is required


to show that Christianity has a totally different view of evil and totallydifferent policies for combating it.

The Government SchoolsThe early American colleges were distinctly Christian institutions. But

the public school system, unlike the colleges, was not so inspired. On theother hand, the public schools were not intended to be irreligious. In thereaders of our grandparents’ time, God and Jesus Christ were mentioned.Today no such references can be found in the books of the publicschools. The reason is not hard to find. The public schools were foundedwith the idea of not favoring one religion above another, and the resultis that they now favor no religion at all. They are completely secularized.

Originally the public schools, while not supposed to favor oneChristian denomination above another, were not intended to attackChristianity. The idea was that they should be neutral. And because themajority of Protestants believed the promises of the schoolmen that theywould not attack religion, the Protestants did not found primary schoolsas the Romanists did. Now it is clear that the Romanists adopted thewiser course of action because the promises of the schoolmen were soonto be broken.

Today Christianity is attacked all through the public school system.Reports from parents say that the evolutionary denial of the creation ofthe world by God is taught to the children of the second grade. How cana child of seven or eight stand up against an organized attack of thetheistic worldview? How can parents protect their children? The publicschool makes no pretense of being neutral in religious matters, and whena 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 schoolmen’smental equipment.

Mention has already been made of the exclusion of Bible readingfrom the public schools. The result has been a generation of children whoare handicapped in the English language and literature. It is an incontro-vertible fact that the English Bible has had a greater influence on ourlanguage, our literature, our civilization, our morals, than any other book.The children who are deprived of the Bible are culturally deprived, as wellas religiously deprived. Someone has well said that knowledge of theBible without a college education is of more value than a college educa-tion without knowledge of the Bible. In view of this fact, the prohibition


of Bible reading is acutely significant of the hatred the public schools,and a large section of our society, have for Christianity. Books attackingChristianity are not illegal. Teachers can deny God, creation, and provi-dence; but the law forbids them to recommend Christianity.

Since the cultural deprivation of this policy is so obvious, some of theeducators want to teach the Bible as literature. This reintroduction of theBible into the schools might also allay some of the criticism. It may turnout, however, that the Bible as literature will be worse than no Bible atall. 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 inher requirement: Each student could choose any part of the Bible for hissubject. One little girl asked if she might write on Isaiah. The teacherasked, Do you mean first Isaiah or second Isaiah? Thus the teaching ofthe 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 generallywere deceived by the specious promises of the public school people.They thought that if they maintained Christian colleges, the primaryschools could be entrusted to the state. But not all the Protestants weredeceived by these false promises not to attack Christianity. The LutheranChurch and the Christian Reformed people early established primaryschools for their children. They believed that the influence of the Chris-tian home and the preaching of the Christian church should be streng-thened by a Christian school system. But both the Lutherans and theChristian Reformed, with their European background, have remainedsomewhat closed societies as it were; and unfortunately they haveexercised little influence, in this respect at least, on the rest of AmericanProtestantism. There was one man, however, among the English-speakingAmerican churches who saw the implication of the public school system;he warned of what was to follow, but his warning went unheeded. It isinteresting, sadly interesting, to read his warning today, now that ninetyyears have proved him to be right. For it was in lectures given prior to1890 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, sepa-

rated 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 politi-

cal, which this sin-rent world has ever seen.


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 Chris-tianity, the Christians are denied the right to exclude attacks on Christi-anity. There is no neutrality.

Obviously the schools are not Christian. Just as obviously they are notneutral. The Scriptures say that the fear of the Lord is the chief part ofknowledge; but the schools, by omitting all reference to God, give thepupils the notion that knowledge can be had apart from God. They teachin effect that God has no control of history, that there is no plan of eventsthat God is working out, that God does not foreordain whatsoever comesto pass. Aside from definite anti-Christian instruction to be discussedlater, the public schools are not, never were, can never be, neutral.Neutrality is impossible. Let one ask what neutrality can possibly meanwhen God is involved. How does God judge the school system, whichsays to him, “O God, we neither deny nor assert thy existence; and OGod, we neither obey nor disobey thy commandments; we are strictlyneutral.” Let no one fail to see the point: The school system that ignoresGod teaches its pupils to ignore God; and this is not neutrality. It is theworst form of antagonism, for it judges God to be unimportant and irrele-vant in human affairs. This is atheism.

Christian EducationThe curriculum and the administration of Christian education must

be controlled by the Christian view of man. Like the plant, man is a livingbeing, he needs food, he reproduces; but the nature of peculiarity of manis not found in so wide a genus. Like the animals, he has sensations andvisual images; but if this were all, he would be merely another animal.Education supposedly deals with man as man; so-called physical edu-cation deals with man as a brute. What man is and what education is are


questions to be answered by appraising the different levels of humanactivity. Keen sensation does not mark an educated man, for savages of-ten have keener sensation than the well educated. Carpentry and plumb-ing are distinctly human activities beyond all animal possibility, and factu-ally beyond the savage; and yet these two useful and honorable tradesare not an education. Music and art rank higher than carpentry andplumbing; colloquially we speak of a musical education, but strictly musicand art require training. All these are different levels of activity — allhonorable but not all equal. Some men are born capable of one but notof the other. The Lord did not berate the man to whom he gave onetalent for not being able to earn five; he condemned him for not usingthe one he had. However there is no denying the fact that it is better tohave five. God does not require the unskilled laborer to write the critiqueof all future metaphysics nor to finish Schubert’s symphony; but I. Q. 150contains greater possibilities than I. Q. 85.

All phases of life should glorify God, and if a man is a carpenter or aplumber, he should and can glorify God by his trade as well as a studentor 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 tal-ents, some two, and some one. He has given scholastic aptitude to someand to others mechanical ability. What is required is that each should usefaithfully what he has received.

In view of this it cannot be said that education is in all respectsdemocratic. In politics, representative democratic government amenableto the will of the people is decidedly preferable to irresponsible totali-tarianism and arrogant bureaucracy. All men are created equal — in thesense that political justice should be impartially administered. But econo-mic and mental equality never have existed and never will. The economichandicaps can be equalized to a degree by private aid through scholar-ships. But there is no cure for mental inequalities. Education, like art, cannever be democratic; both are inherently aristocratic. Some studentssimply cannot learn. Try as they may, they cannot grasp the significanceof the material. And instead of benefiting by a college education, theirspirit and self-respect may be ruined. As plumbers they could serve auseful purpose, and if they recognize that God is glorified in honestplumbing, they can walk among men with Christian dignity.

A word about art too. Surely a great artist is superior to a great coalminer. Rembrandt’s Night Watch is indescribably impressive. Rembrandtknew how to paint. But I am not aware that he knew art. Beethoven knew


how to write music, but I doubt that he understood music. Artistic abilityis one thing — a precious gift from God. The intellectual understandingof art, of its function in society, of its relation to religion and morality, isanother thing — a still more precious gift from God. The latter is asubject of education. The former is skill.

Christianity, however, is intellectualistic. God is truth, and truth isimmutable. The humanists, of course, oppose any theistic conception oftruth. Immersed in the flux of pragmatism, guided by Nietzsche, James,and Dewey, they hold that truth changes, moral values change, and theonly fixed truth is that there is no fixed truth. What works is “true.” Skilland success make “truth.” Because there is no final truth in humanism,the humanist cannot consistently give adequate recognition to the intel-lect. If he praises intellectual endowments, he means only the vocationalskill to get what you want.

Yet secular humanism is not the only, nor even the most vociferousopponent of intellectualism. If Nietzsche, James, and Dewey have theirdisciples, including the existentialists, Kierkegaard, with Schleiermacher’semphasis on emotion, is an even worse enemy of truth. So it happensthat large numbers of religious people despise the intellect and exalt theemotions. Brunner says that God speaks falsehoods, that man shouldbelieve contradictions, and that God and the intellect are mutually exclu-sive.

Man the Image of GodWe 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 wasgiven dominion over nature. These two points, seemingly unrelated, sug-gest that the image of God is Logic or rationality. Adam was superior tothe 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 withhim — a most important purpose in creation — requires thinking and un-derstanding. Without reason man would doubtless glorify God, as do thestars, stones, and animals, but he could not enjoy him forever. Even if inGod’s providence animals survive death and adorn the future world, theycannot have what the Scripture calls eternal life because eternal life is toknow the only true God, and knowledge is an exercise of the mind orreason. Without reason there can be no morality or righteousness: These


too require thought. Lacking these, animals are neither righteous norsinful.

The identification of the image as reason explains or is supported bya puzzling remark in John 1:9, “It was the true light that lighteth everyman that cometh into the world.” How can Christ, in whom is the life thatis the light of men, be the light of every man, when the Scriptures teachthat some men are lost in eternal darkness? This puzzle arises from inter-preting light in exclusively redemptive terms. If one thinks also in termsof creation, the Logos or Rationality of God, who just above was said tohave created all things without a single exception, can be seen as havingcreated man with the light of logic as his distinctive human characteristic.

For such reasons as these, the fall and its effects, which have so puz-zled some theologians as they studied the doc trine of the image, aremost easily understood by identifying the image with man’s mind.

Since moral judgments are a species of judgment, subsumed undergeneral intellectual activity, one result of the fall is the occurrence of in-correct evaluations by means of erroneous thinking. Adam thought,incorrectly, that it would be better to join Eve in her sin than to obey Godand be separated from her. So he ate the forbidden fruit. The external actfollowed upon the thought. “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts.”Note that in the Bible the term heart usually designates the intellect, andonly once in ten times the emotions: It is the heart that thinks. Sin thusinterferes with our thinking. It does not, however, prevent us from think-ing. Sin does not eradicate or annihilate the image. It causes a malfunc-tion, but man still remains man.

The Bible stresses the malfunctioning of the mind in obviously moralaffairs because of their importance. But sin extends its depraving influ-ence into affairs not usually regarded as matters of morality. Arithmetic,for example. One need not suppose that Adam and Eve understood cal-culus, but they surely counted to ten. Whatever arithmetic they did, theydid correctly. But sin causes a failure in thinking, with the result that wenow make mistakes in simple addition. Such mistakes are pedanticallycalled the “noetic” effects of sin. But moral errors are equally noetic.When men became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heartswere darkened; when they professed to be wise, but became fools; whenGod gave them over to a reprobate mind — their sin was first of all a no-etic, intellectual, mental malfunction.

Regeneration and the process of sanctification reverse the sinfuldirection of the malfunctioning: The person is renewed in knowledge


after the image of him that created him. First the more obvious, thegrosser sins, are suppressed because the new man begins to think andevaluate in conformity with God’s precepts. Second and third, the newman advances to restrain the more subtle, the more secret, the morepervasive sins that have made his heart deceitful above measure. Errorsin arithmetic may seem trivial in comparison, but these, too, are effectsof sin; and salvation will improve a man’s thinking in all matters.

The identification of the image as reason or intellect thus preservesthe unity of man’s person and saves theologians from splitting the imageinto schizophrenic parts. It also accords with all that the Scripture saysabout sin and salvation.

Secular opposition to the image of God in man can be based only ona general nontheistic philosophy. Evolution views man as a natural devel-opment from the neutron and proton, through atoms, to plants, to thelower animals, until perhaps a number of human beings emerged in Afri-ca, Asia, and the East Indies. Evolution can hardly assert the unity of thehuman race, for several individuals of subhuman species may have moreor less simultaneously produced the same variation.

This nontheistic, naturalistic view is difficult to accept because itimplies that the mind, too (as well as the body) is an evolutionary productrather than a divine image. Instead of using eternal principles of logic,the mind operates with the practical results of biological adaptation. Con-cepts and propositions neither reach the truth nor even aim at it. Ourequipment has evolved through a struggle to survive. Reason is simplythe human method of handling things. It is a simplifying and thereforefalsifying device. There is no evidence that our categories correspond toreality. 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 isrequisite to observe the real prior to using the laws. But if this ever hap-pened with subhuman organisms, it never happens with the presentspecies man. If now the intellect is naturally produced, different types ofintellect could equally well be produced by slightly different evolutionaryprocesses. Maybe such minds have been produced, but are now extinctlike the dinosaurs and dodos. This means, however, that the concepts orintuitions of space and time — the law of contradiction, the rules ofinference — are not fixed and universal criteria of truth, but that otherraces thought in other terms. Perhaps future races will also think indifferent terms. John Dewey insisted that logic has already changed andwill continue to change. If now this be the case, our traditional logic is


but a passing evolutionary moment; our theories — dependent on thislogic — are temporary reactions, parochial social habits, and Freudianrationalizations; and therefore the evolutionary theory, produced bythese biological urges, cannot be true.

The difference between naturalism and theism — between the latestscientific opinions on evolution and creation; between the Freudian ani-mal and the image of God; between belief in God and atheism — is basedon their two different epistemologies. Naturalism professes to learn byobservation and analysis of experience; the theistic view depends on Bib-lical revelation. No amount of observation and analysis can prove thetheistic position. Of course, no amount of observation and analysis canprove evolution or any other theory. The secular philosophies all resultin total skepticism. In contrast, theism bases its knowledge on divinelyrevealed propositions. They may not give us all truth; they may even giveus very little truth; but there is no truth at all otherwise. So much for thesecular alternative.

Therefore the Christian evaluation of subjects in the curriculum andof pupils or students in school is rational and intellectualistic, in opposi-tion to the emotionalism and anti-intellectualism of the present age.

The object of education is truth; the transmission of truth to theyounger pupils and the discovery of new truth by more advanced stu-dents. The aim of education, at least the aim of the purest and best edu-cation, is intellectual understanding.

The Subversion of ChristianityScott, Foresman and Company, publishers of an excellent line of

grade school textbooks, has one called Our World and How We Use It, byCampbell, Sears, Quillen, Hanna. On page 97, in a chapter explaining thedomestication and use of animals, there is a section entitled, Ideas aboutGod.

You have seen how many of our ideas about property, about work-

ing 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,


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 workers. 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 maybe deemed unfair to offer profound, philosophical criticism. And yet evenpupils in the fourth grade can be told a few simple, though profound,philosophical principles. The section as written produces the impressionthat learning of God is a purely empirical process. No reference is madeto what a philosopher would call the a priori equipment of learning. Now,Kant’s terminology is not for children, but even children can understandwhen they are told that all men are born with the idea of God. They maynot know the terms a priori and innate, but they can understand as wellas they can understand anything else that men are so made as to thinkof God spontaneously: They are born that way. However, no particularstress will be laid on the argument that the book teaches a non-Christianempiricism.


But stress, great stress, is to be laid on the omission of all referenceto revelation. A true Christian, if asked how he has learned of God, willanswer immediately, “through the Bible, God’s word.” When a personreplies, “by experience and reflection,” it is instantly clear that that per-son is not a Christian.

In the second place, the textbook teaches that the herdsmen knewGod cared for them because they cared for their flocks. What sort of ar-gument is this? The herdsmen take care of their flocks in order to shearthem, and eat them. Does such reflection lead to an ultimate trust inGod?

Then third, the herdsmen taught their children to worship and obeyGod. This raises two questions. First, if there is no revelation, where dothe herdsmen find the commands God requires us to obey? The Scripturespeaks of the law of God as written on the hearts of men; it teaches thatman was made in God’s image and has an innate knowledge that right isdifferent from wrong and that God punishes wrong. But the Scripturealso teaches that man suppresses this knowledge by his wickedness, thathe does not wish to retain God in his knowledge, and that God has givenhim over to a reprobate mind. Obviously the fourth-grade text book andChristianity do not agree. And the second question is still more to thepoint: How can the herdsmen teach their children to worship God? TheScripture not only says that no one, apart from the regenerating powerof the Holy Spirit, seeks after God and that there is none that doethgood, no, not one; the Scripture also teaches that no one comes to theFather except by Jesus Christ. And this is as true of Abraham of old as itis of men today. Jesus said, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he sawit, and was glad.” The textbook gives no hint of this necessary prere-quisite of worship. It teaches rather that one can obey and worship Godwithout any reference to Jesus Christ.

The fourth point does not require any additional criticism, but thefifth point is the climax. Here it is stated that the Psalms of David are theproducts of purely human reflection. In direct antagonism to the Chris-tian view, the textbook reduces the Bible to the level of the philoso-phically 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 adivine 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


have them in derision.... Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of

Zion.... The Lord hath said unto me, “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 andTerrible?

The textbook from which the quotation was taken is pedagogicallyand mechanically excellent; it displays all the marks of technical compe-tence. The inclusion of the section quoted therefore cannot be attributedto ignorance. It was deliberately planned. For these reasons the only pos-sible conclusion is that the book and the educators behind it are defi-nitely aiming to destroy the Christian religion.

Documents

Christian Philosophy Made Easy