Edward's Successor at Princeton

The year is 1758. Jonathan Edwards has just died of a small pox vaccination in Princeton, New Jersey. For the purpose of this post, I will pretend (rather arrogantly!) that the College of New Jersey has appointed me to serve on the search committee to find the successor of President Edwards. The question for the college trustees is whether the successor of Edwards should be his theological and philosophical heir, or whether the college should seek someone more in touch with Enlightenment thought. They have sought my opinion in this matter.

You might read Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," John Locke's "Letter on Toleration," and Voltaire’s "Treatise on Toleration" to help you understand the background of this situation.

Here is my opinoin:

To the distinguished trustees at Princeton,

First of all, I want to thank you for this privilege. I am pleased to have the opportunity to give you my opinion concerning the successor of Princeton’s former President, Jonathan Edwards. Since there are many men who I would consider to be much more qualified to give such an opinion, I am greatly honored to have been asked. So without further ado, allow me to address the question at hand.

I am of the opinion that Edwards’ successor ought to be his theological and philosophical heir (in as much as possible) as opposed to someone who is more in touch with Enlightenment thought. This is not to say that conclusions drawn from the arguments for tolerance are not without merit, but that these ideas have a theological basis rather than anthropological basis. The fundamental problem with Enlightenment thought is that its foundation is in the idea that man is able to autonomously judge for himself as to the nature of God and His ordinances. This can be seen in the thought of John Locke. In his Letter Concerning Toleration he wrote, “All the life and power of true religion consists in the inward and full persuasion of the [human] mind.” Further, Locke contends, “the care of every man’s soul belongs to himself and is to be left unto himself.” However, the care of men’s souls does not belong to men; rather it belongs to God. Ultimately, the basis for tolerance is the Word of God which judges all men (Hebrews 4:12). This idea is diametrically opposed to the notion that it is man who is the judge of God’s Word. Therefore, the ideology of the Enlightenment cannot rationally coexist with the orthodox Christian faith. The two are mutually antagonistic.

The progressive nature of the hostility of those of the Enlightenment toward the Christian faith is evident. Locke’s ideas concerning tolerance were primarily focused on bringing an end to the maltreatment of some factions by others. He believed that such factions could hold different religious convictions while at the same time maintain tolerance toward one another. However, the thought prevalent today is that it is religious belief itself that leads to such maltreatment. Hence, it is considered dangerous by those of the Enlightenment to proclaim the truth of hell or the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as man’s Savior from hell. They say that such things have been the source of the violent oppression that has been inflicted upon those who believe in another means of salvation. Ultimately, it is believed by those of the Enlightenment that such oppression is done in order to bring those who are considered heretics into agreement with the doctrines of the oppressing faction.

Unfortunately, those of the Enlightenment have a point. There has been violent oppression carried out in the name of Christianity. However, isn’t such activity a result of the depravity of man rather than the Christian faith? Is there any basis in the Word of God for such activity? Why not legislate a ban on the violent oppression by factions rather than condemn the only intelligible basis for the denunciation of such oppression? Of course it is true that men ought to love their enemies. However, this is in accordance with the Lord’s command and cannot be concluded aside from His command. The folly of those of the Enlightenment is clear. After all, might not one also argue that those of the Enlightenment may come to represent a majority faction who could then inflict violence upon those who hold to such “dangerous superstitions” as the Christian faith? Clearly, it is not the religious ideology of various factions which leads to violent oppression; rather it is the depravity of man and his natural deficiency of the Christian virtue which dictates such intolerance. Ultimately, without the Christian basis for morality—the nature of the God of Scripture—there can be no meaningful objection to the oppression of one faction by another. This is consistent with the theology of Edwards.

Accordingly, the solution to this dilemma can be found only in the God of the Christian faith. While those who hold to the ideology of the Enlightenment might maintain that an abandonment of the Christian faith is in order, the reality is just the opposite. In the same way that Edwards called men to turn and embrace the God of Scripture, so too ought his successor. As has been stated, the basis for the condemnation of violent oppression of some factions by others has its basis in the God of the Bible. And although there may be oppressors who purport to have the support of the Scriptures in their attempts to forcefully compel others to embrace the tenets of their religion, there is a Judge who will bring retribution upon such wicked ones as these. The foolishness of the appalling philosophy of the Enlightenment that asserts that the human being is the final judge in such matters is apparent in this context; for if there is not a common Judge by which the moral actions in question are discerned, then man would be left to reason as to the moral nature of the oppression of his fellow man. And this is what those who hold to the ideology of the Enlightenment are suggesting as a virtue! Nonetheless, if the heinous nature of such oppression is a truth that is self-evident apart from so-called dangerous superstitions of the Christian faith, then such a truth ought to be evident within the context of such so-called superstitions. In other words, an epistemology in which it is believed that certain truths are self-evident can only exist in a reality in which such truth is known. However, these truths are not self-evident; they have been revealed by God. Apart from revelatory and illuminating work of God, men will be left to false doctrine that it is acceptable to oppress others for their individual gain. Therefore, Edwards’ successor ought to be a man who acknowledges the Triune God as the divine basis for morality and who proclaims the truth of God’s revelation so that others might be brought into this truth.

The Exclusivity of Christianity and the Love of God

Many who question the Christian faith sense a tension related to those who have not heard or those who have not had the opportunity to hear the gospel. Presumably, if everyone over the entire course of human history had the opportunity to hear the gospel and be saved, God might more fairly condemn those who reject Him and save those who accept Him. In such a scenario, we might argue, everyone who rejected Christ would be doing so knowingly and, therefore, would have knowingly chosen their fate. But the fact that the majority of the human race over the course of human history has not even had the opportunity to hear the gospel seems inconsistent with the idea of a God who loves all people.

This argument could perhaps be strengthened by arguing in this manner: If God loves everyone and wants people to believe in Him, why does He present Himself in such vague and mysterious ways? It’s not only a matter of giving people the opportunity to hear the gospel, but also of presenting the gospel in a way that makes the truth of the gospel clear. If God wants people to turn to Him, why doesn’t He write His name in the clouds? Why doesn’t he supernaturally reveal Himself to everyone in some kind of miraculous way so that the truth of Christianity would be clear rather than communicating through a limited number of preachers and a canon of ancient Near Eastern literature which is difficult to understand and not available to everyone?

There are two issues regarding these kinds of arguments which need to be considered. First, there is the question of what the Scriptures teach. How are these tensions dealt with within the Christian tradition? Secondly, there is a matter of our response to what the Scriptures teach. So, let me address both of these things.

First, how are these tensions reconciled within the Christian faith? Well, these questions are actually directly addressed in Scripture. First, the Lord Jesus in Luke 16:19-31 tells the following parable:

There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame." But Abraham said, "Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us." And he said, "Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house- for I have five brothers- so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment." But Abraham said, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them." And he said, "No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent." He said to him, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

This parable illustrates something about humankind’s rejection of the gospel. Ultimately, those who reject the truth of Christianity do so because of their moral disposition. Apart from a supernatural work of God, individuals are destined to reject God regardless of the extent of revelation they have received. Thus, God could write His name in the clouds, send someone back from the dead, or in some other way miraculously reveal Himself, but as long as the person to whom God reveals Himself remains in a state of moral depravity, he or she will continue to reject the truth of the gospel. So part of the answer to the question of the exclusivity of Christianity in light of the love of God is that the opportunity to hear the gospel is not a definitive factor in someone’s acceptance of the gospel. The acceptance of the truth of the gospel is actually part of being saved rather than the ultimate basis for a person’s salvation. (In theological terms, salvation includes predestination, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. Regeneration [or being born-again] constitutes a change in an individual’s moral disposition which then results in a positive response to the gospel. Regeneration is wrought by the Holy Spirit apart from any work or merit within the person. It produces faith in the individual which then serves as the instrumental cause of justification. Justification is a legal declaration of right standing before God that involves God’s reckoning of Christ’s righteousness to the account of the believer.)

Another passage of Scripture which has significant bearing on this matter is Romans 1:18-23. Paul writes:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Here we see there is an extent to which God has revealed Himself to all people in nature. Now, it should be noted that God’s self-revelation in nature is not sufficient to lead people to knowledge of the gospel (and, again, even if it did it wouldn’t make any difference). Yet we see here that it is sufficient to leave people without excuse. Part of the reason for this is that people are not ultimately condemned on the basis of their response to the gospel. Eternal condemnation is meted out on the basis of guilt. You see, human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). In the same way that a political cartoon communicates something about the one whose image is borne in the cartoon, so too we communicate something about God as bearers of His image. When we sin we send the message that God is a liar, God is a murderer, God is an adulterer, God is unmerciful, God is unloving, or God is unjust. Yet God is a sacred being—He is holy. So whenever we sin, we violate something that is sacred. Now, we all know something of the seriousness of violating that is sacred (think child molestation). This is why sin is such a serious thing. We are all guilty of sin and failing to bear God’s image in a way that is befitting. Therefore, we all deserve to be eternally condemned. In your original question you suggested that God might be somehow unfair by not giving everyone the opportunity to be saved. Well, in addition to the fact that such an opportunity wouldn’t make any difference, also note that the fair thing would be that everyone would be eternally condemned. We have all violated God’s law and are all guilty and deserving of eternal condemnation. God would be merciful even if He only saved one person.

Above I mentioned predestination. The Scriptures talk about this in Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1. As I’ve explained, everyone is currently in a state of depravity and naturally enslaved to a life of bondage to sin and rejection of God. For this reason, no one would respond favorably to the gospel in their current fallen condition. We choose what we most desire and we do not desire to follow Christ. For this reason God must first regenerate people if they are to put their faith in Him. Predestination, then, refers to God’s election of whom He will regenerate.

Now, the reason I bring this up is that I still need to address the question of God’s love. How is it that God can so love the world and at the same time only choose some people to be saved? Moreover, doesn’t this imply that God ultimately determines that some people will go to hell? How is this compatible with the idea of a loving God?

Part of the answer to this question is that God does not love everyone in the same way. There is a sense in which God loves all people. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. All people experience blessing on some level and this blessing comes from God’s hand as an unmerited, gracious, and loving provision for their lives. Yet God’s covenant love is reserved for the elect—those whom God has predestined to be saved. These are those for whom God’s love is demonstrated in eternal salvation.

Romans 9 speaks powerfully to why this is. Why is it that God has chosen to demonstrate His mercy upon some but not others. God’s ultimate purpose—the purpose for which God created the universe—is to manifest His glory. (Some would suggest that this makes God some kind of cosmic narcissist, but to what higher purpose could he aspire? Objections to God’s pursuit of His own glory seem to impose the inappropriateness of this for God’s creatures upon God Himself). God’s ultimate purpose—the manifestation of His glory—would not be possible, argues Paul in Romans 9, without the entrance of sin, the salvation of some, and the display of judgment upon others. Hear the words of Jonathan Edwards (probably the greatest American theologian):

It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably radiant, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . .

Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.

If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great . . .

So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect.

This is the answer to the problem of evil from a Christian perspective.

Now, everything I have said up until now is by way of dealing with what the Scriptures teach about the salvation of some and not others. Now I want to touch briefly on our response to this teaching. Despite the Scriptures logical cohesiveness on these matters, there is an extent to which the doctrine of hell offends our sensibilities. It seems to us in the modern Western world to be a bit of an overreaction on God’s part. Yet if what the Scriptures teach about our moral inclinations is true, we probably shouldn’t be too quick to put our full trust in such sensibilities.

Moreover, we are all are located within a certain historical and social context. We are located within the context of a culture in which it is believed that humankind is basically good. Those who go the wrong way are generally seen as victims of an unfortunate upbringing, lack of strong education, or other events which lead them astray. We tend to believe that people will generally do well if provided with the right upbringing and education. Human failure is related to a lack of education about how to live successfully or poor self-esteem or a lack of motivation due to ingrained attitudes of discouragement, etc. Now, I don’t want to deny the extent to which some of these things are true. I merely want to point out that these cultural perspectives influence the way we think about the truth claims I’ve been explaining. How can God blame victims of bad upbringing? But other cultures at other periods in human history and in other parts of the world would see these things quite differently. Many would be offended at the idea of a God who does not judge evil. Other cultural perspectives include a strong sense of human sinfulness and many would be greatly offended by the idea that God would overlook the smallest sin. People in some Islamic cultures have a strong belief in a God who controls all things and would be offended by the notion that God should do anything other than what He deems to be appropriate. This would include choosing to send some people to hell.

In light of the extent to which our historical and social location affects our perspectives on these matters, it would be a bit arrogant to impose our own subjective judgments upon the claims made by Scripture. While some of biblical teaching might not set well with us, we need to recognize the extent to which we are influenced by our place in society and history.

Lastly, I think if we do decide to bring these teachings into question, we should be careful to examine the beliefs we harbor which serve as the basis for our objections. For example, if we say that God is unjust in electing some but not others, we must ask ourselves about the standard of justice to which we are attempting to hold God. Who is to say what is just and what is unjust? Within the Christian tradition, God’s character serves as the basis for justice and morality. But when we impose some other standard of justice, we are really begging the question since in imposing such a standard we must assume the falsity of the Christian position (namely that justice is not based on God’s character). If we presuppose that morality is based on God’s character, then God’s actions are just by definition.

Christian Worldview, Part V - Ways We Allow Unbelieving Worldviews to Creep into Our Thinking

1. Counseling
Within most Bible-believing evangelical churches in Americaf there are those problems which are perceived as problems that go beyond the church’s capacity to handle. Problems that are often seen by the church as something requiring a professional counselor include addiction, depression, anger, low self-esteem, and a host of other things.

Approaches from the field of psychology are essentially rationalistic conclusions based upon non-Christian presuppositions. In this way they stem out of an unbiblical worldview. For example, while the Christian worldview recognizes the fallenness of human beings, the world of psychology generally believes that we are inherently good and, therefore, have the capacity to do well given the right direction, motivation, and education. Therapy sessions, therefore, in which a therapists seeks to provide this kind of direction, motivation, and education, apart from any requirement of a supernatural change in a counselee’s moral disposition, are viewed as something that will help a counselee to overcome his or her problems. And while this is only one example, it is generally true accrss the board that conclusions within the realm of psychology are the rational outworkings of a series of unbiblical presuppositions. The findings of psychology, therefore, are at odds with the way God has created and ordered things to operate (moreover, the kinds of issues with which psychologists often deal are the kinds of issues about which the biblical authors speak and to which the gospel itself applies).

2. Church Practice
One approach to church that has been successful by some standards is the seeker-sensitive model. As they began thinking about how to establish a church, what was to become Willow Creek Community Church conducted a six-week, door-to-door survey. In this survey they asked people who didn’t attend church, why they didn’t attend. They asked them what church would have to be like in order for them to attend. And the answers they received in this survey served as the basis for the establishment of this particular church.

Now, traditionally, Christians have sought to establish church practice based upon the teachings of Scripture. And while we have embraced different ecclesial forms, different forms of church government, different emphases in worship, and a host of other differences, biblical Christianity has always maintained that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority in church practice. This is because of our worldview—we believe that in order to know something truly that we must look to God to tell us. This is how we come to know things. But the seeker model I just described has actually incorporated something from existentialism in allowing human experience to inform us in regard to church practice.

3. Christian Apologetics
Christian apologetics is something to which Christians are called in 1 Pet 3:15. Peter tells us to always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks us about the hope that is within us. And so Christian apologetics is the discipline which trains Christians to give an answer for their hope—it is the “defense of the faith.".

Now, traditionally, Christian apologetics has taken the form of arguments designed to prove to the unbeliever that the Christian faith is true. On one level, this is legitimate. But as Christians, we should not set our faith aside or adopt non-Christian presuppositions in order to make this happen. Unfortunately, this is what we have often done. We have sought to appeal to the unbeliever’s presuppositions in order to establish the Christian worldview. However, if we are appealing to the unbeliever’s worldview, then we are really just solidifying him or her in unbelief. What we really want to do is overturn the unbelievers’ worldview with the Christian worldview. But again, this isn’t what has always been done.

Christian Worldview, Part IV – Competing Worldviews

Having defined the Christian worldview, I thought it would be helpful to examine some of the ways unbelievers differ in their view of the world. So we'll look at several non-Christian worldviews and I'll suggest a few ways Christians can challenge these unbelieving worldviews from a Christian perspective.

1. Naturalism
Naturalism is a worldview in which it is believed that nothing exists except matter. The natural world, a naturalist would say, is all there is. God does not exist. Human beings are complex machines which have evolved from lower life forms. Life itself is not the product of creation or design, but the product of nature operating in accordance with natural laws.

A challenge for the naturalist: Are laws material or immaterial? In a worldview in which it is believed that only matter exists, there is no room for abstract immaterial principles such as laws. But it seems that if a naturalist is going to appeal to such laws, that he or she must first account for them within the context of naturalism.

2. Empiricism
Empiricists believe that they can come to know things through their five senses. How do you know there is a tree out in the front yard? Well, you go out and look at it. This is the philosophical justification that underlies science. Science depends upon experiments in which hypotheses are tested through observation. And so someone who believes that science is the ultimate criterion of truth is, fundamentally, an empiricist.

A challenge for the empiricist: Given your metaphysic, why do you think your perceptions have objective meaning? In other words, what reason do you have to believe that the information you are seeing, touching, hearing, tasting, and smelling corresponds to any kind of objective reality?

Another challenge for the empiricist: Your five senses provide you with "raw facts." How are you able to interpret those facts? How do you account, for example, for the law of cause and effect? You might observe that the eight ball moves when it is struck by the cue ball. However, how do you know that the eight ball was caused to move by the cue ball?

3. Rationalism
Rationalism maintains that we can come to know things by way of human reason.

Rationalism is often associated with the French philosopher, Rene Descartes. Around the time of the Enlightenment, there was increasing skepticism about morality and the claims of the church. Descartes, who was a Roman Catholic, sought to establish a firm foundation from which he could dialog with these skeptics. And the way he went about this was that he tried to think of something to which he could not raise an objection. He sought a belief which he could not question as a foundation from which he could reason. Is the sky blue? Well, maybe I only perceive that the sky is blue and maybe my perceptions are mistaken. Am I standing in this room? Well, I don’t know, maybe I’m dreaming. And these aren’t necessarily the specific things that Descartes questioned, but this is the kind of thing that he did. What Descartes found was that he could question almost everything. The only thing, in fact, that he found he could not doubt was the fact that he was doubting, whence comes the dictum, cogito ergo sum, “I think, therefore, I am.” The only thing that Descartes could not doubt was that he was doubting. And since doubting is a form of thinking, Descartes concluded that he was thinking. And if he is thinking, he must exist in order to do the thinking. Therefore, he concluded, “I think, therefore, I am.” From there he went on to reason about other things.

This is rationalism. According to rationalism, we can know things ultimately by way of reason. Unlike Christian epistemology in which one’s knowledge is dependent upon God and his revelation, rationalism is a system in which it is believed that we don’t need God to tell us anything. We can figure it out on our own, thank you very much.

A challenge for the rationalist: How do you know your premises are true? Rationalism requires that one accept certain truths before he or she begins to reason. Consider the following syllogism:

Premise 1: Socrates is a man.
Premise 2: All men are mortal.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

In order to accept the conclusion of this syllogism, one must accept the truth of premises 1 and 2. But if all things must be demonstrated by reason if they are to be believed, we must prove premises 1 and 2 before we can accept the conclusion. But in order to accept premises in support of premises 1 and 2, we would have to prove those premises using other premises. Ultimately, unless we begin by accepting something as true apart from reason, this process would continue infinitely and we could never prove anything.

4. Nihilism
Nihilism is a philosophical system which some naturalists have embraced. Nihilists have reasoned this way. If all of reality is composed of impersonal matter, then we really have no reason to believe anything. Our thoughts, experiences, and perceptions, after all, would simply be the result of chemical processes which take place in our brains. Therefore, they conclude (and I think rightly given a naturalistic perspective), we don’t have any reason to believe that our thoughts correspond to any kind of objective reality. Therefore, we can’t know anything.

A challenge for the nihilist: How do you know that we can't know anything? Nihilism is self defeating in that it is a claim to knowledge.

5. Existentialism
Some philosophers found it difficult to live consistently as nihilists. They responded by affirming the truth of Nihilism, but then to they went on to make the moral affirmation that despite the fact that we can’t know anything and everything is therefore meaningless, we must rise above the meaningless and create our own meaning. This, it was believed, was the way out of a hopeless nihilistic. So, within existentialism, human experience becomes ultimate. How can we come to know things? We can come to know by way of our experience. By our experiences, we invent our own meaning.

A challenge for the existentialist: Why rise above the meaninglessness to create your own meaning? Existentialists will fall into arbitrariness as they attempt to answer this question.

Christian Worldview, Part III – The Presuppositions of Which the Christian Worldview Consists

So, we've seen that a worldview is a network of presuppositions that is not tested by natural science and in terms of which all of our experience is related and interpreted. Now I want to spell out the network of presuppositions which make up the Christian worldview. In this I am largely indebted to James Sire and his book The Universe Next Door.

Note that there are basically six questions which will essentially define one’s worldview. Here they are:
1. What is the nature of ultimate reality?
2. What is the nature of the world around us?
3. What is a human being?
4. What is the meaning of reality?
5. Is knowledge possible? If yes, how may we come to know things?
6. What is the nature and basis of morality?

So I want to answer these questions from a Christian perspective and thereby define the Christian worldview.

1. What is the nature of ultimate reality? Answer: The Triune God of the Bible exists eternally (John 1:1; Acts 17:28; Col 1). God exists absolutely and eternally. It is impossible for God to not exist since God’s nature is eternal and unchanging. Note that the Scriptures do not attempt to prove God’s existence, rather they presuppose God’s existence and speak about the implications of God’s existence on our lives.

2. What is the nature of the world around us? Answer: The world is God’s creation and is governed and sustained by his almighty power to operate in a uniformity of cause and effect in an open system (Gen 1-2; Col 1). So, God is the ultimate reality upon which everything else depends. All other things were created and are sustained by God. And as God sustains His creation, he is in sovereign control of it, working all things after the counsel of His will. Things operate in a uniformity of cause and effect, that is, they operate in accordance with the laws God has established. But the universe is an open system, which means that God may step in at any point and supernaturally intervene to bring about His purposes. A deist, on the other hand, would believe that the universe is a closed system. God created the universe and left it alone like a watchmaker who builds a watch, winds it up, and then leaves alone to run on its own. But as Christians, we believe God created the world as an open system; it’s a world in which he supernaturally intervenes.

3. What is a human being? Answer: A human being is a creature who is created by God in His image (Gen 1:26-27). Humans are currently in a fallen state which renders them naturally enslaved to a life of bondage to sin apart from God’s redemptive work (Rom 1-3, 6, 8). Now, what does it mean to be created in the image of God? That we are created in the image of God means that we are like God in certain ways. We have intellect, emotion, and will, we have the capacity to love and to be loved, we are personal beings, etc. But it also means that we serve as representations of God. Consider this example, think of a political cartoon. A political cartoon will often bear the image of a politician in order to portray that politician in a certain light (often a negative light!). I remember one political cartoon here shortly after Obama was elected. It showed President Obama on a platform in a stadium filled with multitudes of people. Behind him there was a great big, red, white, and blue banner that read “The Second Coming.” Now, this cartoon bore the image of Barrack Obama. And in bearing his image, it communicated something about his person (or at least something about the way his person was being perceived). The message was something along the lines of President Elect Obama is being perceived as a savior of sorts. And many, many political cartoons function in this way. They portray those whose images they bear as having certain character qualities or as acting in certain ways. This is part of what it means that we bear God’s image. We represent God—we communicate something about God in the way we conduct ourselves. From a Christian perspective, then, this is part of what it means to be human. We are creatures who bear the responsibility of representing God in the way we live our lives (which is the reason that sin is so serious. When we sin, we are sending the message that this is what God is like. God is a liar. God is unloving. God is unmerciful. This is what it means to be human).

4. What is the meaning of reality? Answer: All reality exists to bring glory to God (Isa 43:6-7, 48:9-11; Rom 9:22-23; Eph 1:4-14). God has created all things for His Own glory. Now, when some people hear this, they think that God must be some kind of cosmic narcissist. But I think this is due to the fact that we impose our status as creatures upon God. As creatures, it is inappropriate for us to seek to the worship of other creatures. As creatures who are both sinful and dependent upon God, we are not worthy of that kind of adoration. But this is not the case with God. God is inherently worthy of all glory. And so it would be wrong in a sense for God to not seek his own glory (if it were possible for God to do wrong!). There is simply nothing higher to which God could aspire.

5. Is knowledge possible? If yes, how may we come to know things? Answer: We are able to come to know things through divine revelation (Ps 119:130; Prov 5:1-2, 22:17-21; Col 2:3; Acts 26:18; 2 Tim 3:16-17). As creatures who are dependent upon God, we must look to him to tell us what to think and how to live. Because we are created in God’s image, we have the capacity for knowledge. Yet all knowledge belongs to God—God knows all things perfectly. Our knowledge, therefore, is a subset of God’s perfect knowledge. We must, therefore, look to God in order to obtain that knowledge. As Paul writes in Colossians 2:3, Christ is the one “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Furthermore, because God is the ultimate authority over his creation, his Word is absolutely definitive. There is no higher authority to which we can look to substantiate it.

6. What is the nature and basis of morality? Answer: Morality consists of thoughts, actions, and attitudes which reflect the character of God (Gen 1:26-27). As we have already seen, we bear the responsibility of living in ways that reflect the character of God. We sin when we fail to live in a way that is consistent with God’s character. And so it follows that God’s character is the basis for morality. Those things that are good are good by virtue of the fact that God delights in them; those things that are wicked are wicked by virtue of the fact that God hates them. This is a Christian understanding of morality.

Christian Worldview, Part II – Defining Our Terms

What exactly is a worldview? The definition I think is most helpful comes from the late Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen says, "A worldview is a network of presuppositions that are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted." Now, this is a formal definition and it has some pretty loaded technical language, but if we break it down I think you’ll find that it’s not as complicated as it might first appear.

First, notice that a worldview is a network of presuppositions. When we speak of a presupposition in relation to a particular worldview, we are speaking of a foundational belief in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted. For example, there are those who have the presupposition that the natural world is all that exists. This is a foundational presupposition about the nature of ultimate reality. Ultimately, such a person would maintain, reality is composed of matter in motion—that’s it. And since this presupposition spells out the nature of ultimate reality—a category about which we must believe something if we are to say anything—then this presupposition is one of the foundational beliefs of a network of beliefs that makes up this individual’s worldview.

Also note that I am referring to the presuppositions which make up a worldview as a “network” of presuppositions. The word “network” connotes the idea that there is some kind of coherence or cohesiveness to the various presuppositions that make up a worldview. So, for example, if you hold the presupposition that the natural world is all that exists, then you would not also hold the presupposition that ethics are transcendent and based on the character of God. Obviously, if you believe that the natural world is all that exists, then you don’t believe in God or any kind of transcendent or immaterial reality. Rather, you would likely believe that ethics is relative. The reason for this is that a worldview is a network of presuppositions that is more or less coherent.

Note in Bahnsen's definition that the presuppositions which make up one’s worldview are not tested by natural science. If there is something which serves as the basis by which a presupposition is accepted or rejected, then that thing is foundational to the presupposition. However, remember that our presuppositions are our most foundational beliefs. Presuppositions are beliefs we accept as true apart from any overarching criteria. They are often ingrained in us through our life experiences, cultures, education, upbringing, etc. And they serve as the overarching criteria by which we understand everything else.

Lastly, note that a worldview is something in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted. As I said in my blog yesterday, human beings are not neutral. We all interpret things in light of what we believe. Our worldview, then, consists of our most foundational beliefs and is the lens through which we understand all of our other beliefs, all of our thinking, and all of our experiences.

Christian Worldview, Part I – The Myth of Neutrality

Often we think that we should have a sort of non-committal attitude towards various truth claims. If something is purported to be true, then we should make an unbiased and objective evaluation of the facts before we come to a decision about the truth of falsity of the claim in question. But while we would agree with this on some level and affirm that we should honestly evaluate the various truth claims that are out there, we should also recognize that our evaluation of these things will not be neutral. We simply cannot put aside our biases and independently make an honest evaluation of something.

The reason for this is that we all have foundational beliefs in light of which we understand things. These foundational beliefs comprise our worldviews. They influence all of our conclusions and it is impossible for us to set these beliefs aside. Consider the following examples. There are those who believe that the events of September 11, 2001 were part of a government conspiracy designed to foster American support for the war in Iraq. There are also those who believe that we didn’t really land on the moon. This was also allegedly a government conspiracy. Now, how might we make a neutral and unbiased evaluation of these claims? Well, you might say, let’s examine the evidence. Let’s look at all of the evidence presented by those who claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy and go check to see if that evidence is in fact there. Or we could go have engineers and scientists examine the blueprints for the rockets and other technological equipment used by NASA on the moon mission to see if it was feasible given the technology of 1969. These are typically the kinds of things we would do to verify these kinds of claims, right?

However, before we would do something like that we need to ask ourselves, why? Why examine the evidence? Perhaps instead of looking at the evidence, we should just flip a coin. That’s one way we could make a decision about whether these claims were true. Now, you might say, that’s just silly! Everyone knows that evaluating evidence is a better way to discern truth than flipping a coin! But if you say that, then you’re no longer being neutral. Rather, you’ve taken the side of the majority. Neutrality would involve an openness as to how to approach the subject. Neutrality would consequently entail that we couldn’t make a decision about whether it was better to examine evidence or flip coins. By insisting upon the use of evidence as the criterion by which to discern the truth of falsity of a claim, one actually embraces a particular bias which says that examining the evidence is a better way to discern truth than flipping coins.

All of this goes to show that if we think that we must set aside all of our beliefs and attempt to make a neutral evaluation of things, then we will have no basis or method by which to evaluate the truth claims in question. We will have set such things aside.

Over the next several days I want to begin to think about what kinds of beliefs we should maintain as Christians as we seek to evaluate claims to truth. What kinds of beliefs should we commend to those who would seek to evaluate the truth of the Christian faith? What exactly should our worldview look like and what kind of worldview should we present to others?

Stay tuned!

Circular Reasoning and the Self-Authenticating Nature of Scripture

Some might object that one cannot appeal to Scripture in order to prove the authority of Scripture. If the authority of Scripture is in question, they would say, then the Scriptures cannot be used as evidence to prove their own authority.

Regarding this it should be noted that all arguments are either based on an unsubstantiated claim or circular reasoning. The claim that one cannot appeal to the Scriptures to prove the authority of the Scriptures is itself based upon the assumption that the Scriptures are not ultimately authoritative. But if Scripture is ultimately authoritative, then it is completely appropriate to appeal to Scripture to establish its own authority. If God is the absolute authority and if the Scriptures are God’s word, then there is simply no higher authority to which one might appeal to establish the authority of Scripture. To appeal to a higher authority would necessarily require that the Scriptures are not ultimately authoritative. Rather, the thing to which one appealed would be an authority above Scripture since it would be the authority upon which the Scripture’s authority was established.

As Christians, then, let us remember that our position is that the Scriptures are ultimately authoritative. It is for this reason that we hold the Scriptures to be self-authenticating.