Stanley Fish's New York Times Article

Generally, postmodernism is no friend of Christianity. However, postmodern philosopher, Stanley Fish, has observed something in this article he wrote for the New York Times that Dutch Reformed thinkers (such as Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kyper) observed years ago. This is a desperately needed perspective for anyone with the opinion that religious thought should not play a role in conversations about science, politics, health, and other social issues.

Responding to an Objection to the Christian Faith

Excuse me, sir, but your worldview is the worldview in which this problem exists. Perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that the real problem might be your bankrupt worldview.

Six Preconditions for Apologetics

But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord, always being prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that is within you... 1 Peter 3:15

1. Say “no” to neutrality. Wear your faith on your sleeve.
2. Say "yes" to the truth.
3. Renounce autonomy.
4. Bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.
5. Depend upon the Holy Spirit: use the means he will use to convict, and convince, namely God's Word.
6. Begin with real common ground which unbelievers have with believers, namely the fact of God.

Warfield's Concession to Liberalism in Apologetics

Benjamin Warfield was a Presbyterian theologian who taught at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1887 to 1921. Personally, I love Warfield. He is probably one of the greatest American theologians (perhaps second only to Jonathan Edwards). However, I think Warfield's approach to answering the higher critics of his day may have been a concession to the modern rationalism which fueled the liberal theology of his critics.

The higher critics with whom Warfield was contending believed that the Bible contained errors. They held the moral and ethical teachings in the Bible suspect. Ultimately, these critics held to a worldview which denied the supernatural realm and so sought to explain the Scriptures in a way that excluded supernatural events. The explicit major premise of the critics was that the Bible contained historical, scientific, and factual errors. The implicit minor premise was that the Bible contained statements concerning ethical, spiritual, and religious issues that went beyond what could be proven to be true. Therefore, these critics concluded, since the Bible is unreliable in scientific and historical issues that can be tested, it is also likely unreliable in matters of religion and spirituality which cannot be tested.

Warfield sought to answer these critics by challenging (and essentially inverting) their explicit major premise. Warfield argued that the Bible was reliable in matters that could be tested (history and geography, for example). And since the Bible can be shown to be reliable in these areas, he concluded, we can also trust the Bible in matters which cannot be tested (theology and ethics, for example). In this way Warfield argued that the Bible was completely trustworthy.

But while I would whole-heartedly agree with Warfield's conclusion, there seems to be a few problems with his approach.

1. The argument is lost before it begins. We have already compromised the authority of God’s Word when we begin to appeal to the supposed higher authority of human reason.
2. At best Warfield arrives at probability. There is a logical leap that occurs when he moves from that which can be tested to that which cannot be tested. It is logically possible that a source might be reliable in all matters which can be verified while remaining unreliable in matters which cannot be verified.
3. There is a question as to who should have the burden of proof (note that this is a moral question!). As Christians, we begin with God and His revelation in the Scripture. This is our highest standard of proof. When we accept the burden of proof on the terms of the unbeliever, we have alread conceded (see problem 1 above). Warfield accepts the burden of proof and, in so doing, concedes to the rationalist worldview.

So while I appreciate Warfield and his legacy in almost every respect, I am more inclined to follow the method of apologetics espoused by his predecessor, Cornelius Van Til, who along with J. Gresham Machen, left Princeton Seminary to form Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929.*

_____________________________

*Note that the theological prolegomena followed by Van Til can also be seen in Dutch Reformed theologicans such as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, as well as apologists Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, and the theological tradition of Westminster Theological Seminary, Westminster Seminary California, and Reformed Theological Seminary.

Paul's Apologetc: Paul Appeals to the Authority of Scripture in Acts 13

In Acts 13, Paul begins by describing God’s work in the history of Israel. Starting with their bondage in Egypt, Paul tells of God’s work in the exodus, the wilderness, the distribution of the land, the appointment of Saul and the appointment of David. It is at this point that the sermon climaxes. Paul says, "From the descendants of this man [David], according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus." It is at this point that Paul begins to teach about Jesus Christ.

According to Paul, Jesus was proclaimed by John the Baptist. He was not recognized by the rulers in Jerusalem though their condemnation of Him fulfilled words of the prophets. They put Him to death though He was innocent. Though they laid Him in a tomb, God raised Him from the dead. This is the good news Paul is preaching.

Paul’s authority here is Scripture. Paul says that the Jews in Jerusalem fulfilled "all that was written concerning Him." He equates not recognizing Jesus with not recognizing "the utterances of the prophets which are read ever Sabbath." He says that the good news he is preaching is that of the promises made to the fathers. Finally, he quotes from several of the Psalms, Isaiah, and Habakkuk.

In the same way, let us not be afraid to appeal to the authority of Scripture as we week to convince the unbeliever of the truth of the Christian faith and the folly of his unbelief.

The Satanic Origins of Humanism, Part IV

The humanism of today is primarily naturalistic in its metaphysics. The first affirmation of Humanist Manifesto I, for example, is that the universe is self-existing and not created. Likewise, the second affirmation is that man has come about as the result of a continuous process.

Over the last several days, I have discussed two epistemological problems with humanism (again, "epistemology" refers to one's theory of how we come to know things). But there is a third epistemological problem of humanism. This problem is centered around the correspondance between human perception and the real world. If all that exists is matter in motion (per the humanist's naturalistic metaphysic), then human thought and perception is nothing more than matter in motion. Our thoughts are just the result of chemical reactions in our brains—matter operating in accordance with natural law. But we know that impersonal matter has no interest in leading us to right conclusions based on sound observations. So if our thoughts and perceptions were merely the result of matter operating in accordance with natural law, we couldn’t really know anything. There would be no reason to believe in a correspondance between our thoughts and a real world. Thus, the logical implication of naturalism is nihilism

Nihilism says that nothing can be known and all things are, therefore, meaningless. Of course, for those who are willing to embrace nihilism, we must ask how they know that nothing can be known if nothing can be known, but most are not willing to live with these implications.

So the question for the humanist is: If your thoughts are the result of matter operating according to natural law, how do you know that your thoughts correspond to reality?

The epistemological problems about which I've been writing in my last three blog posts corroborate the Satanic origins of humanism. These problems demonstrate the biblical truth that we reap what we sow. When we follow the example of Satan by attempting to establish ourselves as autonomous human knowers, we are suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness. When we suppress the truth in this way, we reap the negative consequences of our sinful thinking. The epistemological problems, logical contradictions, and incoherence of the humanist position are prime examples of the negative consequences of sinful thinking--the kind of fruit we reap when we sow the seeds of rejecting Christ as the Lord of all knowledge.

The Satanic Origins of Humanism, Part III

Another epistemological problem with humanism is that human reason is not autonomous. As a humanist begins to reason, he utilizes the laws of logic. So the question becomes, where do these laws come from? Human autonomy can’t account for the laws of logic because these laws are universal—they are transcendent. And if the humanist seeks to argue otherwise, he must presuppose the laws of logic before he gets started. So the laws of logic are prior to human reason. And this is inconsistent with the humanist contention that humans are autonomous. This shows that there is something that precedes human thought. The thoughts of human beings are dependent upon a transcendental way of thinking. So, in the end the humanist is unable to account for the laws of logic.

The Satanic Origins of Humanism, Part II

As I mentioned yesterday, humanism is based on human autonomy. Humanist epistemology, then, is a theory of knowledge in which it is believed that man is able to know and understand the world around him based on this autonomy.

Now, there are several serious problems with this that I will look at over the next several days. These are problems we can exploit in our efforts to poke holes in the humanist worldview. First, humanism is a position in which it is believed that an individual independently come to a place of objectivity from which he or she is able to judge the world. Humanists might say things like "let us look at this objectively” or "let us set aside our differences and think about this rationally.” The problem here is that the humanist is unable to view things from an objective standpoint. The minute that a person believes that humans can be objective in-and-of themselves is the moment that he or she becomes biased. Whenever we embrace the notion that we can be objective, we have already become biased. This is a bias that dictates that any viewpoint contrary the humanists own "objective" viewpoint is faulty. So ultimately, one cannot hold that he is objective in-and-of himself and be objective at the same time.

In light of this, one question we might ask a humanist, then, is this: How can you be objective about something if you’re not willing to believe that you cannot be objective? Objectivity from a humanist perspective implies a level of openness towards truth claims that have not been tested by human reason. But what about the possibility that their epistemology (theory of knowledge) is flawed? This line of questioning may be fruitful by the power of the Spirit to help the humanist to begin to see his or her need for a Savior.

While the humanist is unable to be objective, the Christian worldview is the objective standpoint. God’s standpoint is the only objective standpoint and one cannot be objective without God's perspective. Since the Christian worldview is one in which divine revelation is a reality, only the Christian worldview can account for how people are able to view things from an objective standpoint. As Christians we understand that God Himself has given us the God’s-eye view that is necessary for objectivity.

The Satanic Origins of Humanism, Part I

As we begin to think about humanism, we first need to understand exactly what it is that we’re talking about. Most historians consider humanism to be a relatively recent development. During the Renaissance, the word humanism was created to refer to an educational program—the humanities. It was created to differentiate the classical curriculum of Greek and Latin from the then newer emphasis on science and mathematics. So at this point the word wasn’t used to signify a philosophy or a worldview, but it was used to refer to an educational program.

It was not until the Enlightenment came about several hundred years later that the word humanism came to refer to a philosophy. Now as you know, the 17th-18th century Enlightenment is known as the age of reason. So humanism came to be used to refer to the Enlightenment philosophy in which human reason became the philosophical basis for human dignity. Whereas it was once understood that human dignity and value was based on the fact that man was created in God’s image, humanism says that man is valuable because he is the only being which has the ability to reason.

Protagoras is considered by many to be the founder of humanistic philosophy. His motto was homo mensura—which means man is the measure of all things. Protagoras said man is the measure of all things, of things that are, that they are; and of things that are not, that they are not. And so this is a philosophy in which man is elevated to the place of God. While the Christian worldview is one in which we say let God be true and every man a liar, humanism says that the human being is the final judge of all things. In the words of R. C. Sproul, in the case of humanism, "there is no ultimate distinction between a supreme being and a human being because the human being is the supreme being."

Most historians see humanism as are relatively recent development; they see it as having come about during the enlightenment. And I think that most philosophers probably recognize Protagoras’ motto "man is the measure of all things," which goes back to around 400 BC, as the philosophical basis for humanism. But as Christians, we ought to recognize that humanism is much older. When Adam and Eve determined that they had a right to decide whether or not to obey God, Humanism was born. When Satan tempted Eve in the garden, he said, "you will be like God…” And it was Satan himself who said:

I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north.
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.' (Isaiah 14:13-14)

Adam and Eve determined to follow the devil’s example. Therefore, a more appropriate description of humanism might be Satanism. For as we are Christians who seek to follow Christ’s example, so too those who follow Satan’s example can be described as Satanists. If I might bottom line this for you, I would do so using Van Til’s implementation of the word humanism. He uses the word synonymously with the word autonomy. And that’s what this is all about—human autonomy.

Exploiting the Offense of the Easily Offended

Kevin DeYoung has a great piece on his blog today describing the cultural phenomenon in which it's easier to be offended than it is to be right about something. He writes, " To prove you’re offended you just have to rustle up moral indignation and tell the world about it. To prove you’re right you actually have to make arguments and use logic and marshal evidence. Why debate theology or politics or economics if you can win your audience by making the other guys look like meanies?"

But I want to take the conversation in a little bit different direction. Perhaps we can exploit the offense of the easily offended. Unbelievers often object to certain tenents of the Christian faith on the grounds that those tenents are offensive. But what if we could show them that the beliefs upon which their objections and offense are based are themselves offensive to other cultures or people groups? What if we could show that taking offense to Christainity on the grounds of the doctrine of hell, for example, presupposes something that is offensive to cultures who have a deep sense of God's righteous judgment?

I think this is often the approach Tim Keller often takes in his book, The Reason for God. And while I don't think this kind of approach speaks to the ultimate issue of unbelief, it may provide a way for us to "tear down every argument raised up against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor 10:5).

Westminster Today Article on the Story of How Scott Oliphint Met Cornelius Van Til

Anyone who appreciates the ministry and work of Cornelius Van Til as much as I do will appreciate this article in the latest issue of Westminster Today. The article tells of how Scott Oliphint, current Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westmister Theological Seminary, came to develop a relationship with Van Til. The article begins on page 6. Here is the link to a pdf copy of the magazine.

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!

A Christian Response to Atheism

First of all, Mr. Atheist, I want to explain the nature of the issue we are discussing. You and I both have ways of looking at the world. You say that for you "seeing is believing," that you believe only what you can verify using your five senses. I will refer to this position as the "empirical view of knowledge." This is a basic assumption about the nature of knowledge that you are making as you seek to make sense of the world.

You also believe that the nature of reality is ultimately matter—the material universe is all that exists. You do not believe there is a spiritual component to reality. I will refer to this position as materialism.

Ultimately, Mr. Atheist, we all have lenses through which we understand the world. Since you are a materialist, your explanations for miraculous claims is that they are lies, illusions, myths, or otherwise non-miraculous phenomenon. For this reason you would likely regard a miraculous event which you yourself witnessed as having some alternative materialistic explanation. Similarly, you would be inclined to evaluate a given truth claim based on your empirical view of knowledge. This is what you are doing regarding Jesus about whom the Scriptures make certain claims. But this just goes to show that you have a system of thinking through which you view the world. Of course, I too have a system of thinking through which I view the world. I will refer to these kinds of systems as "worldviews."

Everything I have said up until now, I have said to make this point: the nature of the issue we are discussing is a matter of worldviews. You hold to an empirical view of knowledge and a materialistic view of ultimate reality. I, on the other hand, hold to a revelatory view of knowledge and a theistic view of ultimate reality. I believe that knowledge is based on divine revelation and that all that exists has its being because it is generated by God who exists necessarily and eternally. This is the nature of the debate.

Now, I would imagine that you would like to have me demonstrate my worldview based on your worldview. Perhaps you would have me argue for the truth of the Bible based on empirical data. This, however, is impossible. Our worldviews are antithetical to one another. They are contradictory. I believe that divine revelation serves as the foundation for knowledge while you believe in an empirical foundation for knowledge. If I were to argue for the truth of the Bible based on empirical data, then I would have to assume your foundation for knowledge as ultimate and reject my own foundation for knowledge as ultimate.

So the question becomes, where do we go from here? You assert that knowledge is obtained empirically and I assert that it is based on revelation. Can we move forward? I believe we can.

I believe that unless we adopt the Christian worldview, we can't make sense of anything. This, I believe, can be seen as we examine your own worldview. You say, for example, that you believe knowledge is gained empirically. Yet you also believe that matter is all that exists. And so the question is, is knowledge a material thing? This question really falls under more comprehensive question, namely, how do you account for the mind? Do all of our thoughts, perceptions, and feelings consist of matter? Perhaps you would say that as our brains operate in accordance with the natural laws which govern the matter of which our brains are composed, that this gives rise to our thoughts and perceptions. But this just shows that your theory of knowledge is flawed because this hasn’t been demonstrated empirically. You say that “seeing is believing,” but you haven’t seen the impersonal matter of our brains producing our thoughts, perceptions, and knowledge. No scientist in the world can tell me what I'm thinking by empirically observing my brain. Perhaps some day scientists will be able to do this, you might say. But you shouldn't believe it until that day comes if you are going to be consistent with your theory of knowledge.

But again, the real problem with saying that thoughts and knowledge are produced by the material matter of our brains is that by acknowledging the existence of thoughts and knowledge in the first place you are acknowledging the existence of something that is immaterial. Yet at the same time you say that everything that exists is material. Either knowledge does not exist, or not all things which exist are material. Your contention that thoughts are produced by matter does not have any bearing on this.

Another problem with your position is that the impersonal matter of which you assert our brains are comprised would not seem to have any interest in producing thoughts and perceptions that necessarily corresponded to reality. Take your memories, for example. If your memory is merely produced by matter operating according to natural law, then how do you know that your memories are reliable? Does impersonal matter have any interest in providing you with a reliable memory? In order to answer, you must use your memory. But if your memories are unreliable, then your answer to the question is likewise unreliable. How do you get around this?

Now, up until this point you have not explicitly stated your view of morality. Yet several things can be understood from what you have said. It is clear that you do hold to some level of morality since you seem to agree that there are some rules we ought to follow as we engage in dialog about the issues we’re discussing (you don't think that a person ought to believe something unless it has been empirically demonstrated, for example). This kind of thing is really a moral position. Anytime you believe anyone ought to do anything, you are making a moral judgment. But how can you account for this? If we were merely composed of matter operating according to natural law, then it would seem that you would have no basis to tell me that your way of settling this question of worldviews is any better than mine.

While your worldview has some inherent flaws, the Christian worldview provides a firm foundation for the existence of knowledge, the reliability of memory, the existence of universal laws, and the correspondence of our perceptions to reality—all of the things for which you cannot account given your own worldview. From a biblical perspective, these things are a part of the world God has created and they have their basis in His nature and character. Within the Christian worldview there is both a material and an immaterial aspect to reality. This framework avoids the problems of a purely materialistic universe. Likewise, the omniscient God who speaks and does not lie serves as the foundation for human knowledge. Our knowing is based on God's knowing. The laws which govern the universe also make sense given that the Scriptures teach that God created the universe to operate with a uniformity of cause and effect.

The truth is, Mr. Atheist, if we reject God, we have to adopt some other point of view that will lead to irrationality. The Apostle Paul describes this in Romans 1. Paul writes, "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." When we deny God, we embrace ways of thinking that are out of alignment with the way God has designed things to operate. The problems with empiricism and the problems with materialism exist because these viewpoints are at odds with the way things really are—they are out of alignment with God's nature and character. And when we embrace sinful ways of thinking we reap the consequences of irrationality that come with it.

Yet God sent his Son into to save us from both the penalty of sin and the reign of sin in our lives. The Christian faith must serve as the basis for understanding the world. It is only when we turn to God and embrace Christ by faith, that we can begin to make sense of the world in which we find ourselves. When we deny God, we become futile in our thinking and cannot live consistently with what we believe or even make sense of the things we take for granted. If you’d like to know more about embracing Christ, see this short presentation.