tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60673884106590584262024-02-06T23:34:08.005-08:00Thinking ChristianlyA Blog for thinking Christianly about anything and everything.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-51601658124221457732019-06-06T10:28:00.000-07:002019-06-06T12:44:51.809-07:00Should Christians be Philosophers?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Scripture in Context: Colossians 2:1-3:4</b>
"For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. 5 For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory."
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Lesson Text: Colossians 2:8</b>
Throughout the history of the church philosophy has often been ill-treated in more than one way. Two extremes exist (both of them negative and unbiblical) as it concerns attitudes towards philosophy in relationship to Christianity. Philosophy has at sundry times been overvalued and also undervalued (even despised) in various traditions. The first negative extreme is, as often is the case, what gives rise to the second negative extreme. We are, as frail humans, very given to pendulum swinging, oversteering and landing in opposite ditches. It is indeed the case that both the overestimation of the place of philosophy within the church and the under appreciation of philosophy in the church are errors to be avoided.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">One of the principle objections to the study of philosophy among Christians finds its root in a certain understanding of one verse in the new testament, namely our text under consideration, Colossians 2:8.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and <u><b>not according to Christ</b></u>."
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This verse, the only one in the entire New Testament which actually uses the word “philosophy” (save the use of the term “philosophers” in Acts 17), has stood out in many Christians minds and has predisposed many a believer to be wary of anything bearing the name “philosophy” or “philosophical.” However, to read Colossians 2:8 in such a way as to come away with the belief that all things labeled “philosophy” are to be rejected immediately, dismissed out of hand, is to not read the Scripture here very carefully (which is something we ought always to do).</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If we slow down to take a closer look at verse 8 we see that the apostle Paul is not warning believers to avoid all philosophy but, rather, to avoid certain kinds of philosophy. Namely we are to avoid philosophies which are “according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” Arguably the apostle Paul may be giving us two different categories of bad philosophy (e.g. 1. Philosophies “according to human tradition” and 2. philosophies “according to the elemental spirits of the world.”), but it seems more probable that he is grouping together all philosophy which is not according to Christ as being “empty” because it is mere “human tradition” as opposed to a philosophy which is informed by revelation.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It is important to see that the primary distinction Paul is making here is not between two bad philosophies, neither of which are according to Christ, but between bad philosophies and good philosophies. Paul’s wording here in verse 8 is important because by saying “see that no one takes you captive by philosophy… not according to Christ” this strongly suggests that there are philosophies (or at least a philosophy) which is in accordance with Christ. As we will see, the greater context of Colossians 2 will explicate what he means by philosophies not according to Christ.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Before we look at the difference between philosophies not according to Christ and philosophies in keeping with Christ it would probably serve us well to give some definition to the word philosophy itself. As I said earlier the New Testament only employs the word philosophy this one time with the exception of a variation of this word in Acts 17 (philosophy here in Colossians 2:8 and philosophers in Acts 17:18, which is to say those who are practitioners of philosophy. Namely in that context it referred to the Stoics and Epicureans). The word philosophy is itself a composition of two other Greek words, namely, phileo (φιλεω) which means “Ι love” and sophia (σοφια) which means “wisdom.” Hence philosophy is “the love of wisdom.” Upon this definition, insofar as we have a face value meaning for the word philosophy, we must ask ourselves whether philosophy is a bad thing? Should we love wisdom and seek after it or is wisdom a thing to be despised and rejected by Christians?
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I presume to speak on behalf of all my brothers and sisters in Christ when I say that I am certain whatever form of philosophy we might reject we certainly are not rejecting the most basic notion of philosophy, the love of wisdom. In fact to do so would be very unbiblical of us. Consider the first seven opening verses of the biblical book of Proverbs.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: 2 To know wisdom and instruction, to understand words of insight, 3 to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity; 4 to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth— 5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance, 6 to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles. 7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction."
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Consider Solomon’s purpose in writing this book, so that the reader may come “to know wisdom and instruction.” Note further that the Scripture tells us “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” This really leaves the believer with no room to make the uncareful and blanket statement that “all philosophy is a thing to be avoided.” It is the same kind of uncareful reading of the Colossians 2:8 that leads people to throw around slogans like, “money is the root of all evil” which 1 Timothy 6:10 never actually says.[1]
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">No, brothers and sisters, we should not despise philosophy because the Lord wants us to love wisdom and pursue knowledge. God does not oppose our growing in intellect or exploring questions about what exists and for what purpose or inquiring into ethical questions, or considering what it means to have knowledge, etc.! Christianity is not an anti-intellectual religion, nor an anti-philosophical religion. Jesus himself, in his human nature, is said to have “increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man” as he grew up into adulthood.[2]
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So it is clear from Scripture that philosophy, at its most basic meaning, is not a bad thing. So what of the differences between philosophies “not according to Christ” and philosophy in accordance with Christ? Let us turn back to Colossians 2. Paul has told us that philosophies that are not according to Christ are those that are wrapped up in human tradition and the elemental spirits of this world. Note that “elemental spirits” can also be translated as “elemental principles.” I think, so understood, that both of these descriptions are essentially talking about the same kind of bad philosophy, namely one that operates purely according to human reason and tradition as opposed to philosophy that is done in light of, and under the authority of, divine revelation.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But we don’t have to merely speculate as to what Paul means by these two phrases, “human tradition,” and “elemental spirits/principles” because he gives us examples. Immediately after verse 8 (you guessed it, starting in verse 9) Paul tells us “For in Him (that is Christ) the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.” Herein lies the demarcation between philosophies according to Christ and philosophies not according to Christ. Philosophies which are according to Christ recognize Jesus as the divine and incarnate Son of God who is the head of all rule and authority. Philosophies which start with the proclamation “Jesus is Lord!” and which affirm his coming and headship over all things (e.g. over Logic, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics, etc.) are welcome philosophies. They have the proper starting point for doing legitimate philosophy, namely, the fear of God. A philosophy which sees the teachings of Christ (and by extension the whole of God’s word) as authoritative and therefore a philosophy which sees itself as subordinate to the rule of Jesus, is a philosophy that is according to Christ. Paul is not condemning this kind of philosophy, rather he is condemning those which do the exact opposite and fail to recognize the rule and authority of Jesus.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In verses 11-15 Paul goes on to explain how Jesus has demonstrated his authority over human tradition and reason, and how he has established his rule over the things of this world.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him."
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Christ has accomplished salvation for his people, circumcising our hearts, burring us with him in his death by baptism, and raising us to new life in himself by the power of his resurrection. By his power and his work all of our sins are forgiven and our debt is cancelled against God. He has shown his power too, and completely disarmed the rulers and authorities of this world, triumphing over them. Whether Paul here means the human rulers and authorities or the spiritual, demonic forces at work is perhaps a bit ambiguous but it is nonetheless true in both cases. The Jewish authorities, the Roman authorities, and the demonic authorities were all powerless to keep Jesus in his grave and his resurrection proves that he is able to do all he says he can do and that he has saved us from our sins and reconciled us to God! A philosophical starting point which affirms all of this is a philosophy according to Christ.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Contrarily it becomes easy to see what kinds of philosophies are not according to Christ. Paul goes on to give us very clear examples in verses 16-23.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. 20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh."
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here we see Paul identify certain traditions of men regarding how one ought to eat and drink, or observe certain festivals or the Sabbath. Most likely here he has in mind many of the Pharisaical traditions which Jesus and his disciples constantly butted heads with in the Gospels. It is not that there is no instruction to be had on food and drink or on Sabbath keeping, but man loves to add and subtract from what God has said. Any addition or subtraction to the word of God on these or any other subject is damnable philosophy which leads people away from Christ and toward hell.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But it is not just Jewish traditions (rule keeping) and mysticism (such as the worship of angels) that Paul addresses here but also human philosophies like extreme asceticism. The denial of the body of basic needs and even pleasures as was taught by certain Jewish sects (like the Essenes) and Greek philosophers alike (i.e. Stoics and Cynics, etc.). Paul addresses this idea which led people to practice severe treatment of their bodies as if this somehow enabled them a higher degree spirituality or freed them from the power of our flesh. Only Christ can actually free us from the power of the flesh. Denying yourself food and drink and sexuality does not in itself make one spiritual. In fact the spiritual man knows that all of those things have a place in which they may bring glory to God. Any tradition or teaching or practice that loses site of the headship of Jesus is a deceitful and empty philosophy.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So philosophies not according to Christ, which is the kind of philosophy condemned by Scripture, are philosophies that do not recognize the true humanity and divinity and Lordship of Jesus Christ. They are philosophies that add and subtract from the teaching of God’s word. They are philosophies that try to use human reason and carnal practices to reach spiritual enlightenment and which fail to acknowledge the rightful rule and authority of Christ.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">John Calvin sums up these problematic philosophies when he writes:
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"He (that is Paul) points out more precisely what kind of philosophy he reproves, and at the same time convicts it of vanity on a twofold account -- because it is not according to Christ, but according to the inclinations of men; and because it consists in the elements of the world. Observe, however, that he places Christ in opposition to the elements of the world, equally as to the traditions of men, by which he intimates, that whatever is hatched in man’s brain is not in accordance with Christ, who has been appointed us by the Father as our sole Teacher, that he might retain us in the simplicity of his gospel."[3]
Philosophies not according to Christ are philosophies that: 1. Do not have an origin point in common with the revelation of God, and 2. Distract people from the simplicity of the gospel. Conversely a philosophy in accordance with Christ will always start with revelation (general or special) and never distract (or detract) from the truth of the gospel (and by extension, any teaching of Scripture).
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now having so far shown that philosophy, the love of wisdom, is a good thing at its most basic level (Proverbs expressly was written to give wisdom to the person who desires it), and having now clearly demarcated the lines between good philosophy (that which recognizes the rule and headship of Jesus and originates from God’s revelation) and bad philosophy (that which which originates in the mind of man and seeks to subjugate revelation to itself and does not recognize the Lordship of Jesus), what should a Christian use philosophy for?
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Philosophy is good for Christian use for a great many things. First of all, it is worth mentioning that the modern conception of what philosophy encompases is much narrower than what philosophy was thought to encompass historically. In today’s academy a philosophy major will focus primarily on the study of Logic,[4] Epistemology,[5] Metaphysics,[6] Ethics,[7] and maybe Aesthetics.[8] These are indeed central philosophical inquiries and they are among the most important questions we can ask. However throughout history, back to the ancient Greeks and through the Medieval era, philosophy also encompassed disciplines like natural philosophy (which we now call “science”)[9] and also mathematics. If you have ever taken any geometry you are interacting with the work of the great philosopher Euclid (who, by the way, would be horrified that we use his philosophy to make physical things because he was just interested in the purity of his axioms and their relationships). Again, philosophy, the love of wisdom, really covers any area of inquiry into any subject matter. To do philosophy is simply to be curious to know and understand.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Broadly speaking, Christians can use philosophy in at least the following two ways:
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">1. Christians can use philosophy to discover and proclaim truth, goodness, and beauty in the world as revealed to all men by general revelation.
2. Christians can use philosophy to aid in the communication of truths given to us by special revelation.
As to the first Christian use of philosophy (using philosophy to discover and proclaim truth, goodness, and beauty revealed by God in general revelation) this allows us as Christians to study and learn about the world God has made. From the engineering of buildings, cars, planes, etc., to the study of the art of persuasion in speech or exciting story telling in prose, to research into medical technology, to the forms of philosophy we have already discussed that inquire into meaning, truth, goodness, beauty, and knowledge itself, Christians should have a very real interest in all of these forms (and more) of philosophical inquiry. Something is fundamentally broken in the person who is content simply to go through life incurious about the world around him.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The ancient Greeks were uniquely curious about the world they found themselves in compared to other civilizations. While this did not free the pagan Greeks from their sins, it did lead them into the discovery and advancement of many truths. Much of the math which we use today originated with the Greeks who simply were infatuated with numbers and lines and other objects built into the invisible fabric of the universe and the relationships they had with one another. It was this early natural philosophical inquiry that caused more than just one or two Greeks to begin to wonder if there were not some ultimate God, above all the other so-called gods, that really wove the universe together. The world seemed the product of a great unity of mind rather than a product of a plurality of gods always at war with one another. Thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, among others, actually approached a kind of theism because of their philosophical inquiry.</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
Paul makes it clear that the reason such truths can be found out by gentiles is because of God’s general revelation in the things he has made. Romans 1:19-20 states, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” So clearly did God reveal himself in the natural world to all men that Paul actually acknowledges in Acts 17:24-28 that the Greeks had acquired truth about the one true God. In his message to the Athenian philosophers he states:
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’"
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here he is quoting two of their own poet/philosophers and acknowledging that they have rightly inferred certain truths about God from their philosophy even though they have fallen short of actually finding him in a saving way. Nonetheless, truth was discovered and it was discovered because of general revelation. Once again, the only way to do true philosophy is in light of revelation from God and the Greeks at least used general revelation as their starting point and as such discovered many true things but not without a great mixture of error.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So what of the pagan philosophers and their works? Are we to commit them to the flames or can we benefit from them? Well, two giants of the faith have taken up sides on this point. One is Tertullian, a late second century Christian teacher who finds no use for the pagans and their philosophy and the other is Augustine who argues there is much which can be redeemed within their work. Let us consider Tertullian’s criticism first.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Writing with great passion and concern for his fellow brothers and sister in Christ, as they dealt with constant heresies popping up all around them, Tertullian identified the pagan philosophies and philosophers as a source of much of the trouble. He states:
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"These are “the doctrines” of men and “of demons” produced for itching ears of the spirit of this world’s wisdom: this the Lord called “foolishness,” and “chose the foolish things of the world” to confound even philosophy itself. For (philosophy) it is which is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and the dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy. From this source came the Æons, and I know not what infinite forms, and the trinity of man in the system of Valentinus, who was of Plato’s school. From the same source came Marcion’s better god, with all his tranquillity; he came of the Stoics. Then, again, the opinion that the soul dies is held by the Epicureans; while the denial of the restoration of the body is taken from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; also, when matter is made equal to God, then you have the teaching of Zeno; and when any doctrine is alleged touching a god of fire, then Heraclitus comes in. The same subject-matter is discussed over and over again by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments are involved. Whence comes evil? Why is it permitted? What is the origin of man? and in what way does he come? Besides the question which Valentinus has very lately proposed—Whence comes God? Which he settles with the answer: From enthymesis and ectroma. Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions, so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions—embarrassing even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of nothing! Whence spring those “fables and endless genealogies,” and “unprofitable questions,” and “words which spread like a cancer?” From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, “See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost.” He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,” who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.” Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides."[10]
Tertullian rightly reacts against the errors and heresies produced by those who have wandered far afield into greek philosophy with no grounding in the truths of Scripture. Marcion and the other heretics he mentions were no cute kittens but men twisted and warped by sinful lack of submission to the teachings of Christ, cutting and pasting their Bibles to their own liking and making a god in their own image. It is all too true that the Greek philosophers had a deficient view of God and that those in the visible church who followed those pagan philosophers indiscriminately came to a shipwreck of their faith and of those whom they took down with them. So Tertullian is quite right to strongly oppose the doctrines of demons and false ideas found in the philosophers because of the fruit of death which those ideas bear out.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">However, it is possible that Tertullian goes too far in his criticism of Greek philosophy. It may depend on how we understand his final statements. Again, he said, “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,” who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.” Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.”
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If Tertullian is taken to mean that all things that are not the gospel itself are worthless and we should not hold any interest in them, then I think he goes too far. Surely there are areas of inquiry that are not directly associated with the gospel that are still worth our time. We have already mentioned some of these above. Learning how to do a heart or liver transplant does not have a direct application to the gospel but surely it was a good line of inquiry that led to successfully being able to save lives in this way. Perhaps identifying the nature of knowledge seems to stand apart from the gospel but if we say that we know the gospel and that we know that it is true, what do we mean by that? Surely some of the inroads the Greeks made into the nature of the universe and the things therein have some valuable insights, insights that we benefit from even today. Charitably we may read Tertullian with the lens of Colossians 2 and see that his main concern is the rejection of philosophy that is completely untethered from the gospel and not subordinate to Christ. It would seem however that he is ready to depart from the works of Plato and Aristotle altogether in order to avoid their errors. Augustine, however, offers us a still more excellent way.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In his book, On Christian Doctrine, Augustine gives us this helpful illustration of how we ought to think about the truths which pagan philosophers have stumbled upon. He writes:
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it. For, as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver, and garments, which the same people when going out of Egypt appropriated to themselves, designing them for a better use, not doing this on their own authority, but by the command of God, the Egyptians themselves, in their ignorance, providing them with things which they themselves were not making a good use of; in the same way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God’s providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also—that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life—we must take and turn to a Christian use."[11]</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here, I think, Augustine offers us a better way to think about engaging non-Christian thinkers. In fact, I think what Augustine suggests is exactly what we see Paul doing in Acts 17 when he quotes two of the Greek poets. Fundamentally we should recognize that if anything is true, if anything is good, if anything is beautiful, it rightly belongs to the Lord. Non-Christians, due to general revelation and God’s common grace to all mankind, have often discovered incredibly true, good, and beautiful things. Very often they use these things to some errant end but that does not negate the truths they have found. The Christian philosopher has the duty to excavate those truths, to plunder the Egyptians, and repurpose them to the glory of God. The Christian philosopher recognizes that any truth that is discovered is a revealed truth, is God’s truth, and it flows from him and should point back to him. Many Christians, like Tertullian, are a bit too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should follow Augustine’s approach, and Paul’s before him, in isolating the good discovered by non-believers and appropriating it to be used for its truest end, the glory of God.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So then, the first purpose of philosophy for Christians is to identify truth, goodness, and beauty in the world (general revelation) and to learn about God through the things he has made, to do good to others with the things we learn, and glorify him. We can also use this as a point of contact with our non-Christian neighbors, taking truths they already recognize and building a bridge for them back to God. We should recognize truth, wherever it is found, is God’s truth.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As to the second Christian use of philosophy (using philosophy to aid in the communication of truths given to us by special revelation) this is where philosophy can become distinctly Christian. This form of philosophy starts with Christian presuppositions revealed to us directly by special revelation (i.e. Scripture). In other words, this where we do philosophy about things that non-Christians would not pursue. Or, in some cases, we use philosophy to make a case for the truth of distinctly Christian doctrines. A primary example is the doctrine of the Trinity. God is one being (or essence) in three persons. A uniquely Christian doctrine that is found in the pages of Scripture by means of three clearly taught truths. 1. There is but one true God. 2. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons. 3. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the one true God. These three doctrines are clearly taught in Scripture but the word Trinity is not found in the text of Scripture. Nor is there anywhere that explicitly states, “God is one being in three persons.” Christian thinkers, who knew God’s word exceptionally well but who were also well schooled in philosophical inquiry carefully delineated how we ought to talk about God as both one and also three without there being a contradiction in God’s nature.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">One need only read the Athanasian Creed to see how carefully the words were chosen to avoid heresy and uphold orthodoxy concerning God. “We worship one God in Trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the essence.” This is but a small selection of the language of that creed but already we see the technical terminology being employed. What is an essence? That’s a philosophical question! One that is informed by the work of Plato and Aristotle among others. So we see that the chasm between theology and philosophy really all but disappears as soon as we start to carefully articulate our Christian doctrines. Learning to think carefully, form good premises, draw proper conclusion and ask the right questions is utterly crucial to such important questions concerning the nature of God and of salvation. We must be philosophers about such things!
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Indeed the Westminster divines were philosophers about such things. Consider the definition of God given in WCF 2.1.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal, most just, and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty."</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We could spend weeks breaking apart that definition and considering what it means for God to be “infinite” or “eternal” or “without body, parts or passions” or “immutable.” How can God who is eternal interact with beings in time? How can a God who is immutable and impassible interact with his creatures and respond to their prayers? How can a being be a being and have no body at all? These are but a few reasonable questions that emerge from just a few select parts of the definition of God given in the WCF. All of them have good answers, but not always simple ones. They need careful thought applied to each one. </span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The fact of the matter is that we hold things as Christians that require careful thought and explanation. Some of our doctrines are challenged regularly by unbelievers (and false believers) and it is at moments like that we must take up Peter’s charge to “be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope you have within you.”[12] C. S. Lewis has said, “If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were educated. But a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”[13] Indeed, he is right. We live in a fallen world which is constantly challenging and subverting the truth of God, exchanging it for a lie. By engaging in philosophy, under the Lordship of Jesus and with a recognition that all truth is revealed by God (whether generally or specially) we can become more effective case makers for Christianity, answer objection and genuine question from non-believers. We can demonstrate that Christianity is consistent, not contrary to reason, and absolutely true.</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">One of my all time philosophers is Thomas Aquinas and I would like to finish with a word from him about how Christians should think about philosophy. He writes:</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
"It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God, besides the philosophical sciences built up by human reason. First, indeed, because man is directed to God as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee (Isa. 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason can discover, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation, because the truth about God such as reason could discover would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. But man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that, besides the philosophical sciences discovered by reason there should be a sacred science obtained through revelation."[14]
Aquinas has a good word here. Philosophy and human reason can truly discover things about God but not so wholly nor so completely as to be sufficient for salvation. Philosophy is a useful tool for discovering truth and for clarifying truth. Ultimately, however, what man needs is a direct word from God about how we might have forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God. We need the gospel contained in the word of God.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In summary, then, we see that Paul has not condemned philosophy itself, for philosophy is the love of wisdom and Christians are commanded to seek wisdom and fear God as the beginning of wisdom. What Paul condemns are philosophies not according to Christ which means philosophies that do not recognize him as the divine and incarnate Son of God who defeated sin and death in his crucifixion and resurrection for our salvation. Philosophies that start with man as the beginning of wisdom and that draw conclusions contrary to God’s revealed truth are to be rejected. Instead philosophies in accordance with Christ ought to be erected which are subservient to the lordship of Christ and which affirm what God has revealed (generally and specially). Christians can use philosophy to discover truth, goodness, and beauty in the things God has made and direct the attention of the world to a good God who authored all of those things. We can make good things from the truths we discover for the good of our fellow man. We can plunder the Egyptians and reclaim for God what non-Christians have discovered because of God’s common grace. Finally we can build a positive Christian philosophy to carefully articulate doctrine and provide answers to questions and objections to our faith.
</span></pre>
<pre style="overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A Christian pursuit of philosophy is always subservient to revelation. A pagan philosophy always elevates human reason above revelation. This is what Paul warns us against falling prey to in Colossians 2. As Aquinas is famous for saying, “Theology is the queen of the sciences and philosophy is her handmaiden.” May it always be so for Christian philosophers.
Psalm 111:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!
________________
[1] Indeed 1 Timothy 6:10 actually says, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. Money is, in itself, often a good thing. Money meets all kinds of genuine needs such as food for hungry bellies, clothes for naked bodies, etc. The love of money, by which the Scripture means a kind of unhealthy infatuation with collecting as much money as possible no matter the means, is what creates many kinds of evil deeds. A person can, however, be a successful businessman with lots of money and not be wicked insofar as they are good stewards of those resources and they see their wealth as means for the kingdom’s end.
[2] Luke 2:52.
[3] Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. 21 (Grand Rapid, MI. Baker 2003) 181.
[4] Logic is the study of how to think properly and draw true conclusions from well ordered premises and, hence, undergirds basically all other forms of inquiry.
[5] Epistemology is the study of knowledge, what it means to say that we “know” something (for instance it has been proposed that knowledge is equal to a justified, true, belief). Can we both have knowledge if our proposed ideas are contradictory?
[6] Metaphysics is the study of, or inquiry into, what exists beyond the physical or natural world (e.g. God, angels, human souls, numbers, colors, Forms, etc.).
[7] Ethics is the study of morality and moral decision making. What makes something moral or immoral? What grounds morality? Is morality objective (true for all people equally) or subjective (relative to each individual or family or nation)? What process ought we to use to make a good moral decision?
[8] Aesthetics is the study of beauty. This garners less interest among many modern philosophers than it should, mainly because they don’t believe beauty is an objectively existing thing and this harkens back to their view of metaphysics and their lack of belief in anything non physical.
[9] The word Science comes from the Latin “scientia” which means knowledge. Implicit in the terminology shift from “natural philosophy” to “science” is the notion by post-enlightenment modernists that philosophy does not yield knowledge but the “scientific method” (based upon observation with the natural senses and repetition in a lab) does. Hence discarding “natural philosophy” for “science” is an post-enlightenment slam against the value of traditional philosophy in general.
[10] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 7.
[11] Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, in Great Books of the Western World vol. 18. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1990), Book 2, Ch. 40.
[12] 1 Peter 3:15
[13] C. S. Lewis, “Learning in War-Time,” in The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (Orlando, FL: Macmillan, 1980, rev. and exp. ed.), 28.
[14] Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica in Great Books of the Western World vol. 19. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1990), ?. Part 1, Question 1, Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?</span></pre>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-76218978488105732052017-04-15T16:47:00.001-07:002017-04-15T16:47:50.691-07:00ON THE EXISTENCE OF NUMBERS: A CASE FOR FORMS, UNIVERSALS, AND ABSTRACT OBJECTS<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Introduction</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One of the premier debates of philosophy is on the problem of Universals, sometimes called the problem of Abstract Objects or Platonic Form. Numbers, if indeed they are real things, fall into the category of Abstract Objects. For the uninitiated, a discussion on whether or not numbers, and other so-called abstract objects, exist may seem very odd. I submit among the reasons why such a discussion may seems odd, that not least among them, is the fact that most people would say the answer is obvious. “Of course numbers exist,” they will say “I see them every day and use them every day.” The existence of numbers is seemingly apparent to all people. But, even though it may seem obvious there are those who have raised valid questions about whether such things as numbers have any real existence or whether they are merely conventions of speech for practical purposes and when we say “two” or “three” we do not really refer to anything at all.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is the purpose of this paper to outline the debate about the problem of numbers as abstract objects, to weigh the arguments of both sides (i.e. the Realist versus the Nominalist positions, each of which have varied levels of adherence) and then to finally to demonstrate the real existence of numbers and, incidentally, other abstract objects as well. I will demonstrate that this question not only has major implications for mathematics and science but also that it has implications that reach beyond to questions of ontology, that is, reality itself and even theology and questions of the nature of God.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Defining Numbers</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What kind of thing is a number?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Defining what a number actually is may be more difficult than many would suppose upon first considering the job. Consider any number whatsoever. For instance take the number two. What is the number two? What is the relationship between the number two and the number one, or three, or 10,000? In fact we might be justified in asking, “is the number ‘two’ the same thing as the number ‘2’?” Is the number two tied to any particular representation of that number in numeric or verbal form? If there sits before you a couple of objects, are they a manifestation of twoness? These questions may be easier to ask than to answer.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bertrand Russell is one who has taken up the matter and attempted to give a definition of a number. In a short essay entitled </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Definition of Number</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> he argues that many people approach the problem incorrectly. He states, “Many philosophers, when attempting to define number, are really setting to work to define plurality, which is quite a different thing. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Number</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is what is characteristic of numbers, as </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">man</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is what is characteristic of men. A plurality is not an instance of number, but of some particular number.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In other words, it seems, Russell is asking what the essence of number is. That thing which makes it what it is and without which it ceases to be what it is. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">His reference to man or mankind is apropos because it is another philosophical question which has been wrestled with for several millennia, what makes man man? Mankind has been referred to as rational animals, image bearers, and a great many other things in trying to describe the distinction between ourselves and other living things. But there is a sense in which the question “What is man?” is actually very different from the question “What is number?” When it comes to Man we can refer to tangible qualities which at least separate man’s nature from that of other things, both living and inanimate. So even if the ultimate answer to what man is goes deeper than the physical attributes he carries it must be admitted that number does not even have this as a starting point in the discussion.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Let us continue a bit further with Russell’s attempt to define what a number is. Another interesting point he makes in regard to the definition of number is that “we cannot in any case, without a vicious circle, use counting to define numbers, because numbers are used in counting.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In other words we cannot say the number two is simply that which comes after one and before three when counting because this argument commits the fallacy of assuming the premise in our conclusion (i.e. circular reasoning). Furthering this point he writes, “In counting, it is necessary to take the objects counted in a certain order, as first, second, third, etc., but order is not of the essence of number: it is an irrelevant addition, an unnecessary complication from the logical point of view.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In other words a thing, or set of things, can be an instantiation of number without us counting to that number. In fact they could be an instantiation of a number that is beyond our ability to count to while, all the same, truly exemplifying that number.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So given these helpful preliminary remarks about what a number must not be, what does Russell take to be the proper definition of number? He tells us plainly that “A number is anything which is the number of some class.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> While this definition may seem circular at first blush we find that it is, in fact, not. As he argues on, “We define ‘the number of a given class’ without using the notion of number in general; therefore we may define number in general in terms of ‘the number of a given class’ without committing any logical error.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In other words a number is that which corresponds to a class of things. The class of all apples sitting on a given table might might instantiate an example of the number seven. Likewise the number of pencils on the table may also instantiate an example of the number seven. In other words these are two different classes of things which instantiate examples of the same number, in this case, seven. Another way of stating this would be to say that both of those classes share the property of sevenness. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I believe this definition is a very good one. One point where I would differ from Russell is on a basic assumption about the possibility of actual infinities, or actual infinite sets of things. In this same essay he writes, “it is to be presumed, for example, that there are an infinite collection of trios in the world, for if this were not the case the total number of things in the world would be finite, which, though possible, seems unlikely.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> It seems to me that Russell’s definition of number, based on classes which instantiate examples of that number, is based on his presumption here that there are an actual infinite number of things in the universe. This is where I would raise a contention up against Russell. I will explain my contrary contention momentarily but I want to state that although I think he is wrong on this point, and that his definition stems from his belief about this point, that his definition of number will still stand once I have constructed my counterpoint and placed his definition on a different foundation.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now let me explain my contention. What is hopefully becoming clear is that numbers are immaterial, they do not extend into space. I think Russell would agree on this point. The way numbers are represented such as “two” or “2” are not in fact the same as the number itself. Numbers are concepts which correspond to a class of things which have that number. Where I disagree with Russell is on the following point, namely, that the number “two” is a discernable idea even apart from an instantiation of twoness such as a couple of spoons or apples before you on a table. In other words, classes of things in the world exemplify number, and numbers are that which correspond to a given class, but numbers are not, strictly speaking, the same as those classes. This is shown to be the case because more than one class can correspond to the same number. So then numbers are properties which classes exhibit but numbers, as real things, are not dependent on the existence of classes of things to exist. Rather numbers are only dependent on classes of things to exhibit their existence. It is entirely feasible that many numbers (perhaps an innumerable amount of numbers, we might say) exist which do not correspond to any actual class of things in the world. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Russell would, I believe, advocate a view called Nominalism. Given his status as an atheist and a philosophical naturalist I think this assumption is fair because Nominalism must be true if all that actually exists is material things. It is for that reason that Russell believes 1) that an infinite number of things exist in the universe and 2) that numbers correspond to actual existing sets of things from one to infinity. Were this not his position he would have to admit that there is a finite number of numbers which seems to be illogical (seeing as no matter how high of a number we name we can always add one more to it). And yet the idea of an actual infinite set (and by actual I mean a set which is exhibited in the natural world) is also logically impossible. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To demonstrate my last claim about the impossibility of an actual infinite set I turn to the work of William Lane Craig. In his book, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Reasonable Faith</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, Craig discusses the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Kalam Cosmological Argument</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> for God’s existence and it is in this context that he demonstrates the logical impossibility of an actual infinite set of thing in the natural world. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows:</span></div>
<ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; margin-left: 36pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Whatever begins to exist has a cause.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; margin-left: 36pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The universe began to exist.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; margin-left: 36pt; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Therefore, the universe has a cause.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In defense of the second premise of this argument craig demonstrates the logical impossibility of an actual infinite set of things in the world. By extension he argues that if an actual infinite set is impossible then it is impossible for their to be an infinite amount of days that have passed and, therefore, that the universe must have had a definite beginning a finite time ago in the past.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here is one way by which Craig demonstrates the logical impossibility of an actual infinite set:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">[I]magine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose...that </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">all the rooms are occupied.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. “But of course!” says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 to room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4, and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were already occupied.</span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-7a22ea61-7402-6e8f-0529-3baa3d3e80e6" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Craig continues by giving several other examples of contradictions that can be brought into play using “Hilbert’s Hotel.” </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Another example that helps illustrate this point is that of an infinite line of falling dominoes. Imagine the idea that these dominoes have been falling forever without a beginning. If you can imagine that you are doing something rather impressive for it is an inconceivable notion that we might not be able to eventually track down the first domino that fell! Or try another case in which we imagine an infinite line of blue marbles. Now imagine that we paint every other marble red and separate the red marbles from the blue marbles forming two separate lines of marbles. How many blue marbles do we now have? The answer is necessarily a contradiction for this process certainly divided the line of marbles by two which means a reduction of the number of blue marbles by 50% and yet, if the line of marbles is an actual infinite, the line of blue marbles still has an infinite amount of marbles. We have, in this case, not reduced the number of marbles by division but we have doubled it because now we have two infinite lines of marbles. But then, again, there are actually the same amount of marbles as ever there were, an infinite amount. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So if the reasoning of Craig and other thinkers on this issue is correct that an actual infinite set is logically impossible how can it be the case that 1) it is logically necessary that the number of numbers are infinite and also 2) that actual infinite sets exhibiting those numbers are logically impossible? This is the problem that materialists (i.e. Nominalists) face but which is solved by the kind of Realism I am going to advocate, the view that what many philosophers have called “Universals” or “Abstract Objects” actually exist although in an immaterial way and which are not tied of necessity to things in the natural world but which may be exhibited my some things in it.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What is an Abstract Object?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Although I have just alluded to the concept of abstract objects above it will serve to give a more formal definition here. An Abstract Object is a thing which has an immaterial and necessary existence apart from things in the physical world but which </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">may</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> be exhibited or instantiated as a property of the things that exist in the physical world. I want to draw attention to a few important words in this definition, namely, “immaterial” and also “necessary existence.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">By immaterial I mean a thing which has no tangibility. By way of example colors, laws of logic, thoughts you are thinking right now, and God are all immaterial. Numbers, as we have said, clearly fit in this group. It makes no sense to talk about touching red or holding the laws of logic in your hand, they are not material things. We may rightfully talk about holding a red object, but what we are really saying is that we are holding an object which has the quality of redness. No one has held pure redness in their hands. We might also speak poetically and talk about thoughts “bouncing around in his head.” But here again this is to speak, shall we say, materialmorphically. That is, it is to speak materialistically about the immaterial. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The other key phrase I used was “necessary existence.” Now this gets down to the heart of the matter because it is a claim that says not only do Abstract Objects like colors, numbers, laws of logic, etc., exist but that they do so of necessity. In other words, it could not be the case that they did not exist. Or, once again, there is no possible world in which these abstract objects are not real. The reason for this is because Abstract Objects, at least on a Realist account, belong to the realm of the eternal and are not tied to any specific world. They are more basic than the material world.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now, admittedly, I have put the cart before the horse a bit. The definition I have given and fleshed out is a Realist definition (as opposed to a Nominalist definition). Various nominalists treat the idea of abstract objects in different ways but for the most part agree that when we speak of these properties that things have we speak of either something concrete belonging to the physical object or, if we speak of them as Universals, we are merely using these terms as useful fictions. In the next section I will consider these three competing views (Realism, and two different forms of Nominalism) and demonstrate the superiority of the Realist view. That being said, before I am done, I will argue for a uniquely Christian view of Realism that will differ in at least one significant way from the Platonist view which is the original Realism.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Are Abstract Objects Real?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Platonist view</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mortimer J. Adler has said, “Anyone who classifies things or tries to make definitions may be led to wonder whether classifications are entirely verbal and definitions fictions of the mind, or whether things themselves belong together in some real community based upon an inherent sameness or similarity.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Indeed he is correct and this conversation goes as far back (and probably further) as the fifth century B.C. to a man named Socrates whose teaching has been preserved by his student, Plato.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Socrates view of Form is that which we have been calling “Realism.” More often this is referred to a Platonic Form since it is Plato who recorded the words of Socrates and who, it would seem, agrees and taught these same concepts to his own students. Here is one example of Socrates teaching about Form which directly relates to mathematics, and numbers:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">You are aware that students of geometry, arithmetic, and the kindred sciences assume the odd and the even and the figures and three kinds of angles and the like in their several branches of science; these are their hypotheses, which they and everybody are supposed to know, and therefore they do not deign to give any account of them either to themselves or others; but they begin with them, and go on until they arrive at last, and in a consistent manner, at their conclusion? Yes, he said, I know. And do you not know also that although they make use of the visible forms and reason about them, they are thinking not of these, but of the ideals which they resemble; not of the figures which they draw, but of the absolute square and the absolute diameter, and so on—the forms which they draw or make, and which have shadows and reflections in water of their own, are converted by them into images, but they are really seeking to behold the things themselves, which can only be seen with the eye of the mind? That is true.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Socrates, in dialog with Glaucon, has demonstrated his view that mathematical representation are simply that, representative of immaterial concepts. Lines drawn on a piece of paper are not the same as the concepts they represent.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To that very point Socrates has the following conversation with a man named Cratylus:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Let us suppose the existence of two objects: one of them shall be Cratylus, and the other the image of Cratylus; and we will suppose, further, that some God makes not only a representation such as a painter would make of your outward form and colour, but also creates an inward organization like yours, having the same warmth and softness; and into this infuses motion, and soul, and mind, such as you have, and in a word copies all your qualities, and places them by you in another form; would you say that this was Cratylus and the image of Cratylus, or that there were two Cratyluses?</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Cratylus answers that he would see it as there being two Cratyluses rather than one and an imitation of that one.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Just as it would be absurd to think that there could be two Cratyluses it would also be absurd to think that lines on a page were the same as the things which they were representing. A red brick is likewise not the same as redness, nor is any given brick the same as the Idea of what a brick is. Certainly, also, the idea of a brick preceded the actual making of a brick. Equally certain is that any given brick that is made is not the same as the idea of a brick. So then there is a separation, according to Socrates and Plato between the Form or Idea and the imitation of copy of that idea. Further the Form must be logically prior to the imitation.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One of the most famous passages in all of Plato’s writings is the allegory of the cave. It is also one of the most useful illustrations that Plato gives of his and Socrates’ view of Form. Consider the situation he sets up:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 9pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets. I see. And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent. You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners. Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave? True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads? And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows? Yes, he said. And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them? Very true. And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow? No question, he replied. To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images. That is certain.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 9pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This fascinating thought experiment captures the Platonic view of the world we live in. The things which we see with our eyes, feel with our hands, hear with our ears, etc., are all just shadows, imitations, copies of some truer Form of the things we experience in this present life.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 9pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For Plato, everything we experience in this world is but a shadow to true Form that exists unchangeably with the gods. Some things are easier to demonstrate this point with, namely, physical objects in the world. As with my above illustration of the brick, the tangible things are the simplest to conceive of the idea of having a perfect Form of which they are imitations. Less easy to grasp are certain properties like colors (e.g. Red that is exemplified by a certain brick). But the fact is that not only bricks but many other objects in the world exemplify Redness. They all participate in this property. But imagine for a moment that all of the red exhibiting things in the universe suddenly ceased to exist in the universe, at this point would red cease to be a thing? It seems obvious that the answer is no because we are still able to conceive of the color red apart from instances of it. But even more challenging in this discussion than Forms of physical objects or even Redness is concepts like truth, goodness and beauty.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 9pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We often attribute these qualities to people and to objects in the world, and we believe them to be really meaningful attributions, but what is the good? What is the beautiful? Or as Pilate once asked Jesus, “What is truth?”</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> It must be the case, if these are to be meaningful kinds of statements to make, that there is an objectively existing goodness, and an objectively existing beauty and so on with truth. The apprehension of this truth is difficult, according to Plato, but is essential to understanding the way things really are. Picking up from where we left off in Plato’s Cave, Socrates continues:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 9pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision—what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them—will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him? Far truer. And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him? True, he said. And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities. Not all in a moment, he said. He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day? Certainly. Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is. Certainly. He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here Socrates describes a truly painful process of coming to see things as they truly are. We are so accustomed to thinking that what we see is the real thing that it is difficult to accept that what we have experienced is, in fact, merely shadows of the real eternal world. But, Socrates tells us, this painful discovery is absolutely essential if we are ever to truly apprehend the good. If Plato’s forms do not exist then “goodness” is nothing more than social convention. However we all know that it is in fact more than that. Self sacrifice for your brother’s well being is good. Giving your life so that many others may live is praiseworthy. These statements are meaningful. Again Plato lets Socrates put this in own words:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed—whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Of course many have, since Plato, taken up the notion of Forms. Descartes is one example who, for instance, argues for the objective existence of triangles:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And what I here find to be most important is that I discover in myself an infinitude of ideas of certain things which cannot be esteemed as pure negations, although they may possibly have no existence outside of my thought, and which are not framed by me, although it is within my power either to think or not to think them, but which possess natures which are true and immutable. For example, when I imagine a triangle, although there may nowhere in the world be such a figure outside my thought, or ever have been, there is nevertheless in this figure a certain determinate nature, form, or essence, which is immutable and eternal, which I have not invented, and which in no wise depends on my mind, as appears from the fact that diverse properties of that triangle can be demonstrated, viz. that its three angles are equal to two right angles, that the greatest side is subtended by the greatest angle, and the like, which now, whether I wish it or do not wish it, I recognise very clearly as pertaining to it, although I never thought of the matter at all when I imagined a triangle for the first time, and which therefore cannot be said to have been invented by me.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Descartes demonstrates by his reasoning that the concept of a triangle is no mere convention or something which could be made up by himself, rather it is an objectively existing idea, a concept, which has meaning apart from it even existing in the world or even in his mind.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Much more could, and deserves to be, said about Platonic Form and the concept of Realism which has many representatives over the centuries. For now, however, we will rest with having laid out the concept as the existence of perfect, unchanging, immaterial objects which things in this world either imitate or participate in but are not, themselves, the thing they imitate or participate in. Realism makes things like references to numbers, moral values (i.e. justice, mercy, love), aesthetic judgment and even colors meaningful rather than mere useful fictions or brute material facts.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Nominalist view</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As with the Platonist/Realist view of abstract objects or Forms it should be noted that there are a slew of different views all of which fit under the umbrella of Nominalist theories. The fact that I am only looking at two of them may not do total justice to every nuance of nominalism but with the space permitted it must do for now. The two forms of nominalism I am going to critique are 1) that properties exist in individual concrete objects and have no universal qualities or 2) that properties are spoken of as universals but, in reality, these are useful fictions and they do not exist.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As to properties existing only individual, concrete objects it was not long at all after Plato that this push back against Socrates teachings were challenged. In fact it was Plato’s own student, Aristotle, who rejected the idea of universals with the exception as an abstraction of the human mind. That is to say that Aristotle believed Redness, for example, exists only in direct union with a physical substance. Now, in fairness to Aristotle, he claims that he is not departing from Socrates’ teaching but that he is agreeing with Socrates and it was those who came after him that, in his view, sort of put words in Socrates’ mouth. Aristotle states, “But when Socrates was occupying himself with the excellences of character, and in connexion with them became the first to raise the problem of universal definition… but Socrates did not make the universals or the definitions exist apart: </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">they</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, however, gave them separate existence, and this was the kind of thing they called Ideas.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> But, regardless of whether or not Aristotle is right here that Socrates (and presumably Plato) didn’t actually hold to the separate existence of the Forms/Ideas/Universals, and this is a very debatable point, the doctrine certainly preceded Aristotle and he is objecting to it.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Adler addresses Aristotle’s view of Form when he writes: </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Aristotle’s denial of separate existence, or substantiality, to the Ideas or universals stands side by side with his affirmation of the place of forms in the being of substances and the role of universals in the order of knowledge. Furthermore, he limits his denial of the substantiality of Ideas to those Forms which seem to be the archetypes or models of sensible things. Particular physical things—familiar sensible substances, such as the stone, the tree, or the man—are not, in his opinion, imitations of or participations in universal models which exist apart from these things.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For Aristotle there is Form and matter which equal a composite, concrete thing in the world. One cannot have just matter without form, nor can form exist without matter except in imagination of people by abstraction (i.e. imagining red apart from an object it is attached to). There are many representatives of this view in history including William of Ockham, Francis Bacon and a good deal of contemporary naturalists.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now consider the second way of looking at universals under a nominalist account, namely, that they are mere conventions of the mind or useful fictions. George Berkeley represents this view as he speaks about numbers in his work </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Principles of Human Understanding.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That number is entirely the creature of the mind, even though the other qualities be allowed to exist without, will be evident to whoever considers that the same thing bears a different denomination of number as the mind views it with different respects. Thus, the same extension is one, or three, or thirty-six, according as the mind considers it with reference to a yard, a foot, or an inch. Number is so visibly relative, and dependent on men’s understanding, that it is strange to think how anyone should give it an absolute existence without the mind. We say one book, one page, one line, etc.; all these are equally units, though some contain several of the others. And in each instance, it is plain, the unit relates to some particular combination of ideas arbitrarily put together by the mind.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Clearly, in Berkeley’s mind, numbers are not real things. But what does he offer in support of this claim? His argument seems to be that the same thing can be called by more than one number and therefore numbers are arbitrary. But surely this does not follow! In the example given, the measurement known as a yard, he says it can be called “one, or three, or thirty-six” and because of this he concludes that numbers are arbitrary. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Berkeley’s argument might be more plausible if it were the case that the given length in question was one, three, and thirty-six in the exact same way and at the same time (thereby creating a contradiction) but that is not the case. It is perfectly valid to measure the same length by different units and to come up with different answers. How does this in any way suggest that those numbers don’t have an objective meaning? You could tell a man at the lumber yard that you need a 2x4 three feet long, or one yard, or 36 inches and, no matter what unit of measurement you use to communicate with, he will bring you the right length of board. It is just such a fact that shows these numbers are meaningful and that they can be used to communicate with clarity.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Berkeley’s position is, in my view, an extreme one on more than one front as he is of the opinion that no only do forms and universals not exist but that the external world, the world beyond our sense perception, cannot be known to exist either. He states, “In short, if there were external bodies, it is impossible we should ever come to know it; and if there were not, we might have the very same reasons to think there were that we have now.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> This is, I believe, the logical extension of nominalism. The rabbit hole that nominalism leads us down takes us to a place where we can have very little conception of any reality.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Pros and Cons of Realism and Nominalism</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The strength of Realism is that it is the common sense view or, at least, it is the view we all seem to assume by our speech. We all speak about things as though universals really do exist. When we say things like “Oh, that thing </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">has</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> the color red in it” we are making a very Universal kind of statement. It assumes Red is a thing in itself and that this object we are pointing out is somehow participating in that redness. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Further, If Realism is correct then we speak meaningfully when we call something true, good or beautiful. We all do, of course, think we are really saying something meaningful when we say “that woman is beautiful” or “that sunset is truly beautiful.” Likewise when we say that the person who beat and murdered his wife and children is “evil” we think that means something real and that it is more than just an expression of personal taste. Numbers, likewise, we speak of as real things which certain sets of things exemplify. The strength then of Realism then is that it corresponds with what we perceive to be the case everyday. If Realism is false it is not obviously so.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A strike against Realism might be that it is challenging to prove beyond the fact that we all seem to intuit it to be the case. Given that it refers to an immaterial ultimate reality we do not find it easy to investigate by typical scientific means and it must be a strictly philosophical inquiry. Another objection that has been raised by Christians is the problem of God’s Aseity, the doctrine that God alone is eternal. The Platonic doctrine of Forms suggests that these Forms exists eternally alongside the gods but this cannot hold true if Christianity is true. Therefore many Christians have rejected the concept of Platonic From out of a sense of piety.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The strength of Nominalism is that it accords with a materialist view of the universe. Whereas Realism can only be defended philosophically, Nominalism accords with the scientific evidence. All that we can see, hear, smell, touch, taste, etc., would lead us to believe that Nominalism is the correct view. There is no evidence, of this kind, for Realism and many people seem to think that this is the only evidence that counts when it comes to determining truth. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">However, the weakness of this position are, obviously, the strengths of the other position. If the Nominalist position is correct than much of what we believe to be meaningful statements about reality, about things outside the self, are in fact not meaningful at all. Further, even laws of nature (gravity for instance) and laws of logic (law of noncontradiction) are not detectable by the scientific method. Even so, they are usually assumed by those who wield the Scientific method and those in the Nominalist camp in general.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Given the various strengths and weaknesses of each view does little, however, to tell us which view is ultimately the true one. At best it seems to suggest that Nominalism is very difficult to live with in a consistent fashion. It is my argument that the deciding factor between Realism and Nominalism is wrapped up in the question of God’s existence and, specifically, the God of the Bible. If the Christian God exists then a type of Realism must be true and no form of Nominalism can be true.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A Third, Uniquely Christian, View</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The pros and cons for each position have been clearly laid out in what has been stated above and neither view is without merit or difficulties. If Realism is to be correct then there are two primary challenges for the Christian. First there is simply the challenge of demonstrating that Realism is true by use of purely philosophic means. Second, assuming the first challenge is met, there is the problem of God’s aseity, his sole eternal existence which is challenged by the Platonic conception of Form. I propose to offer a set of logical arguments that will answer both problems at the same time.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To begin with let us presuppose the existence of the Christian God. We might note that there are many good arguments for existence of God (one has been mentioned earlier in this paper) and that this presupposition is hardly a non-evidenced assumption but one that has been found cogent by many of the brightest minds of history. Since defending the existence of God goes well beyond the scope of this paper, let’s just assume the truth of the proposition “The God of the Bible exists” for the time being. I mean to show you now that if this proposition is true then a type of Realism is necessarily true also and, therefore, Nominalism is false. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I offer the following three logical deductions based on our assumption of the existence of the Christian God:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Deduction one: Demonstrating that what is created exists first in the mind of the creator.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If God creates something it must have existence in his mind logically prior to creation.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">God has created things.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Therefore, things exist in the mind of God logically prior to their creation.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Deduction two: Demonstrating the properties exist apart from things that exemplify them.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If a Universal property (such as redness) exists in any instance of a thing it must have existed logically prior in the mind of God which is apart from an instance of a thing.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Properties do exist in instances of things.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Therefore Universal properties exist first in the mind of God apart from any instance of a thing.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Deduction three: Demonstrating that all things that exist apart from God have always existed in the mind of God.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Whatever exists, other than God himself, is a creation of God. </span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">All creations of God exist logically prior in the mind of God. </span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">God does not change. </span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Therefore, all things that exist have always existed in the mind of God.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I conclude, therefore, from what was demonstrated in the three above deductions that all things that exist apart from God have always existed in the mind of God. Further that properties such as color, or abstract objects such as number, or values such good, true and beautiful, exist eternally in the mind of God apart from things which exemplify those qualities. All of these things, existing in the mind of God from eternity, are what we may call Forms, Universals and Abstract objects, etc.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I believe this argument to be not only logically valid, which is undeniable, but also sound. I am not alone on this point as I have two giants of the faith to appeal to in regard to my given arguments. Aquinas and Augustine both are representative of the view I have just expounded. Consider the words of Thomas Aquinas:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is necessary to place ideas in the divine mind. For the Greek word Ἰδέαis in Latin </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Forma</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Hence by ideas are understood the forms of things, existing apart from the things themselves. Now the form of anything existing apart from the thing itself can be for one of two ends: either to be the type of that of which it is called the form, or to be the principle of the knowledge of that thing, according as the forms of things knowable are said to be in the knower. In either case we must suppose ideas, as is clear for the following reason. In all things not generated by chance, the form must be the end of any generation whatsoever. But an agent does not act on account of the form except in so far as the likeness of the form is in the agent, as may happen in two ways. For in some agents the form of the thing to be made pre-exists according to its natural being, as in those that act by their nature; as a man generates a man, or fire generates fire. But in other agents (the form of the thing to be made pre-exists) according to intelligible being, as in those that act by the intellect; and thus the likeness of a house pre-exists in the mind of the builder. And this may be called the idea of the house, since the builder intends to build his house like to the form conceived in his mind. As then the world was not made by chance, but by God acting by His intellect, as will appear later, there must exist in the divine mind a form to the likeness of which the world was made. And in this the notion of an idea consists.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Aquinas’ example of the builder of a house necessarily conceiving of the house before he builds it is excellent. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is important to not here, however, that God is no normal builder. For men come to have ideas that they did not always have but God who is eternal and omniscient does not learn, nor think in a linear process and does not come to have new thoughts or ideas but is in a perfect state of knowledge. This is to say, as I argued in my third deduction, that whatever exists in the mind of God has always existed in the mind of God. The Forms are therefore eternal. But note also that locating Forms in the mind of God does away with the problem of God’s aseity. He alone is eternal, and the Forms are also eternal and there is no contradiction or difficulty in both of these things being true. In this way the Christian conception of God is superior to the Greek pantheon which could not have located the forms in the gods themselves who are subject to change and who are themselves created.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To this point Aquinas also quote Augustine who speaks to the eternality of Forms in the mind of God:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Augustine says, “Ideas are certain principal forms, or permanent and immutable types of things, they themselves not being formed. Thus they are eternal, and existing always in the same manner, as being contained in the divine intelligence. Whilst, however, they themselves neither come into being nor decay, yet we say that in accordance with them everything is formed that can arise or decay, and all that actually does so.”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It would seem then that this is a truly Christian solution to the problem of Form. In fact, given an orthodox view of God’s eternal nature and omniscience it would seem that this position is the undeniably Christian view. It does justice to who God is and yet is provides a sufficient grounding for truth, goodness and beauty. It makes our words meaningful because they refer to concepts that God knows from eternity. Numbers are real objects that are attached to concept of classes of things. God knows the exact amount of things in each class that could be formed and these are what numbers are. Further, back to the dilemma I raised in the first section of this paper, about how can it be both true that numbers are essentially infinite and that an actual infinite set of things cannot exist, is resolved by God as well. God knows not only the actual created things, which are finite, but God knows things which do not actually exist. The idea of an infinity is not incoherent in the mind, we all can conceive of an endless set of things, but it is impossible in the physical world. God knows both what is created and that which is conceptually knowable even if not possible in a world such as our own.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Conclusion</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I began this paper by defining numbers with the help of Bertrand Russell who helped us see that number are what correspond to a class of things. We found, however, that Russell had some troubling ideas about the possibility of an infinite set of things in the material world, a supposition that leads to contradictory notions. This view held by Russell seems to stem from his commitment to materialism and the necessity that numbers are infinite, therefore necessitating the need for actual infinite sets. Proving that this cannot be the case we set off to find a remedy to the problem of numbers being infinite and yet there being no actually infinite set of things in the material world. I then brought the discussion to concept of Forms, first introduced by Plato and the ensuing conversation about it between Realists and Nominalist. Both views had troubles of their own but Realism was greatly preferable if one could reconcile the view with Christianity and demonstrate that it was actually true. I then demonstrated that if God exists then a modified type of Realism (which locates the Forms in the eternal changeless mind of God) is necessarily true and Nominalism necessarily false.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Certainly some would charge this inquiry into the existence of Forms as little more than an esoteric pursuit which has little to do with real life. Whereas the discussion may be a little esoteric, in the sense that it is technical, it could not have more practical import than it does. The truth is the discussion about the existence of number is part of a much larger conversation as we have seen. The existence of Forms is really about meaning in the universe. Is everything just a brute fact of natural process without meaning or, alternatively, is everything a mere social convention which is ultimately arbitrary? I argue that if there are no Universals, no Forms, then that is all we are left with, a dilemma between two equally disagreeable options.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thankfully, as we have seen above, we have not only a third option but we have a truth, tied to the existence of God, that Forms do exist and life is full of meaning. Numbers are real things that God knows. Language has objective meaning because words, no matter what language, refer to concepts that God knows. Beauty and moral values also exist as things God knows. The world makes sense because God exists and is the source of Universals and therefore knowable, communicable truth is possible. If God exists then Forms exist and, consequently, Nominalism is false and should be utterly rejected by all Christians.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-24439136780436244162017-04-05T18:56:00.002-07:002017-04-05T18:57:53.025-07:00On the Real Existence of Concepts Wrapped in Words<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Just a short thought which I will be developing further for my dissertation on "A Christian Philosophy of Forms and Imitation." :</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Words should be understood as signifiers of objective concepts. The meaning of words may change in usage over time but concepts are eternal. For instance the word "tolerance" has changed from being agreeing to disagree about issues without threatening harm or coercing the other to agree. Tolerance now seems to denote the idea of affirmation and acceptance of other people's views as being as good and true as your own. Despite this evolution in the usage of the word "tolerance" the concept underlying its earlier meaning remains unscathed. Imagine that the word tolerance is but a mere wrapper around the concept by which one can quickly identify the concept. Now that wrapper has been removed from one concept and re-wrapped around a different one. The original concept (Idea) still exists as it always has (and always will) but now must be adorned by either a new word or the old word with many words of explanation as to how one is using the word in its classical sense. So when people argue that words/language are mere social constructions and are completely subjective they are only half correct. They are correct that words change over time in their meaning, and that by popular use and application. But this is not to say that concepts are arbitrary or social constructions. In fact they are quite the opposite because one cannot change a concept no matter what they may try to do to it. At best they may simply try to get people not to talk about the concept or they may strip the word-wrapping that has historically been associated with that concept and place it on a different objectively existing idea, but they cannot abolish an Idea itself. It persists because it is eternal, immutable, and in the mind of God from eternity.</span></span></div>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-b0201f53-40f5-1d80-6cab-cb90046936a2"><br /></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-68360586495699581642017-03-02T12:38:00.002-08:002017-03-02T12:48:07.524-08:00How Classical Education Prepares Christians for Apologetic Engagement<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Today more than ever before in the history of our country we live in a cultural context that does not recognize the Lordship of Jesus or share our basic presuppositions. To put it another way, the time and place we live in is more like 1st century Athens than 1st century Jerusalem. The need for Christians to be able to defend their faith to an unbelieving and even hostile generation is a real one. Further, if we are to be faithful to the great commission we are going to be constantly putting ourselves in position where we will be asked tough questions and given strong objections. This is the situation that young Christians are inheriting as they leave our homes and enter the world. The question is, are they prepared to handle what is coming there way? The statistics largely point to an answer of “No.” Young people are leaving the church by the droves after high school and one of the consistently highest ranked reasons given for that departure is intellectual doubt. The church has largely embraced a quiet pietism with a separation of faith and reason and it is not working out for us. We must equip our students to know what they believe and why it is actually true. We must raise up a generation of capable ambassadors for Christ.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The apologetics task given to us by the Lord Jesus and his apostles is no trifling thing. Consider the following command (and note that it is in fact a command) of the apostle Peter under the inspiration of the Spirit. “</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15) When you stop to think about that command at all it should give you some pause because it is in fact a tremendous thing to be prepared “always” to make a defense to “anyone.” What a daunting thought.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I have been actively engaged in apologetics training for about ten years now and have had the opportunity to make the case for the Christian faith in churches for student ministries and adults, I have spoken at collegiate ministries and church camps and I have led mission trips to do evangelism and outreach in numerous different contexts with people of very diverse religious backgrounds, education, ethnicity and in varying socioeconomic conditions. If I have learned anything in the last decade of doing apologetics it is that it is very hard to anticipate every possible question about, and objection to, our Christian faith. There are, of course, some questions and objections which are very common but even in those cases there are often unexpected twists, turns and nuances.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The range of questions that the Christian may receive is pretty wide. One person may object on grounds philosophical while another brings up a scientific issue. Further yet someone may object on literary grounds as to how the Bible ought to be understood while another person thinks he can demonstrate to you the mathematical improbability that God exists. Still further you have the challenge posed by representatives from all of the other world Religions, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, contemporary Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, etc., etc., etc., and then there are the historical arguments and the Jesus mythers, textual criticism issues, archaeology, and the list goes on. But even further still these are merely genus’ which themselves all have species. For a question or objection is not merely philosophical but it is ethical, or logical, or epistemological, or metaphysical, or ontological. Likewise with science and history and any other category there are specific sub-categories beneath them all.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I think I have belabored this point enough but hopefully you can appreciate the point I am trying to make, namely, the mission we have been given is no easy one. Nonetheless it is indeed our mission, a command in Scripture which we dare not ignore. The question I pose to you today is this, “How might we best prepare the next generation of Christians for the apologetic task?” I will not keep you in suspense rather I will tell you now that I believe a Classical, Liberal Arts education is the best solution to equipping believers to be ready for the apologetic task and now I will tell you why.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In order to best illustrate the usefulness of a classical education to bolstering apologetics ministry it might be helpful to discuss the ways in which apologetics training is typically delivered. Within the realm of apologetics there are three main methodological streams. There is what is known as Classical Apologetics which is a two-step approach to making the Case for Christianity in which theism in general is demonstrated and then, in light of a theistic universe where the miraculous is now on the table, Christianity is specifically argued for as the correct version of theism. The next method is known as Evidential Apologetics and this is often considered a one-step method because it argues directly for the truth of Christianity based on evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus, the reliability of the Bible and the events, people and places it records, etc. Finally, there is what is known as Presuppositional Apologetics wherein the presuppositions of opposing worldviews are considered and shown to be internally inconsistent and/or inconsistent with the reality we find ourselves living in this world. Christianity is demonstrated to be internally and externally consistent and that by presupposing its truth we can make sense out of the world we live in and therefore Christianity is demonstrably true.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now if you know much about apologetics you probably know that Classical and Evidential apologetics usually play well with each other but, often, proponents of Presuppositional apologetics tend to see their method as the only legitimately Christian one since it starts with the presupposition of the truth of Christianity whereas the other methods attempt to find common ground with unbelievers to start from. It goes way beyond the point of this paper to try to work through this intramural debate among brethren in Christ but I will say that I feel there is a lot less conflict between these methods than many suggest and I advocate a blended approach which utilizes all three.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> More often than not it is the theology of those wielding the method that clashes with the other apologists theology whereas the methods themselves are quite innocent of starting the fight.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">All of this aside, when apologetics is taught as a class or a program the instructor will more often than not choose a side in this debate and teach their students how to wield a particular method of apologetics. They are taught a system, they are introduced to the most frequent kinds of objections to Christian faith and they are taught how to give good answers to some tough questions. All of which is a good thing insofar as it goes. Methodology is a helpful tool. Knowing the top 10 list of apologetics problems and how to deal with them will be very helpful. But, that said, it is isn’t everything.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now my primary point isn’t to criticize the good work that various Christian programs are doing in apologetics training. I myself received a Bachelor’s degree in Religion and Apologetics from Luther Rice University, which was very much in the vein of the classical/evidential approach, and I can tell you that it was instrumental in helping me work through some very hard questions I was dealing with at the time. I am thankful for it. But, again, as I have engaged in apologetics ministry I have come to realize more and more that such a program can hardly equip the Christian for everything they will possibly encounter. It is in light of this fact that I argue a thorough Classical education will do much in the way of preparing the believer for this task and if it is coupled with intentional apologetics training I think it will produce superior apologists as opposed to those who have had a typical public school education (like I did) and then received apologetics training (like I did).</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Like many of you, I am sure, I started to get a classical education later in life. I was in the middle of my bachelor’s degree when I first learned of the existence of classical Christian education. I was working for a community college as an admissions recruiter when I did a High School visit at a curious little school in Topeka Kansas called </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Cair Paravel Latin School</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. I am very ashamed to admit that, at the time, I had no idea what Cair Paravel was and the fact that it was a “Latin School” made no sense to me. I am thankful to report, however, that I have since spent much time as a sojourner in the land of Narnia and Aslan has taught me much.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Upon my visit to the Cair Paravel I had only one student come and listen to my presentation on the community college I was representing but by the time I packed up my things to head back I had been so impressed by the one student I talked to, the others I saw in the hall and the general air of the school as a whole, I went to the office and asked if they could give me an information packet. They did give me one and I took it home to my wife and, as a result, we have been classically educating ourselves and our kids ever since.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the process of getting and giving a classical education I have come to see its powerful effect on my ability to be an effective apologist. I submit to you by way of analogy that Classical education is to apologetics as virtue ethics is the field of ethics. In the philosophy of ethics there are many different methods for ethical decision making. There is deontology which appeals to an authority for ethical decision making, there is Kantian ethics which uses Kant’s Categorical Imperative, there is Utilitarianism which says the ends justify the means, etc. But among the discussion of philosophy of ethics there is a weird kind of outlier in the discussion and it is known as virtue ethics. Virtue ethics does not stand necessarily in opposition to a particular methodology of ethical decision making (just as classical education does not necessarily oppose any kind of formal method of apologetics) but rather it suggests that we need to ask a more fundamental question. The question we ought to be asking is, “What kind of person is most likely to make virtuous decisions.” In other words, it focuses on developing the person into a virtuous human being, developing their character into the kind of person who is likely to do the right thing when a tough decision comes their way. In virtue ethics methodology may be important, but being virtuous is of first importance. In the same way I argue that apologetics methodology has much value but what is primary is developing the well rounded people who are most likely to deal well with tough questions of any kind.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Classical education does at least six things which serves to develop students into the right kind of person to answer anyone about anything concerning our hope in Christ. First, Classical education teaches students the grammar of academic disciplines so that students can speak intelligently on a broad range of subjects. Second, Classical education trains students to think critically and enables them to evaluate arguments, exposing faulty reasoning and also to develop good arguments in their place. Third, Classical education trains students to express themselves well through written and oral communication so that they may persuasively promote the Christian faith to a wide range of audiences. Fourth, Classical education inculcates an active imagination which allows people to be inventive in their communication of ideas. Fifth and finally, a Classical education, rightly received, produces humility which is something sorely needed in apologetics ministry and is too often under-represented.</span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-6dc11379-90bc-03f0-5da3-8fdb23e62dd9" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1. Classical education teaches student the grammar of the academic disciplines so that students can speak intelligently on a broad range of subjects.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As I have already said one of the major difficulties in fulfilling the apologetics mission is the sheer number of directions questions and objections may come from. Historical, Literary, scientific, philosophic, theological, etc., these are all angles from which people might ask a challenging question or pose an objection. What this means is that the effective apologist is at least conversant with the basic grammar of many disciplines. This is, in fact, one of the missions of a classical education, to expose students to a broad range of learning where they can learn to speak intelligently on a wide variety of subjects and be free to pursue those disciplines with the tools to understand them.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Modern education tends to point students toward skill based learning and this only gets worse on the college level. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Intense specialization, which compartmentalizes human knowledge and separates the disciplines from one another, creates a kind of intellectual autism in which people find it very difficult to communicate with others. The person who knows only science or only philosophy or only art or only mathematics or only history, or only any given subject or a subset of any one of these disciplines finds themselves unable to communicate their ideas with people who do not know their discipline's jargon. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A recent article on the 20th of January from a publication called </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Imaginative Conservative</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> shared the following interesting information:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Professors usually spend about three-six months (sometimes longer) researching and writing in order to submit a twenty-five page article to an academic journal. And most experience a twinge of excitement when, months later, they open a letter informing them that their article has been accepted for publication, and will therefore be read by… an average of ten people. Yes, you read that correctly. The numbers reported by a recent study are pretty bleak. Eighty-two percent of articles published in the humanities are not even cited once. Of those articles that are cited, only twenty percent have actually been read. Half of academic papers are never read by anyone other than their authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What might be among the reasons for these largely unattended academic works? The article tells us one real problem is increased specialization in academics.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Increased specialization in the modern era...is in part due to the splitting up of universities into various disciplines and departments that each pursue their own logic. One unfortunate effect of this specialization is that the subject matter of most articles make them inaccessible to the public, and even to the overwhelming majority of professors….increased specialization has led to increased alienation not only between professors and the general public, but also among the professors themselves. All of this is very unfortunate. Ideally, the great minds of a society should be put to work for the sake of building up that society and addressing its problems. Instead, most Western academics today are using their intellectual capital to answer questions that nobody’s asking, on pages nobody’s reading. What a waste.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A Classical education helps students avoid this over-specialization where they forget how to speak to normal people. There is no point in speaking or writing if there is no one there to listen or no one who can understand you if they do.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A further problem created by over-specialization is that otherwise bright people will say the most absurd things because of their ignorance of other disciplines. Richard Dawkins, author of </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The God Delusion</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, is an excellent case in point. There is little doubt that Dawkins is a brilliant scientist but, even so, he is a terrible philosopher. In an attempt to to refute an Intelligent Design argument Dawkins refers to God as the “Ultimate Boeing 747” suggesting that God is ever so much more complicated than an airplane and that he would require a designer himself. The humorous thing about this is that it shows Dawkins is completely ignorant of both philosophy and theology. Asking “Well then, who made God?” as pithy retort to the teleological argument betrays the fact that the person asking doesn’t understand issue of necessary beings, sufficient causes, etc. Further his suggestion that God is more complex that a Boeing 747 shows that he does not understand that theologians actually believe God to be a very simple being. Enough picking on poor Richard, but hopefully the point is made. Biologists would be served to know something about theology and philosophy. Indeed, any of us, no matter what our primary discipline may be, no matter our first love in learning, should seek to be meaningfully conversant with other areas of human learning. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A classical education focuses on the Liberal Arts. They are Liberal in the sense that they are disciplines of free people who could pursue many lines of discourse or vocation and are rarely in a place where they find themselves without any knowledge of what is being spoken of around them. The person who knows one thing can do only one thing, think only one thing and be only one thing. Historically that has been called slavery. We want a better future for our children and for our nation, we want them to be free to be whomever God may call them to be. We want them to be able to speak with knowledge and wisdom about whatever they may encounter. The primary purpose of education is not job training it’s about personal formation of character, it’s about seeking wisdom, it’s about being a well rounded human being and, ultimately, it’s about glorifying God. A classical education is a significant step towards students being able to be conversant with anyone who asks them for a reason why they have hope in Jesus.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2. Classical education trains students to think critically and enables them to evaluate arguments, exposing faulty reasoning and also to develop good arguments in their place.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am a logic teacher and I love it. I took a logic course in College but it did not go anywhere near into the depth that I get to take my 7th and 8th grades. Sometimes when I tell people that I teach Logic they assume I must be a college professor because they can’t imagine “middle school kids” doing something like that. But the truth is they can totally handle it. As classical educators we spend the first six or so years filling up their cups with information and then as they reach an age where they are able to start dealing with abstraction it is only appropriate that we teach them to do something with all that information. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In Logic we teach students to think critically and evaluate information. We are constantly receiving data every hour of every day of our lives. Whether it be reading a book, watching television, talking with another person, we are constantly receiving propositional information and we must make distinctions between true and false, valid inference and invalid inference. But people are generally very bad about separating wheat from chaff. We tend to be great sponges for information but not so great at judging between kinds of information. It is for this reason that a Classical education is so important. The reason Formal logic is challenging is simply because we are so good at thinking incorrectly. It is a painful process fitting our minds into the molds of logic but it is a sanctifying expe</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">rience.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I teach my students that Logic is theology, it is a study of the mind of God. The Gospel of John, which opens with such familiarity to many of us, reads “In the beginning was the Word.” The Greek is “Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος” and it is of some notable interest that the word “logos” which is typically translated as “word” can also be translated as “logic.” In the beginning was the Logic and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God. Regardless of whether you translate logos as the traditional “Word” or you translate it as “Logic” you really have the same truth either way, the rational communication of God to man in the person of His Son, Jesus.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Logic, rationality, is an essential attribute of God’s own nature and it is, thankfully, one of God’s communicable attributes. God has incommunicable attributes such as his omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc., but many of his attributes He has shared with us in His creative act wherein he made mankind. One of the ways in which we are like God, a way which separates us from the beasts of the field, is our rationality (or at least our ability to be rational). To think properly is to think the thoughts of God. Right thinking is godly thinking. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">God in his omniscience and his immutability (that is his non-changing nature) does not think like man thinks. God has perfect knowledge, he knows things apart from any process of coming to conclusions from inferences. Another way to put it is that God never learns anything. We, however, are linear existing beings who are imperfect and have room to change in a positive fashion towards the good, towards the acquisition of true knowledge. As we learn truth and separate it from falsehood we become more like God who already, from eternity, knew that truth. So you see, studying Logic is theology and it is worshipping God with our minds (something many Christians forget we are called to do).</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the job of the Christian apologist the practice of logical principles is critical. We have to be able to not just receive information but to critically evaluate data and categorize it. Ideas are not all created equal and they should be weighed against Scriptural teaching and also good reasoning. Sometimes arguments can sound true but, in fact, their conclusions are drawn invalidly from the premises upon which they rest. Often what sounds true to many is in fact not an argument at all but rather a fallacy of some kind wrapped in creative sophistry which wins people’s affections while deceiving their minds.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Scripture tells us that we must learn to not be taken in by everything that comes our way. The apostle Paul tells us that “he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">” (Ephesians 4:11-14)</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We teach our students Logic so that they may not be taken in by everything that gets thrown their way. But we also teach them Logic so that they may go on the offensive for the sake of truth. In 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 Paul writes, “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">” As Christians we should be about the business of destroying arguments raised up against the knowledge of God. After destroying faulty arguments we can construct positive arguments for the truth of Christianity.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The classical arguments for God’s existence are usually represented as Deductive syllogisms of various forms, often Modus Ponens or Modus Tollens. Evidential arguments are typically formed by the methods of inductive or abductive reasoning. Something I found to be true is that I used these kinds of arguments before I really understood their mechanics. By going back and really learning logic myself and now as I get to teach it, I find that I am in a much better position to not only use those arguments but explain why they work and are very difficult for skeptics to overcome.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Again we see that a classical education is an ideal precursor to effective apologetics ministry because it equips students to think hard and think carefully, to destroy bad arguments and construct good ones. If Jesus is indeed the logos, then we should embrace the rationality of the word and wield it to the glory of God.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3. Classical education trains students to express themselves well through written and oral communication so that they may persuasively promote the Christian faith to a wide range of audiences. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">You may have noticed that, among other things, I am moving through the trivium in this presentation. Classical education gives students the grammar of the disciplines so that they may be conversant with many areas of study, it gives them logic so that they may evaluate information and claims that are made and discern the truth and it gives them the rhetorical skill to write and speak persuasively for the truth. The primary distinction between a Rhetorician and a Sophist is there respect for the truth. The skills they utilize are largely the same but their commitments are very different. The Sophist is committed to person gain, the Rhetorician is committed to truth telling. The tools of persuasion are a dangerous thing to give to a person who has not yet fallen in love with truth, goodness and beauty. It is for that reason that we will have ideally planted a love for those things in the hearts of our children from early on.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The effective Christian apologist does not only know how to be conversant with people from many corners of life and the academy, nor does he stop at being able to detect fallacies and to construct sound syllogisms, but he must know how to persuade individuals and audiences to see the same truth he does. The weapons of the Rhetorician, are Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. Logos is the appeal to reason, Ethos the appeal to ethics or character, and Pathos is the appeal to the emotion. Every person we meet and every crow we stand before is different. The good Rhetorician is sensitive to his audience and he observes what moves them. No two presentation of a message are the same because the audience changes.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The obvious goal of Christian apologetics is to win the person over to the truth of Christianity and to the Lordship of Jesus. Some people require logical arguments and have intellectual concerns that hold them back from Christianity. To them we must appeal largely to logos. Others have, perhaps, had bad experiences with Christians and lost confidence in people associated with the church. To them we must embody ethos, win their confidence both in us as a representative of Christ and ultimately in Christ himself who never fails to be good. Some people are essentially separated from Christ because of emotional pain, the loss of a loved one whom they feel God should have saved or some other sort of thing. To them we must respond with appropriate Pathos, demonstrating the deep love of Christ who also knows what it is to lose those he loves and who has suffered with us and for us.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Of course there is often a call for a combination of the three areas of persuasion. No one is purely rational, purely ethical, or purely emotional. These are elements that make up our humanity and the good news is that Christianity meaningfully engages all of these aspects.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A Classical education gives Christians the tools they need to judge their audience and speak to the need of the moment. Rhetoric is not trickery, it is sensitivity and caring enough about your audience to address the things they are concerned about with their ultimate good in mind. The Sophist seeks his own good, the Rhetorician seeks the good of those to whom he is trying to persuade. We need Christian apologists who are seeking the good of others and who are creative in the delivery of their information. We must learn to break free from rigid, one size fits all, presentations of the gospel and learn to be sensitive to where people are. Classical education can aid us in this goal.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">4. Classical education inculcates an active imagination which allows people to be inventive in their communication of ideas.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I learned about Jesus in childhood through the typical Bible stories and songs. I learned about Jesus in Bible college and wrestled with his teachings. But when I read The Chronicles of Narnia, I think I finally understood some things about Jesus that I was blind to before then. His wildness, his unrelenting love, his closeness. Somehow between childhood stories and theology class I just didn’t see Jesus as someone I could be really close to. Yes, I loved him. Yes, he was my savior. But he was distant. Narnia helped that change for me. C. S. Lewis, in his essay entitled </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On Stories</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, writes the following:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The value of the myth is that it takes all the things we know and restores to them the rich significance which has been hidden by ‘the veil of familiarity’. The child enjoys his cold meat (otherwise dull to him) by pretending it is buffalo, just killed with his own bow and arrow. And the child is wise. The real meat comes back to him more savoury for having been dipped in a story; you might say that only then is it the real meat. If you are tired of the real landscape, look at it in a mirror. By putting bread, gold, horse, apple, or the very roads into a myth, we do not retreat from reality: we rediscover it. As long as the story lingers in our mind, the real things are more themselves. This applies to the treatment not only of bread or apple, but of good and evil, to our endless perils, our anguish, and our joys. By dipping them in myth, we see them more clearly.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Getting to know Jesus as a Lion named Aslan was one of the best things that ever happened to my Christianity. Not because I can’t separate this fictional work of Lewis’ from the Jesus of Scripture and history but because somehow my time in Narnia helped me to see the Jesus of Scripture and history more clearly. He actually became more real to me than he had been before, more personal. This may sound odd to some, but I dare say others can relate to what I am saying now.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One of the greatest things about a classical education is that our whole minds get dipped in myth while simultaneously we are given the tools to tell the difference between truth and falsehood. But there is sometimes a distinction to be made between myth and falsehood. Fairy tales, fantasy epic adventures like Lord of the Rings, the actual Greek and Roman and Norse mythologies and so many more things that we expose our kids to, they swing wide the gates of imagination and creativity. This enables students to talk about truth while ornamenting the truth with beautiful allusions, references, and allegory. The communication of truth, goodness and beauty need not always come in the form of a philosophical or theological treatise. Sometimes the truth is better apprehended in story. The Bible itself, though full of doctrinal discourses (and they are important) is also largely a narrative, a grand story. It is a true story, but a story nonetheless. Lewis, in fact, called it the myth that is true.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Creatively communicating the message of Christ can take many forms but one of them is by telling stories which in turn tell you something about the ultimate true story. I read recently an article by a man who grew up in a family of atheists. His parents carefully guarded him from religious literature because they didn’t want to infect his mind with such nonsense. They did, however, allow him to read Lord of the Rings. Interestingly the man who wrote his article traced his doubts about his atheism back to having read Lord of the Rings which he said awoke in him a sense of something more, something beyond the natural. It was a pervasive idea and longing that he could not escape from. It was not sufficient to rid him of his atheism but it was the first splinter of light that made it into his soul.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In fact these stories get into the souls of all who read them and allow themselves to get consumed by their story. A classical education dips our minds in myth and awakens something in us that never lets us go. It teaches us to tell the truth in more than one way. Just as poetry communicates what prose never can through imagery, story and myth tell us about reality in a way that more straightforward discourse can never achieve.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">5. Classical education, rightly received, produces humility which is something sorely needed in apologetics ministry and is too often unrepresented.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I have never been able to understand the arrogance I have encountered among the highly educated. For many, it seems, to earn a Ph.D. in any subject is to make them the master and commander of all knowledge and wisdom. I have to say that my experience has been quite the opposite. I will be starting my doctoral dissertation this summer and as I enter the final stretch of my educational career I am more aware than ever before about how ignorant I am. The more I know, the more I know that I don’t know much. Plato tells us that Socrates was said to be the wisest man simply because he knew that he did not know. Well, I still claim to know a few things so I guess I will leave the honor of being the wisest person to Socrates, but nonetheless I’ve come to appreciate that there is more wisdom in being honest about one’s own ignorance than in feigning that one knows more than they do.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A Classical education, properly done, creates humility because it exposes students to a world of knowledge they can never hope to completely master. A good education increases your awareness of the fact that there is much that man collectively does not know, and may never know, and that as an individual what you personally know is infinitesimal compared to all there is to be known. An arrogant educated person missed a very important lesson along the way. A good education should make us feel like a toddler standing on a beach of the Pacific ocean. It should make us feel small. Small is not to be confused with unimportant or insignificant, but genuine humility is a virtue.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">When it comes to apologetics I have known many who try to act as if they have all the answers neatly wrapped up in a bow. I can tell you for certain that I do not. But I find that people are very receptive to a person who is kind, humble and who can offer some compelling thoughts and arguments but still is able to say “I don’t know” when they really don’t. We need to learn the difference between confidence and bravado. Humility does not mean being wishy-washy and uncertain, nor does it mean lacking boldness. Humility is just being honest with yourself and others that you are finite human being as is everyone else.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A Classical education, which sets its students before the greatest minds of history, tells us that there is much yet to learn. Most of us will never approach the poetic skill of Homer, Virgil, and Milton, nor the philosophical greatness Aristotle, Descartes, and Kant nor the scientific brilliance of Kepler, Newton and Einstein. We will not likely write a novel as great Tolstoy, Austen or Lewis. It is a humbling thought. Hopefully, however, reading these incredible minds is not only humbling but is also inspiring. A good education keeps you grounded while you reach for the stars.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Case in Point Example: C. S. Lewis (The Ideal Apologist)</span></div>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-6dc11379-90bd-6013-77b7-c4d18813a8b5"></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So what kind of Christian are we trying to create? When I think of the ideal apologist I think of C. S. Lewis. From Plato to Beatrix Potter Lewis had read it. From the Oxford’s History of the English Literature in the Sixteenth Century (Excluding Drama) to stories about interplanetary spiritual warfare and epic battles with Lions and witches, Lewis wrote it. He spoke to men and women of the highest academic pedigree, he spoke to blue collar workers, he gave radio broadcasts during World War II to encourage the troops and the public, and he wrote books for children and was never beyond answering their letters asking about Aslan and Narnia. He powerfully and persuasively communicated Christ to them all through so many different mediums. Whether in a poem, a story, an academic work or in a local pub, Lewis was ready to make defense for the hope he had in Christ. Lewis had a great classical education and, I think, he embodied all of the above points I have made. May we see a generation of Lewisian apologists fill our schools and universities, our workforce of all stripes, may they become pastors and deacons, moms and dads. We need a generation ready to make the case for Christianity no matter where they go or what they do. I believe gaining a classical education is crucial to this mission.</span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-62394626172210722642017-01-17T13:00:00.000-08:002017-04-05T08:41:52.215-07:002017 Reading List<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Books:<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><i>The Pilgrim's Regress</i> by C. S. Lewis (01/15/17)</li>
<li><i>Meno</i> by Plato (01/22/17)</li>
<li><i>LOTR: Return of the King</i> by J. R. R. Tolkien (02/07/17)</li>
<li><i>A Study in Scarlet</i> by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (02/13/17)</li>
<li><i>The Sign of Four</i> by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (02/16/17)</li>
<li><i>Outlaws of Time: The Legend of Sam Miracle</i> by N. D. Wilson (02/21/17)</li>
<li>The Complete Tales of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (04/05/17)</li>
</ol>
<br />
Shorter Works:<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><i>Mathematics, the Mirror of Civilization</i> by Lancelot Hogben (01/05/17)</li>
<li><i>Mathematics in Life and Thought</i> by Andrew Russell Forsyth (01/09/17)</li>
<li><i>Space by Henri Poincare</i> (01/13/17)</li>
<li><i>Mathematical Creation</i> by Henri Poincare (01/14/17)</li>
<li><i>Chance</i> by Henri Poincare (01/17/17)</li>
<li><i>Definition of a Number</i> by Bertrand Russell (04/01/17)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-17648510247221652022016-08-23T10:14:00.000-07:002016-08-23T10:14:08.327-07:00THINKING CHRISTIANLY ABOUT BEAUTY: AN ARGUMENT FOR ITS OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE, DETERMINATION AND IMPORTANCE<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Introduction</span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-ffa6c925-b863-9817-fdef-953cab80ff50" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The subject matter of beauty is one of which there are no shortage of opinions to consider. A great many brilliant minds have asked, as Plotinus asked, “What is it that attracts the eyes of those to whom a beautiful object is presented, and calls them, lures them, towards it, and fills them with joy at the sight?”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In fact the subject is one that does not keep itself to the ivory towers of academia but it is a conversation the average person has regularly as we argue about what is beautiful and what is not whether it be in animals, a piece of art or a human being. And none of us like to feel we may have been wrong about beauty either as Elliot notes “It is painful to be told that anything is very fine and not be able to feel that it is fine—something like being blind.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">While part of this paper will attempt to give something of a survey of ideas on beauty it must be acknowledged at the outset that it will be a somewhat scant kind of survey given the amount of room allotted to this particular work. Even so, what I will demonstrate, in light of the diversity of thought on the subject matter of beauty, or as some prefer to call it, aesthetics, is that the only hope we have of knowing beauty as an objective reality is to accept the existence of God and to acknowledge him as revelator. God must be the one who defines beauty. Further, when we accept this truth that beauty exists objectively because God provides sufficient grounding for it (He is, after all, the creator and designer of all things that exist apart from himself) we can begin to approach an idea of beauty in the arts, and in nature, and in one another, through a careful consideration of God’s revelation in the holy Scriptures. But first let us consider what the world has had to say about beauty in the greatest of literature.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Surveying the Literature</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In this section I will survey the spectrum of views on what beauty is, where it can be found, and how we can properly appraise it. What we will see is a wide variety of ideas some which get along fine together but many of which are not reconcilable with one another. The difficulty this poses, as to determining who is right and who is wrong about beauty, will then be the subject matter of the next section of the paper. I will demonstrate the necessity of God in order to have a meaningful sense of what beauty is.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On the Method of Determining the Beautiful</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Eduard Hanslick in his book, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On the Musically Beautiful,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> argues on one hand that there are objective standards for beauty and yet, on the other hand, that each kind of art should be judged by its own standards. He begins by saying in regard to his investigation into the musically beautiful that, “if it is not to be wholly illusory, this investigation will have to approach the method of the natural sciences…</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">” Further, he goes on to say:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The servile dependence of the various special aesthetics upon a supreme metaphysical principle of a general aesthetics is steadily yielding ground to the conviction that each particular art demands to be understood only of itself, through a knowledge of its unique technical characteristics. System building is giving way to research firmly based on the axiom that the laws of beauty proper to each particular art are inseparable from the distinctive characteristics of its material and its technique.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here Hanslick suggests several notions. First he argues that if an investigation into beauty is going to be meaningful that it has to take the form the scientific method. In this statement Hanslick has seemingly pushed philosophy to the side as a meaningful form of inquiry into this topic. Secondly he has denied that there is any universal standard of beauty which all the arts are subject to but, rather, he believes each art ought to be judged only according to the standard of its own “material and technique.” In so doing, while Hanslick would say he is working for objectivity in discovering beauty in the arts, he has actually made beauty completely subjective because there are not universal truths about beauty there are only truths relative to each discipline.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Whereas Hanslick believes the scientific method is the only way forward and negates the place of philosophy in the discovery of beauty the truth is that most of the discussion of beauty throughout history has resided primarily among the philosophers. Whether it be Plato or Aristotle or later Aquinas or a good many other who certainly deserve mention the discussion about the nature of beauty raged for centuries among the philosophers before modernists tried to systematize everything into the natural sciences. The pre-modern philosophers recognize beauty as something that existed in itself and which objects in the world only participated in. Socrates asked one of his inquirers, “But take the case of the other, who recognises the existence of absolute beauty and is able to distinguish the idea from the objects which participate in the idea, neither putting the objects in the place of the idea nor the idea in the place of the objects—is he a dreamer, or is he awake?”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> So, is beauty a thing to be discovered by means of philosophy or by modern scientific method?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Beauty in Art Versus Beauty in Nature</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Within the realm of aesthetic discussion there even lies the debate as to whether or not one can properly call art beautiful or whether that is fitting only for nature and vice versa. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel takes the position that art is the true place to discuss beauty and he stops just short of absolutely denying that anything in nature might be rightfully called beautiful. In speaking of the discipline of aesthetics Hegel says the following:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The proper expression, however, for our science is the ‘Philosophy of Art’, or, more definitely, the ‘Philosophy of Fine Art’. By the above expression we at once exclude the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">beauty of Nature</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Such a limitation of our subject may appear to be an arbitrary demarcation, resting on the principle that every science has the prerogative of marking out its boundaries at pleasure. But this is not the sense in which we are to understand the limitation of Aesthetic to </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the beauty of art.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> It is true that in common life we are in the habit of speaking of beautiful colour, a beautiful sky, a beautiful river, and, moreover, of beautiful flowers, beautiful animals, and, above all, of beautiful human beings. We will not just now enter into the controversy how far such objects can justly have the attribute of beauty ascribed to them, or how far, speaking generally, natural beauty ought to be recognized as existing besides artistic beauty. We may, however, begin at once by asserting that artistic beauty stands </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">higher</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> than nature.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Plotinus agrees with Hegel and, indeed, goes one further than him in saying that art itself is more beautiful than what is rendered by the artist:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now it must be seen that the stone thus brought under the artist’s hand to the beauty of form is beautiful not as stone—for so the crude block would be as pleasant—but in virtue of the form or idea introduced by the art. This form is not in the material; it is in the designer before ever it enters the stone; and the artificer holds it not by his equipment of eyes and hands but by his participation in his art. The beauty, therefore, exists in a far higher state in the art; for it does not come over integrally into the work; that original beauty is not transferred; what comes over is a derivative and a minor: and even that shows itself upon the statue not integrally and with entire realization of intention but only in so far as it has subdued the resistance of the material. Art, then, creating in the image of its own nature and content, and working by the Idea or Reason-Principle of the beautiful object it is to produce, must itself be beautiful in a far higher and purer degree since it is the seat and source of that beauty, indwelling in the art, which must naturally be more complete than any comeliness of the external. In the degree in which the beauty is diffused by entering into matter, it is so much the weaker than that concentrated in unity; everything that reaches outwards is the less for it, strength less strong, heat less hot, every power less potent, and so beauty less beautiful.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Plotinus, then, sees three things in play in art. First is the raw material such as stone for the sculptor to use which, in his mind, is most lacking in beauty because it is the thing which needs formed. Second is the finished work of the artist which he has used raw material to create by refining them with tools appropriate to his medium. Thirdly, there is art itself which he speaks of as an immaterial reality, agreeing with Socrates and Plato above, it is a kind of pure form that loses something in translation into the tangible. So, for Plotinus, absolute beauty exists intangibly, receives something of a physical representation by the artist and the raw material he uses, that of nature, is the lowest on the rung of beauty.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Kant, being completely on the other side of this matter, spends nearly his entire discussion of beauty on the natural realm and gives hardly so much as a hat tip to art. He asks his reader “how we are to explain why nature has scattered beauty abroad with so lavish a hand, even in the depth of the ocean where it can but seldom be reached by the eye of man—for which alone it is final?”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> He, of course, spends much of what follows attempting to answer this question but with all of his example of beauty being those in nature.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Voltaire, through one of his characters in</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Candide, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">expresses a strong opinion that paintings are only beautiful when they so imitate nature that he cannot tell he is not looking at the thing itself.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Candide, walking in a long gallery after breakfast, was astonished at the beauty of the pictures. He asked what master had painted the first two. “They are by Raphael,” said the Senator; “I bought them very expensively out of vanity a few years ago; they are supposed to be the most beautiful things in Italy, but they don’t please me at all; their color has turned very dark brown, the figures are not rounded enough and do not stand out enough; the draperies don’t resemble cloth at all; in a word, whatever they say, I don’t find in them a true imitation of nature. I will only like a picture when I think I am seeing nature itself; there aren’t any of that kind. I have many pictures, but I no longer look at them.”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So, again we must ask, who is right? Is beauty to be found primarily in art or the fine arts or is it legitimately to be sought in the natural realms as well? If, in fact, it can be determined that beauty can fairly be spoken of in the natural realm we have yet still disagreements about what in nature can rightly be called beautiful.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On What is Beautiful in Nature</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Many of the aesthetic philosophers are disposed to think that beauty in nature is equated with a thing being what it ought to be by nature. That is to say when an animal is well formed and healthy, not limping or missing a leg, nor sickly and starved, and quite symmetrical in appearance, that all is as it should be and it is a beautiful animal. Plato refers to what he considers a universal truth of beauty in symmetry stating, “for measure and symmetry are beauty and virtue all the world over.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Aristotle takes also this view of beauty being a kind of fitness of nature when he writes:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">[I]n like manner we regard beauty, strength, and all the other bodily excellences and defects. Each of them exists in virtue of a particular relation and puts that which possesses it in a good or bad condition with regard to its proper affections, where by ‘proper’ affections I mean those influences that from the natural constitution of a thing tend to promote or destroy its existence.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But, quite oppositely, Marcus Aurelius suggests that some things can be beautiful when it fails to conform to its own nature.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We ought to observe also that even the things which follow after the things which are produced according to nature contain something pleasing and attractive. For instance, when bread is baked some parts are split at the surface, and these parts which thus open, and have a certain fashion contrary to the purpose of the baker’s art, are beautiful in a manner, and in a peculiar way excite a desire for eating. And again, figs, when they are quite ripe, gape open; and in the ripe olives the very circumstance of their being near to rottenness adds a peculiar beauty to the fruit.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Beauty as Moral Virtue Rather than Appearance</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Other authors attribute beauty primarily to moral virtues rather than physical appearance per se. Consider the following excerpt from Epictetus on what makes a person beautiful:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A certain young man a rhetorician came to see Epictetus, with his hair dressed more carefully than was usual and his attire in an ornamental style; whereupon Epictetus said: Tell me if you do not think that some dogs are beautiful and some horses, and so of all other animals. “I do think so,” the youth replied. Are not then some men also beautiful and others ugly? “Certainly.” Do we, then, for the same reason call each of them in the same kind beautiful, or each beautiful for something peculiar? And you will judge of this matter thus. Since we see a dog naturally formed for one thing, and a horse for another, and for another still, as an example, a nightingale, we may generally and not improperly declare each of them to be beautiful then when it is most excellent according to its nature; but since the nature of each is different, each of them seems to me to be beautiful in a different way. Is it not so? He admitted that it was. That then which makes a dog beautiful, makes a horse ugly; and that which makes a horse beautiful, makes a dog ugly, if it is true that their natures are different. “It seems to be so.” For I think that what makes a pancratiast beautiful, makes a wrestler to be not good, and a runner to be most ridiculous; and he who is beautiful for the Pentathlon, is very ugly for wrestling. “It is so,” said he. What, then, makes a man beautiful? Is it that which in its kind makes both a dog and a horse beautiful? “It is,” he said. What then makes a dog beautiful? The possession of the excellence of a dog. And what makes a horse beautiful? The possession of the excellence of a horse. What then makes a man beautiful? Is it not the possession of the excellence of a man? And do you, then, if you wish to be beautiful, young man, labour at this, the acquisition of human excellence. But what is this? Observe whom you yourself praise, when you praise many persons without partiality: do you praise the just or the unjust? “The just.” Whether do you praise the moderate or the immoderate? “The moderate.” And the temperate or the intemperate? “The temperate.” If, then, you make yourself such a person, you will know that you will make yourself beautiful: but so long as you neglect these things, you must be ugly, even though you contrive all you can to appear beautiful.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This idea, virtue as beauty, we will see later finds biblical support as well. But it worth noting that this kind of beauty is purely a non-physical beauty but that does not make it any less a real beauty.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On Whether Beauty is Eternal or Created</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Another important question that is raised in the aesthetic dialog is to the temporal or eternal nature of beauty. Is beauty a created and therefore contingent thing or is it an eternal and necessary thing? Again the answers vary and conflict.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Those who suppose, as the Pythagoreans and Speusippus do, that supreme beauty and goodness are not present in the beginning, because the beginnings both of plants and of animals are causes, but beauty and completeness are in the effects of these, are wrong in their opinion. For the seed comes from other individuals which are prior and complete, and the first thing is not seed but the complete being; e.g. we must say that before the seed there is a man,—not the man produced from the seed, but another from whom the seed comes. It is clear then from what has been said that there is a substance which is eternal and unmovable and separate from sensible things. It has been shown also that this substance cannot have any magnitude, but is without parts and indivisible (for it produces movement through infinite time, but nothing finite has infinite power; and, while every magnitude is either infinite or finite, it cannot, for the above reason, have finite magnitude, and it cannot have infinite magnitude because there is no infinite magnitude at all). But it has also been shown that it is impassive and unalterable; for all the other changes are posterior to change of place.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here above Aristotle has taken up for the position that beauty is an eternal substance without beginning. But it must be reasoned that such a view is one that has determined beauty to exist as an objective thing in itself. Necessarily then any view that sees beauty as subjective must hold to the contrary view that beauty is at best a created and contingent thing and, at worst, a mere illusion fooling the masses into believing something exists when it does not. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On Whether Beauty is Objective or Subjective</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It does not take a very deep survey of the greatest literature of the Western tradition on the matter of beauty to see that the ancients were much more inclined to the position that objects actually had or possessed beauty. This is opposed to the notion that all statements such “that is a beautiful thing” is actually a statement about the subject speaking rather than the object which they are speaking about. Consider this excerpt from Marcus Aurelius:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Everything which is in any way beautiful is beautiful in itself, and terminates in itself, not having praise as part of itself. Neither worse then nor better is a thing made by being praised. I affirm this also of the things which are called beautiful by the vulgar, for example, material things and works of art. That which is really beautiful has no need of anything; not more than law, not more than truth, not more than benevolence or modesty. Which of these things is beautiful because it is praised, or spoiled by being blamed? Is such a thing as an emerald made worse than it was, if it is not praised? Or gold, ivory, purple, a lyre, a little knife, a flower, a shrub?</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now we must note the startling shift in language when we reach modernity as it pertains to beauty. Kant, who is among the major minds in the shift to modernist thinking, makes a strong contrast between what is logical and what is aesthetic. An assumption which needs more backing than he can give it. “The judgement of taste, therefore, is not a cognitive judgement, and so not logical, but is aesthetic—which means that it is one whose determining ground cannot be other than subjective.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Likewise Charles Darwin, the father of the theory of the common ancestry of all living things, states all the more forcefully his view that beauty is nothing to be spoken of objectively but simply as a reference to our own selves rather than the object we think we are speaking of.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">With respect to the belief that organic beings have been created beautiful for the delight of man,—a belief which it has been pronounced is subversive of my whole theory,—I may first remark that the sense of beauty obviously depends on the nature of the mind, irrespective of any real quality in the admired object; and that the idea of what is beautiful, is not innate or unalterable. We see this, for instance, in the men of different races admiring an entirely different standard of beauty in their women.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Responding to just these sort of notions as Darwin and Kant have put forth Roger Scruton has but forth this evaluation:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That familiar relativism has led some people to dismiss judgements of beauty as purely ‘subjective’. No tastes can be criticized, they argue, since to criticize one taste is simply to give voice to another; hence there is nothing to learn or to teach that could conceivably deserve the name of ‘criticism’. This attitude has put in question many of the traditional disciplines in the humanities. The studies of art, music, literature and architecture, freed from the discipline of aesthetic judgement, seem to lack the firm anchor in tradition and technique that enabled our predecessors to regard them as central to the curriculum....I suggest that such sceptical thoughts about beauty are unjustified. Beauty, I argue, is a real and universal value, one anchored in our rational nature, and the sense of beauty has an indispensable part to play in shaping the human world. My approach to the topic is not historical, neither am I concerned to give a psychological, still less an evolutionary, explanation of the sense of beauty. My approach is philosophical, and the principal sources for my argument are the works of philosophers.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So while many come to the all too typical conclusion that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’, which is merely a poetic way of saying that beauty is completely subjective, it seems that this is a more modern idea than not. Furthermore it is wrongheaded to think that just because people disagree en masse about aesthetic judgment that the answer is to reject the notion that there is objective truth on the matter. In the next section of this paper I will agree with Scruton and others that beauty is something that has objective existence and which a person can be in sync with and judge rightly about, or a person can make a wrong judgment about beauty and out of step with truth.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Making a Case for Objective Beauty</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the last section we compared pieces of writings on the subject of beauty in which there were numerous points of disagreement and of which no man, in himself, seems to have authority to rule upon in any final way. Further we saw at last that even the matter of whether beauty exists as a thing in itself has come into question as pre-modernists usually seemed to think that it does and the modernists usually relegate such notions to being subjective feeling about objects rather than rightful rulings on the objects themselves.Clive Staples Lewis notes in his </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Abolition of Man</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> that, “Until quite modern times all teachers and even all men believed the universe to be such that certain emotional reactions on our part could be either congruous or incongruous to it— believed, in fact, that objects did not merely receive, but could merit, our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Here it is my goal to stick up the pre-modernist on this matter and make a case for the objectivity of beauty and it is that case I now turn.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Philosophers have long discussed another area of inquiry which I believe to be parallel to our current discussion. The inquiry I refer to is about the of nature morality. One will notice upon even a brief moment of consideration how similarly people talk about beauty and morality. Both are often said to merely represent a personal point of view and that any notion of objectivity is merely an illusion. Indeed Darwin’s thoughts on the matter of beauty (as mentioned above) are reflected in his followers thoughts about morality today. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Yet upon more reflection surely we all have a different sense of things! Intuitively we seem to know that just as some acts are truly virtuous and praiseworthy other acts are truly evil and deserve our condemnation. A man pushing a child out of the way of a truck but giving up his own life in the process is surely a praiseworthy deed just as much as a man using a child for a shield between him and a soldier is a reprehensible action. Beauty is the same in this way. We all seem to know that beauty is real, we certainly speak of it as such, and we are constantly trying to convince other people to see the beauty of something or someone.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In response to the question of morality some philosophers have put forth an argument for God’s existence. The argument entails that the existence of objective moral values demonstrates God’s existence, but the argument works both directions. If objective moral values exist, then God exists and if God exists then there is sufficient grounds for objective moral values.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In fact God’s existence and perfect nature is the only sufficient grounds imaginable for objective moral values which means that if moral truth exist God necessarily does as well. The argument is a perfectly valid one, logically speaking, whether a person finds it cogent or not depends upon whether or not they are persuaded that there are objective moral values, of course, but few can live consistently with the implication of morality being truly subjective. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am arguing the same way for the existence of objective beauty. If objective beauty exists then God exists. Objective beauty exists. Therefore, God exists. In turn I also argue that God’s existence is the only sufficient grounding for objective aesthetic values. Like the moral issue we run into the very definite problem of lacking an authoritative voice within mankind. Imagine that you and a friend stand before the same painting and one of you says it is beautiful and the other says it is horridly ugly. Who is right? What authority does one man have over the other that his view should be finally accepted as the correct one? Clearly on the individual level beauty cannot be decided because individuals disagree. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">However, some will surely say, it is the wider culture that decides what is beautiful rather than individuals. But this too is hopelessly subjective for cultures clash with other cultures. What Europeans find beautiful may not strike the fancy of the North African. Further, what cultures value as beautiful has been known to change over time so that within the same culture, a hundred years later, there may be an entirely different fad for what is considered beautiful. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But while this is the very argument that Darwin put for to relegate beauty to the realm of subjectivity it is worth noting that just because individuals and cultures disagree or even change their mind about beauty over time this hardly amounts to the conclusion beauty does not exist. An important question to ask may be, “If beauty does not exist then why are we incapable of speaking as though it does not?” Further if every time people disagreed about a subject we simply threw up our hands in the air and proclaimed there is no truth to be found then how many of the things we now know to be true (such as the earth revolves around the sun) would we still be stuck on? Certainly people saw it differently at one point but that did not stop the best argument from eventually winning the day. It is clear, then, that disagreement about what the truth is is hardly the same as conceding that no truth exists in the matter.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Just as with some moral issues there may be some so-called gray areas as to what is moral or immoral it reasons well to conclude that there may be areas of gray in the matter of beauty. As Christians we recognize that we are a fallen race and in a broken universe in need of mending. We may find ourselves in situations that lack moral clarity and situations that lack aesthetic clarity because of the fallen state of things. This may be because we now live in a world where good and evil collide in such a way that it is difficult to find pure examples of either. In this way an action may be mostly good but not completely altruistic and a painting may feature true elements of beauty but still dabble in sinful rebellion. But these gray areas do not suffice to rid us of the idea that moral and aesthetic truth really do exist. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I think, however, that we have all experienced, to greater or lesser degrees, moments of clarity about moral and aesthetic truths. We have been shocked by images of holocaust victims bodies piled without care in trenches and in such a moment who but the sociopath could not confirm the evil that was done. Similarly we have stood before oceans or mountains or met the love of our lives and been ravished by beauty and almost transported elsewhere while our feet remained stationary. It is in the extremes that all the gray areas are melted away by the light of truth.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Nonetheless the problem of determining what is beautiful is a real one. Beauty is not, afterall, determined by instruments such as telescopes, microscopes and yard sticks. The debate about beauty is first and foremost a philosophical one. Just as with the difficulty of moral truth we must realize that aesthetic truth, if it as real as we all sense that it is, must be decided by an authority higher than man. If we accept not only the existence of God but the fact that God has spoken to us in both nature and in Scripture then we find ourselves with both sufficient grounding for the existence of beauty and a real starting point for its discovery. For what God calls beautiful must necessarily be so.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Biblical Revelation and Beauty</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">God has said of himself through the prophet Moses “God is not man, that he should lie.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Likewise the Spirit of God moved in Paul who wrote the God “never lies.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Furthermore God has not merely proclaimed his truthfulness but he has demonstrated it in his covenant keeping and fulfilment of prophecies and especially in raising his son from the dead as Jesus said he would. Yes, whatever God says is true and therefore what he reveals about beauty can be relied on with absolute certainty.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One thing that is clear in Scripture is that beauty exists objectively as part of God’s nature. The Psalmist proclaims “One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in his temple.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> And again “Splendor and majesty are before him; strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> God is himself beautiful to gaze upon and dwells in beauty and this can be no subjective opinion but a fundamental truth. It is highly doubtful that anyone who stood in God’s presence would be able to deny this truth but, even if they could, they would find themselves out of sync with the truth of the matter. God is beauty and has created other beautiful things and the goal of those seeking to believe what is true is to call beautiful that which God calls beautiful.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Natural Beauty</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That God is not only beautiful himself but the creator of beauty is also made clear at many points in Scripture starting from the very beginning. In Genesis 2:9a the Scripture says, “And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.” Part of God’s perfect creation was the making of trees which were pleasant to the sight. This proclamation is made without qualification which is to say that to disagree that the trees were beautiful would be wrong and out of sync with reality.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We are told that the grass of the field has beauty as well, even if it a temporary beauty. “For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> It is reasonable to extend beauty to all of nature insofar as it possesses its original pre-fall qualities. This means, as likely as not, that most things in nature have beauty but may also have more or less deficiencies according to the effect of the fall. Some of what we see in nature, however, may not be an original part of God’s creation but purely a result of the curse because of sin. Consider what God said to Adam at the fall of man:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So then the original creation was perfectly beautiful and the fallen world retains much of that beauty but it is now a mixed universe like a tarnished mirror that still reflects its creator but with smudges that obscure his perfection from our sight.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Virtue as Beauty</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The pre-Christian philosophers were often very close in their quests to understand beauty and even the divine. Even Paul makes note of how close they come in their understanding in his discussion with the Greek thinkers at Mars Hill. He states:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 9.6px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: super; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 9.6px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: super; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 9.6px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: super; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 9.6px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: super; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One such way they came close to their understanding was in that beauty can not only apply to things but to virtue. Sometimes being beautiful is as much about the kind of person you are as opposed to your physical appearance. That is to say there is more than one way to be a beautiful person. The apostle Peter says under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> This virtuous beauty is a kind that never fades as long as virtue is maintained.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Beautiful Clothing</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even when it comes to clothing the Bible is not silent as to beautiful adornment. The clothes for the priests, Aaron and his sons, were commanded to be made beautiful. “And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> God never commands the impossible, or if he does he fulfills it himself on our behalf such as his command, “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Thankfully this is fulfilled by Christ on our behalf. But imagine that God has commanded the production of beauty! If beauty were not a thing in itself then this would be commanding the impossible.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Beauty in Art</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">God has even commissioned art in the more traditional sense. In the biblical book of Exodus the Lord specially called and empowered artists to make and direct the construction of his tabernacle:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: small-caps; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lord</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> said to Moses, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 9.6px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: super; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft. And behold, I have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. And I have given to all able men ability, that they may make all that I have commanded you: the tent of meeting, and the ark of the testimony, and the mercy seat that is on it, and all the furnishings of the tent, the table and its utensils, and the pure lampstand with all its utensils, and the altar of incense,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 9.6px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: super; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils, and the basin and its stand, and the finely worked garments, the holy garments for Aaron the priest and the garments of his sons, for their service as priests, and the anointing oil and the fragrant incense for the Holy Place. According to all that I have commanded you, they shall do.”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In Exodus 36 through 39 the process of making the tabernacle and it’s beautiful pieces of art is explained in great depth.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">From this commissioning we learn several things. First, we learn that God loves different kinds of art. The artwork in the tabernacle involved woodworking, silver and goldsmithing, architecture and weaving just to name a few forms art that were employed. Secondly, we learn that part of how God made us to be like him is that he made us to be artists. As God is the great Creator so we are sub-creators in his image. It is sometimes levied as a criticism against a piece of art that it is “derivative” but the truth is all art is derivative. We are merely taking things God has already made, already thought of, and mixing them around and reordering them. There are no original ideas and that is okay. We are like children picking up their father’s tools and mimicking his handiwork.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Human Beauty</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Scripture may make more references to human beauty than any other kind. Here is but a sample of a few various cases:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 9.6px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: super; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">to bring Queen Vashti before the king with her royal crown, in order to show the peoples and the princes her beauty, for she was lovely to look at.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The young shepherd boy who would be king was also identified as having qualities of beauty. “And he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome. And the Lord said, “Arise, anoint him, for this is he.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Further the Song of Solomon is a book dedicated to the enjoyment of the physical beauty of married lovers. Statements like, “you are beautiful, my love, behold, you are beautiful! Your eyes are doves behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats leaping down the slopes of Gilead”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> are everywhere in that particular book.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is no real surprise, given that man is made in the image of God, that we should find people to be in possession of beauty themselves. We are reflections of our creator and although we fall short of perfect beauty and our beauty is but vapor in this life, nonetheless it is a real quality of mankind and meant to be celebrated. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But here is a good example of where the gray areas of beauty come into being which we discussed above. The human body is beautiful but because of the fall we are liable to all kind of deficiencies. Mankind was never meant to fade away in age and die and therefore the beauty of youth was meant to be permanent. Further because of our sinful inclinations gained in the fall we do not appreciate the human body as we ought and have wrong desires toward beautiful bodies. This is why a painting can be in one sense truly beautiful but also sinful because the nakedness of others who are not our spouses is not ours to look at.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> So what is objectively beautiful can be mixed with the ugliness of sin and therefore create aesthetic confusion as much as moral confusion.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Many more example of beauty and artistry of varied forms could be cited from Scripture but what we should take away is, at the least, 1) that beauty exists as a divine attribute and therefore exist objectively whether we recognize it where we ought to or not, 2) that God has standards for beauty and they must accord to his revelation of what is true and good in order to be beautiful and that the fall has had a real affect on beauty and our comprehension thereof and finally 3) that beauty resides in both nature and in art, one being his great handiwork and the other being our mimicry of him as sub-creators.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Importance of a Beautiful Education</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Having now given a proper basis for beauty’s objective existence, and having taking but a short look at some of the things which God has called beautiful, we ought to turn now to the importance of beauty and aligning ourselves with a right understanding of it. One of the reasons why beauty, and having a right view of beauty, is such an important issue is because it is so powerful. Contemporary philosopher Roger Scruton, in his book entitled </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Beauty,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> has this to say about the sway beauty has over mankind:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Beauty can be consoling, disturbing, sacred, profane; it can be exhilarating, appealing, inspiring, chilling. It can affect us in an unlimited variety of ways. Yet it is never viewed with indifference: beauty demands to be noticed; it speaks to us directly like the voice of an intimate friend. If there are people who are indifferent to beauty, then it is surely because they do not perceive it.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The effect that beauty has on people is often incalculable. Even the eccentric psycho-analytic obsessed Freud correctly noted, “Beauty is an instance which plainly shows that culture is not simply utilitarian in its aims, for the lack of beauty is a thing we cannot tolerate in civilization.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Beauty is in every way an unavoidable and, arguably, a necessary part of life.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Beauty has at times frozen people in their steps and at others called them to action. Lives have been lost in the pursuit of beauty as even one of the greatest wars of human history was fought over the beauty of a woman named Helen. Beauty has cause virtue and it has caused vice. It makes our daily life and routines tolerable when it’s absence makes the same dreadful. People have at time mistaken the ugly for the beautiful and beautiful for the ugly. It is because of it’s power and importance in our individual lives and our culture as a whole that we must learn to be in tune with beautiful just as much as truth and goodness.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lewis tells us that this need to be rightly educated in beauty was once widely known by the ancients though it is now but lost. He writes:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">St Augustine defines virtue as ordo amoris, the ordinate condition of the affections in which every object is accorded that kind of degree of love which is appropriate to it. Aristotle says that the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought. When the age for reflective thought comes, the pupil who has been thus trained in ‘ordinate affections’ or ‘just sentiments’ will easily find the first principles in Ethics; but to the corrupt man they will never be visible at all and he can make no progress in that science. Plato before him had said the same. The little human animal will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful. In the Republic, the well-nurtured youth is one ‘who would see most clearly whatever was amiss in ill-made works of man or ill-grown works of nature, and with a just distaste would blame and hate the ugly even from his earliest years and would give delighted praise to beauty, receiving it into his soul and being nourished by it, so that he becomes a man of gentle heart. All this before he is of an age to reason; so that when Reason at length comes to him, then, bred as he has been, he will hold out his hands in welcome and recognize her because of the affinity he bears to her.’</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Notice that Lewis connects training the sentiments to be a precursor to embracing reason itself, something which, if he is correct, few modernists would argue with as being utterly crucial to society.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Scruton notes that the existence of beauty was once a universally accepted truth but it has become lost to modernists.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Let us at least say that this particular path to the understanding of beauty is not easily available to a modern thinker. The confidence with which philosophers once trod it is due to an assumption, made explicit already in the Enneads of Plotinus, that truth, beauty and goodness are attributes of the deity, ways in which the divine unity makes itself known to the human soul.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It’s worth noting that a large part of the issue on the Modernist’s account is its discrediting anything that is not material. In rejection of the immaterial comes the rejection of forms and properties and, indeed, God who is the very basis of truth, goodness and beauty. While modernists have rejected the objectivity of morality and beauty they have clung to the notion of objective truth but they have limited themselves to the scientific method and thereby are suffering from lack of access to many truths. They are, in fact, standing on borrowed ground because truth only belongs in a theistic universe. We must have a right view of beauty if we are to be in sync with reality and if we are to align with the truth of the way the universe is.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In Lewis’ same work, quoted above, he warns of the extreme danger in making a mankind devoid of sentiment, that is, making people who lack the ability to call beautiful or “sublime”, as he uses the term, what is in fact just that. Lewis argues that right sentiments are the key to people being truly human. We should speak with right sentiment about the good and the beautiful, and those ought to correspond to the truth of things. Without sentiment man is not moved. “In battle it is not syllogisms that will keep the reluctant nerves and muscles to their post in the third hour of the bombardment. The crudest sentimentalism...about a flag or a country or a regiment will be of more use.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> If we are not able to speak about the actual things which are true, good and beautiful (as opposed to seemingly talking about them but really only be expressing our subjective opinions) then we are left with the bleak options of a sentimentless world which moves no one or deceiving people to believe sentiments that those in the know are perfectly well aware do not exist. On the one hand we create animals moved only by instinct and on the other we create cold logicians that run numbers and care for no one. As Lewis puts it:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The head rules the belly through the chest— the seat, as Alanus tells us, of Magnanimity, of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest-Magnanimity-Sentiment— these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If we follow modernist designs about the world we live in we will invariably create one or the other or a combination thereof which Lewis calls “men without chests.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Summary & Conclusion</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Through a survey of some of the great literature on the subject of beauty we have seen that there is no shortage of thoughts on beauty and that there is no small variety of opinions, many of which clash irreconcilably. Further while there is variation of views throughout history on beauty we see a particularly striking disparagement of ideas between the premodern and the modernist thinkers especially as it relates to the objective or subjective existence of beauty. We have concluded that the idea of objective beauty demands a final judge which can only be met by the existence of God and if beauty exists God exists. In turn God is the one who not only provides grounding for the existence of beauty but he is the standard of beauty as it is part of his nature and his revelation in nature and especially in Scripture are the standards for determining what is truly beautiful. Finally we considered why being properly educated about beauty really matters.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In conclusion it is my contention that only by acknowledging God’s existence and revelation can we ever truly know not only what is true and what is good but also what is beautiful. It may be rightly said that Plato asked a pertinent question when he asked “Is not the good also the beautiful?”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In fact truth, goodness and beauty are all essential attributes of God and it is by him that we know and experience them truly and by his revelation that we may judge rightly about representation of them in our world. The correct judgment of beauty is of real and significant importance and we must educate ourselves and the next generation to see and appreciate the beauty that is all around and distinguish it from the reprehensible.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></b><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bibliography</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Eliot, G. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Middlemarch.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In M. J. Adler & P. W. Goetz (Eds.),</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Emma and Middlemarch</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Chicago; Auckland; Geneva; London; Madrid; Manila; Paris; Rome; Seoul; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto: Robert P. Gwinn; Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Darwin, C. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (M. J. Adler & P. W. Goetz, Eds.) Chicago; Auckland; Geneva; London; Madrid; Manila; Paris; Rome; Seoul; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto: Robert P. Gwinn; Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Diderot, D. with Swift, J., Voltaire. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Gulliver’s Travels; Candide; Rameau’s Nephew.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (M. J. Adler & P. W. Goetz, Eds., P. Gay, J. Barzun, & R. H. Bowen, Trans.) Chicago; Auckland; Geneva; London; Madrid; Manila; Paris; Rome; Seoul; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto: Robert P. Gwinn; Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Freud, S. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Major Works of Sigmund Freud.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (M. J. Adler & P. W. Goetz, Eds.) Chicago; Auckland; Geneva; London; Madrid; Manila; Paris; Rome; Seoul; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto: Robert P. Gwinn; Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 34.5pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hardie, R. P., & Gaye, R. K. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Physics.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In M. J. Adler & P. W. Goetz (Eds.), W. D. Ross (Trans.), </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Works of Aristotle.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Chicago; Auckland; Geneva; London; Madrid; Manila; Paris; Rome; Seoul; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto: Robert P. Gwinn; Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hanslick, Eduard. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On the Musically Beautiful: A Contribution Towards the Revision of the Aesthetics of Music</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Edited and translated by Geoffrey Payzant. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Pub. Co., ©1986.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Introductory Lectures On Aesthetics</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Translated by Bernard Bosanquet. Penguin Classics. London: Penguin Books, 1993.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Kant, I. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Critique of Judgement.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In M. J. Adler & P. W. Goetz (Eds.), J. C. Meredith (Trans.), </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Critique of Pure Reason; The Critique of Practical Reason and Other Ethical Treatises; The Critique of Judgement</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Chicago; Auckland; Geneva; London; Madrid; Manila; Paris; Rome; Seoul; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.; Robert P. Gwinn. 1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lewis, C. S.. The Abolition of Man HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lucretius, Epictetus, and Aurelius, M., Plotinus. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Way Things Are; The Discourses Of; The Meditations Of; The Six Enneads.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (M. J. Adler & P. W. Goetz, Eds.) Chicago; Auckland; Geneva; London; Madrid; Manila; Paris; Rome; Seoul; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.; Robert P. Gwinn. 1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Plato. (</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Dialogues of Plato; The Seventh Letter.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (M. J. Adler & P. W. Goetz, Eds., B. Jowett & J. Harward, Trans.) Chicago; Auckland; Geneva; London; Madrid; Manila; Paris; Rome; Seoul; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto: Robert P. Gwinn; Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ross, W. D. (1990). </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Metaphysics.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In M. J. Adler & P. W. Goetz (Eds.), W. D. Ross (Trans.), </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Works of Aristotle.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Chicago; Auckland; Geneva; London; Madrid; Manila; Paris; Rome; Seoul; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto: Robert P. Gwinn; Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Saint Thomas Aquinas. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Summa Theologica</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. (M. J. Adler, P. W. Goetz, & D. J. Sullivan, Eds., L. Shapcote, Trans.) Chicago; Auckland; Geneva; London; Madrid; Manila; Paris; Rome; Seoul; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto: Robert P. Gwinn; Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Scruton, Roger.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Beauty: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society. 2001.</span></div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-50462997289368698942016-05-18T06:57:00.000-07:002016-08-11T12:32:08.555-07:00On Oughtness<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Introduction</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One of the most interesting questions of history is ‘how ought man behave?’ Probably the most interesting part of that question, at least in this author’s opinion, is the word </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">ought</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. If the word had been ‘</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">does</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">’ then we would have a whole different issue on our hands. We would begin to describe all the social habits of the curious creature known as man. If, on the other hand, the question had been ‘</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">why</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> does man behave as he does?’ then we would have yet another completely different discussion ensue. That discussion would probably take the form of evaluating the psychology of man and what things he does because of nature versus what things he does because of nurture and so on.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But our discussion for the purpose of this paper is </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">oughtness</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. I propose to take a tour through some of the foundational works of social science and divide them between pre-modern and modern to see where there is agreement and disagreement. It is my supposition that what will be found is a distinct shift in thinking on oughtness (which is synonymous with objective moral truth) when the transition happens from pre-modern to modern. I will try to draw out, through the course of this paper, what it is that I believe has driven this shift in thinking.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For our pre-modern works I will consider Solomon’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Proverbs</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, Plato’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Republic, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">and Aristotle’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Nicomachean Ethics</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. For the works of modernity I will be considering Machiavelli’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Prince,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> selections from Karl Marx’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, and finally Friedrich Nietzsche’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On the Genealogy of Morals.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Certainly a great deal of other works could be considered but these works may be representative of a general way of thinking in the pre-modern versus modern of world. Exceptions are, of course, always available to the norm.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Solomon’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Proverbs</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">First I want consider the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">oughtness</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> presented to us by Solomon. Of what kind is it and where does it originate? Let us consider the introduction of Solomon’s work:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel:</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To know wisdom and instruction, to understand words of insight,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity; to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth—</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance, to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The fear of the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: small-caps; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lord</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here we Solomon’s purpose in writing. He is writing to instruct about the gaining of knowledge, wisdom, insight, wise dealings, righteousness, justice, equity, prudence and discretion. All of these words imply a sense of oughtness. Had we gone on to the next verse we would have found that Solomon is addressing his work to his son. These are things he wishes his son to know and apply to his life because Solomon believes he ought to. But why ought he to?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The answer comes, I think, at the end of the section I quoted. “The fear of the Lords is the beginning of knowledge.” All of the oughtness of Solomon’s work has this as its reference point, the Lord. A closely related term for moral is justice and likewise for immorality is injustice. Though they carry a more legal connotation we may argue successfully that all legislation hails back to a moral standard. If it is unjust to steal or to murder, and if there is legislation against such deeds, then the reason those things are ruled against is because they are recognized to be immoral deeds, deeds that should not be done at all. So there will be some going back and forth between words like good and bad (or good and evil), just and unjust, moral and immoral as we move forward. While there are some reasonable distinctions to be made between some of these words there is, at the core, a common sense of appeal to </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">oughtness</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Solomon gives us several example of justice and injustice in his </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Proverbs </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">which may help us clearly see his connection of the origin of moral objectivity to God. He writes, </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“For the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: small-caps; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lord</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding; he stores up sound wisdom for the upright; he is a shield to those who walk in integrity, guarding the paths of justice and watching over the way of his saints. Then you will understand righteousness and justice and equity, every good path; for wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul;</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">discretion will watch over you, understanding will guard you,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">delivering you from the way of evil, from men of perverted speech, who forsake the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, who rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perverseness of evil,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">men whose paths are crooked, and who are devious in their ways.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-f5e0ff6d-c424-1b0f-b757-12779cedc0ea" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Solomon connects justice with walking on the right path and with exercising wisdom which is received from the LORD (this is YHWH in Hebrew, the personal name of God for Jews and Christians). Furthermore, he puts these in juxtaposition with the ways of evil and darkness, perverse speech and being devious in action. Elsewhere Solomon connects injustice to accepting bribes (Proverbs 17:23) and showing partiality for the wicked and depriving the righteous of their due (Proverbs 18:5). Solomon does not blush at connecting Justice directly to God as the origin and source, “Many seek the face of a ruler, but it is from the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: small-caps; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lord</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> that a man gets justice.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So it is not hard to discover that, for Solomon, there is absolutely a sense of objective moral truth that all should seek to know and live out. Furthermore he directly links this objective morality to the LORD, the Creator of the universe. Upon the ultimate being Solomon places the weight of justice, goodness and truth and he is confident that its weight can be held by him.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Plato’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Republic</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Plato’s great work, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Republic,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is entirely about the subject of justice which we have already said is closely related to morality and is without a doubt about </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">oughtness</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In this work many ideas are proposed such as the one given early on by Cephalus when he argues that justice is “speaking the truth and giving back what one takes.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> It does not take Socrates long, however, to poke some holes in this offered definition when he gives a counterexample that clearly shows it would be unjust. At least in some specific situations it would actually be unjust to give back what one has taken from another. The specific example Socrates uses is that of giving back a weapon to someone who is not in their right state of mind when they ask for it back. What follows from this discussion is perhaps one of the greatest treatises on the matter of justice that has ever been written. That being said, the definition of Justice remains elusive in </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Republic</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. It is easier to recognize justice and injustice in practice and to point to examples of just behavior than it is to define the concept itself.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This difficulty of giving a proper definition of justice might lead some to conclude that there is not one and that perhaps justice itself, and not just the definition, is what is elusive. But this would be a mistake because Plato does not have a hard time showing us examples of injustice and if we recognize what is unjust we must admit that their is such a thing as justice no matter how difficult it may be to define. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">While the proper or perfect definition of justice may remain just outside of our graps, according to Plato, its origin and basis is not. It would appear that he sees justice as being in accord with virtue and imitating the gods. To this point he writes, “For, surely, gods at least will never neglect the man who is eagerly willing to become just and, practicing virtue, likens himself, so far as is possible for a human being, to a god.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> So then, injustice is to be unvirtuous and out of step with the gods. Furthermore, Plato has already said earlier in </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Republic</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> that the laws they create must be in accordance with what is good and patterned after the god who is good. In fact, it is outlawed to suggest that any god did any unjust thing but, rather, “the god’s works were just and good.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> So then what is lawful in </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Republic</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is that which is virtuous and mimics the gods who only do that which is good and virtuous.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This means, although Solomon and Plato would make significant departures from one another’s understanding of the divine realm, they both agree that morality, our objective </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">oughtness,</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> squarely rest upon the shoulders of the divine. There is no doubt between them that there is a right way to behave and a wrong way and that God (or the gods) are the reason why these things are so. They cannot think of another place upon which to safely rest the weight of morality.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Aristotle’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Nicomachean Ethics</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Aristotle continues down a line of similar thinking as Solomon and Plato when he gives us the example of the law abider and the law breaker and connects justice to that which is lawful when he writes: </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">he who is a lawbreaker is unjust and he who is lawful just, it is clear that all lawful things are somehow just…. The laws pronounce on </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">all</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> things, in their aiming at the common advantage, either for all persons or for the best or for those who have authority either in accord with virtue or some other such way. As a result, we say that those things apt to produce and preserve happiness and its parts for the political community are in a manner just.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Further, in Book 7 and Chapter 1 of </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Nichomachean Ethics</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Aristotle draws from Homer’s work where Priam spoke of Hector being “exceedingly good” and that “He did not seem to be a child of any mortal man but a god.” For Aristotle then (and Homer, although he is not currently under consideration, but certainly another pre-modern case) you have the connection of goodness or morality with the divine. Here we rest, once again, morality upon divine shoulders. This, then, places Aristotle in a camp agreeing with Plato (and essentially Solomon) that goodness and virtue lie ultimately with the gods.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As I said earlier, these are but a small sample of great thinkers from the pre-modern era but they are a good representation of the majority of thinking from that time on the present issue. But let us now turn our attention to some modern era thinkers and their view of oughtness and moral truth. I think what we will find is a definite and fundamental shift in the conception of </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">oughtness</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and its origin.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Machiavelli’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Prince</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Machiavelli’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Prince</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is an interesting work full of tongue in cheek statements but his aim is ultimately a serious one. He seeks to instruct towards what the ideal governmental system is and how to maintain control as a leader. One of the pivotal statements in his work is the following: “The principal foundations which all states have, whether new, old, or mixed, are good laws and good arms. And because there cannot be good laws where there are not good arms, and where there are good arms there needs must be good laws, I shall omit the reasoning on laws and speak of arms.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here Machiavelli cleverly tips his hat and reveals his priorities, namely, that of control by arms (force). Now Machiavelli is not suggesting that there be no laws, nor is he suggesting ruling purely by brute force alone, but he is talking priorities. He shows elsewhere in his book that his primary concern is that of maintaining power by whatever means are necessary and there is no objective moral ethic (merely a utilitarian one) to restrain what one should do while pursuing or maintaining power over a state. At one point he goes as far as saying, “Hence it is necessary for a prince, if he wishes to maintain himself, to learn to be able to be not good, and to use it according to the necessity.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">He must “learn to be able to be not good!” That is quite a statement indeed. For one it seems to recognize a notion of ‘good’ or perhaps ‘common decency’ but suggests that a prince </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">ought</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (and there is that word again) to break with the good. It would seem in light of this and other comment made in </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Prince</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> that Machiavelli consider morality something like a social convention to be used when it is helpful and broken when it is more helpful. Of the references that Machiavelli makes to religion they are mostly utilitarian as well. Whether or not Machiavelli believed in God may be up for debate but what is very clear is that he did not fear him nor did he hold to an objective morality for all people (especially princes). Use religion when helpful, ignore when it hinders.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Karl Marx’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Where Machiavelli championed the cause of Princes, Marx believed himself to be championing the cause of the people. In this way they sat on opposite sides of one another. But there is definitely room for agreement because they are both utilitarian in their approach to problem solving. Marx responded to the suffering of the masses in his day with an attempt to cure the problem as he saw it. Marx felt that capitalism was a disease that kept the rich in power and oppressed the majority and he proposed a kind of communism as the answer. He wrote, “Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Furthermore he asserted that, “Communism begins from the outset with atheism.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Whereas Machiavelli taught princes to live like opportunist atheists who used religion to their own gain when useful, Marx says atheism is a presupposition and not a hidden one at that. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Because of this assumption of atheism the only guiding principle for Marx is the proletariat cause. So Marx would not see morality as relative but as defined by the cause. Actions and deeds are good when they support the communist agenda and bad when they hinder it. The utilitarian principle may never be clearer than in the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Manifesto of the Communist Party</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> when Marx describes the ideal Communist state. He states:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with the state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state….</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And the list goes on.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What is evident in Marx’s thinking is that the Communist agenda trumps all sense of individual rights. Anyone moving into his ideal state automatically loses all of their personal belongings or are labeled as a rebel (and then lose all their personal belongings). He is convinced that this approach, mutual state ownership, is the key to ending suffering and the class problem but anything that gets in the way will be annihilated with extreme prejudice. He concludes his </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Manifesto</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> by saying, “The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Friedrich Nietzsche’s </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On the Genealogy of Morals</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Nietzsche sets out to give an explanation of the origin and evolution of morality in his book </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On the Genealogy of Morals.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In his thinking the origin of the concept of good began with elite or noble class. What they did, what they were, was good and what stood in contrast to them (i.e. the lowly) was bad. He wrote, “The judgment “good” did </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> originate with those to whom “goodness” was shown! Rather it was “the good” themselves, that is to say, the noble, the powerful, high-stationed and high-minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good…”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> He later argues that this concept becomes inverted by the religious, particularly the judeo-Christian tradition, to the point where what was once despised (e.g. weakness and low station) has become the ideal for moral goodness.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Regardless of who or what ‘the good’ is, it is clear that for Nietzsche that the concept originates with man and not with God. Nietzsche too is an atheist but he is not as optimistic of hopeful as Marx is in his Atheism. Nietzsche realizes that atheism equals no truth, moral compass whatsoever and that any principle for guidance we have is merely subjective and man made. He seems to agree that man will endure on by sheer act of will but he does so apart from any real meaning to life.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Conclusion</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So much more could be and needs to be said to do each of these authors justice in representing their thoughts and stances. Nonetheless what I have hoped to draw out, and what I think should be clear from what we have seen, is that the shift in thinking about morality or </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">oughtness</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> that took place with the turn of modernism was a shift towards nihilism and subjectivity. The pre-moderns, while certainly having major disagreements about things, held a common presupposition that there was objective truth to be sought and found and that there was a real good and evil (justice and injustice) and that one </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">ought</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to seek the good and turn form the bad. The common strand for the pre-moderns was the existence of the divine. God (or the gods) allowed a place outside of and above mankind upon which an objective morality could rest, a sufficient origin of morals and also a way to make them objective and equally obligatory for all people.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But when we arrive at the moderns we see that the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">oughtness</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> begins to be a fuzzy idea. Machiavelli pays some lip service to the good, at least as a social convention that is normally expected to be upheld, but he says the Prince ought to ignore it as needed for maintaining control of the state. He does not out himself as an atheist but he encourages a practical atheism for princes. Marx assumes atheism and he adopts a utilitarian ethic which says all that helps communism is good and all that opposes it is bad. But this is not an objective reality, it is something to be imposed by force. Finally, Nietzsche presents himself as the honest one who embraces atheism and its logical outcome, nihilism. There is no meaning, there is no truth and there is no moral imperative. </span></div>
<div style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-f5e0ff6d-c424-9fa2-78b2-730031ca9ead"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;">Some of the greatest minds of social science bring us to this point of realization. If there is moral truth that is objective, equally true for all people in all places and at all times, then there is a divine being (or beings). If there is no divine reality then there is no basis for objective morality and ultimately there is only force, there is only the will to power. We now live in a confused society that needs to be honest about the options before them. If there is </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline;">oughtness</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline;"> there is God. If there is no God, there is no </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline;">oughtness.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-91578424695434193322016-01-06T17:25:00.000-08:002017-01-17T12:55:46.024-08:002016 Reading List<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjssLPLiPOsBQX-bJThPhCSra3Wd3TWqXHXoi_QExnFeeiyjI2u8O9LJoKUJ7jHyTGqvH0V9DqeuiQ7N4mHNICNayKotjN48OZdI1I0-KsSFmQ6GUMJ3KsQ6pbo-5P9Gb2pyCCLB1aapIo/s1600/Stack-of-books-great-education.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjssLPLiPOsBQX-bJThPhCSra3Wd3TWqXHXoi_QExnFeeiyjI2u8O9LJoKUJ7jHyTGqvH0V9DqeuiQ7N4mHNICNayKotjN48OZdI1I0-KsSFmQ6GUMJ3KsQ6pbo-5P9Gb2pyCCLB1aapIo/s320/Stack-of-books-great-education.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
2016 Book List<br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u>Books:</u></b><br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><i>The Place of the Lion: A Novel</i> by Charles Williams <b>(01/02/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Art for God's Sake</i> by Philip Graham Ryken <b>(01/05/16)</b></li>
<li><i>The Owlings: A Worldview Novella</i> by Daniel DeWitt <b>(01/08/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone </i>by J. K. Rowling <b>(01/25/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Hood </i>by Stephen Lawhead <b>(01/28/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Apology</i> by Plato <b>(02/07/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets</i> by J. K. Rowling <b>(02/29/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Alice's Adventures in Wonderland</i> by Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson)<i> </i><b>(03/29/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban</i> by J. K. Rowling <b>(04/15/16)</b></li>
<li><i>100 Cupboards </i>by N. D. Wilson <b>(04/26/16)</b></li>
<li><i>The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto </i><b>(04/27/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Dandelion Fire</i> by N. D. Wilson <b>(05/11/16)</b></li>
<li><i>The Chestnut King</i> by N.D. Wilson <b>(05/26/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire </i><b>(06/01/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix </i><b>(06/08/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince </i><b>(06/19/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows </i><b>(07/01/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Pride and Prejudice </i>by Jane Austen <b style="font-style: italic;">(07/15/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Emma by Jane Austen <b>(07/25/16)</b></i></li>
<li><i>The Art of War </i>by Sun Tzu <b>(08/01/16)</b></li>
<li><i>The Hobbit </i>by J. R. R. Tolkien <b>(08/04/16)</b></li>
<li><i>The Tales of Needle the Bard </i>by J.K. Rowling <b style="font-style: italic;">(</b><b style="font-style: italic;">08/06/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Out of Silent Planet </i>by C. S. Lewis <b>(08/07/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Perelandra</i> by C. S. Lewis <b>(08/12/16)</b></li>
<li><i>That Hideous Strength </i>by C. S. Lewis <b>(08/22/16)</b></li>
<li><i>The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin</i> <b>(09/10/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Poetics</i> by Aristotle <b>(09/21/16)</b></li>
<li>Wordsmithy by Douglas Wilson <b>(10/11/16)</b></li>
<li>Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy <b>(10/17/16)</b></li>
<li>The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien <b>(11/2/16)</b></li>
<li>The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien <b>(12/30/16)</b></li>
</ol>
<b><u>Shorter Works from <i>The Gateway to the Great Books</i>:</u></b><br />
<div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><i>Contentment</i> by Plutarch <b>(01/12/16)</b></li>
<li><i>The Moral Obligation to be Intelligent</i> by John Erskine <b>(01/13/16)</b></li>
<li><i>How should One Read A Book </i>by Virginia Woolf <b>(01/22/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Of Beauty </i>by Francis Bacon <b>(01/22/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Of Discourse</i> by Francis Bacon<i> </i><b>(01/22/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Sketch of Abraham Lincoln</i> by Nathaniel Hawthorne <b>(01/25/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Death of Abraham Lincoln</i> by Walt Whitman <b>(01/25/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Definition of Number</i> by Bertrand Russell <b>(01/26/16)</b></li>
<li><i>Of Studies</i> by Francis Bacon <b>(02/08/16)</b></li>
</ol>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
How about you? What are you reading in 2016?<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-966381937174078982015-12-15T09:22:00.001-08:002015-12-15T09:36:06.713-08:00Why We Need Classic Fairy Tales<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">My favorite of the classic Disney princess movies is, without a doubt, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sleeping Beauty</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. I like it very much for several reasons. In fact I like it for almost the exact reasons why it probably is disliked by many today. I like it because it has a love at first sight story. I like it because it has a manly hero who slays the dragon and gets the girl. I like it because there is no confusion about what is good and what is evil.</span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-8674536b-a6a7-504a-3c04-dc3bc4d3dcd1" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYtMPH-rRzrDSQnK2zePuvSqSNj0zLHXOy7XzSYldZdu49gYg800Zy0k8ojLbfpEYJUwem6GeDGn4H_ou6tSh9ywlTXZotmQRP-TIVC0gQmz15xl2_Q_Ftgx5ZLdNa-9NAUPGaYHGM2Fo/s1600/disney-princess_206031_4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="124" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYtMPH-rRzrDSQnK2zePuvSqSNj0zLHXOy7XzSYldZdu49gYg800Zy0k8ojLbfpEYJUwem6GeDGn4H_ou6tSh9ywlTXZotmQRP-TIVC0gQmz15xl2_Q_Ftgx5ZLdNa-9NAUPGaYHGM2Fo/s320/disney-princess_206031_4.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As to the first point, it has become in vogue to knock the idea of love at first sight. We do not believe in such nonsense now. In fact many have come to even ridicule the idea of ‘true love’ itself. We live in a culture that mocks the idea of committed monogamous love. Divorce is always an option when a young couple goes into marriage and even the idea of marriage itself seems rather old fashioned and outmoded to many. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am a fan of Disney’s hit movie </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Frozen</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> as well. I think it does send some pretty good messages itself. I think it is great that the act of true love in that movie which ‘thaws a frozen heart’ is an act of love which is given rather than received (and indeed the heart that was truly frozen was Elsa’s and not Anna’s). There is some great gospel analogies that can be drawn from </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Frozen</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> but they do something that is I think more hurtful than helpful also.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We are all shocked when prince Hans turns out to be a scoundrel who never loved Anna at all. He has played her using the love at first sight motif to take her for all she is worth. It is great writing on the story-maker’s part in my opinion. I surely agree with the sentiment that we need not get too carried away by mere emotions and marry a person whom we do not even know. And it is all too true that there are boys out there who are looking to take advantage of young women who just want to be loved.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That being said, however, this reflects a real shift in our culture’s thinking about love. True love, love at first sight, that is just the fairy tale. That is the thing which you cannot find in the real world. ‘Here is a dose of reality’, says Disney, ‘that kind of thing isn’t real’. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We don’t believe in that kind of love anymore.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Well you had better not tell that story to me. I fell in love with my wife practically overnight and we are going strong 12 years later. And while we asked each other important questions, talked about our beliefs and hopes and dreams, we got to know one another, it wasn’t but two weeks after I met her that I was buying a ring to ask her to marry me. So maybe love at first sight is a bit of a hyperbolic idea, but it is not so far off in my case and I’ve known others the same. True love is real and I think it dangerous to suggest to this generation that it is not and that they ought not to hope to experience it and to give it in return.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As to my second point, we need men who act like men. Can I just say ‘to Hell with feminism?’ I say that not crassly but with seriousness. It is a doctrine from Hell and to Hell let it return. We are in a time where everything is permissible except to act like a real man. We applaud males acting like women, we applaud male adults (in the chronological sense) acting like little boys, we applaud females who attempt to be men, but we deplore men who act like men.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Perish the thought that a man act like a man. The idea of men who believe that part of their purpose in life is to be committed to one woman for life, to pull out chairs for her, to open car doors and, if necessary, to slay a dragon for her, is the last thing that our culture wants to celebrate. But let’s be honest, deep inside the heart of every young woman (at least before that desire is crushed or shattered by some boy or whatever age) is a desire for a real man. Even the self professed lesbian has desired a real man at one time in her life (probably her father) but has more often than not only met boys. They have met boys who hurt them and abused them and engendered feelings of hate for all things that have both an X and a Y chromosome. All they really needed was a man.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">No, I don’t mean a ‘man’ like our foolish culture thinks of. I mean a man who loved them unconditionally, who put their needs first, who protected them from boys, who slayed dragons for them. Every girl needs a man. They need a daddy who loves them more than life itself and then when they grow up they need a husband who carries that torch passed on to him from her father. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Oh I know that any feminist who reads this will think ‘How dare he say that! How wrong he is!’ but I know better. I know that you have simply missed out on being loved as you should have. On behalf of all of the real men in this world I want to tell you that I am sorry for the boys who have been in your life and who have hurt you. I want to tell you that you matter and you are valuable and you are precious in the sight of God your true Father who does love you unconditionally.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As to my final point, we need clarity on good and evil. There may be some ‘gray areas’ in this world but that is a far cry different from saying that ‘there is no black and white’. We have reached a point as a culture where we have stopped believing in categories like good and evil. We have traded them in for ideas like ‘evil is just misunderstood’. This may have no better reflection than another modern Disney story like </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Maleficent. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is in fact a turning on its head of the original story of </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sleeping Beauty</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> which I have been praising. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the movie </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Maleficent</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> we see the ‘untold true story’ of Sleeping Beauty. The evil Maleficent is not evil at all she has just made some bad decisions. The real evil lies in the King who betrayed her. You can watch the story for yourself, if you like, although I would argue that it is bad CGI and even worse acting. But the main thing I want to point out is that it is representative of this idea that what we once called evil we now call good and what we once called good we call evil (Isaiah 5:20). Furthermore we find that prince Phillip’s kiss is actually powerless to wake the sleeping princess. It is the Maleficent herself, who cursed the girl to begin with, that must wake her by loving her. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is not that there is no beauty in this story or that there is not some message of redemption that could be mined out and applauded, but it is the fact that we have had to ruin a good story to make a mediocre one. We have taken the moral of the story and destroyed it to write a new moral. The new moral has no place for an honorable prince who truly loves the girl and sacrifices himself for her good. We must, we are told, find true love somewhere else because it does not exist in love at first sight.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The dragon may be the hero, the prince may be the villain or at least the impotent wannabe hero, and you may find yourself without hope of finding what your heart truly longs for in this world. In conclusion my point is the following: </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.666666666666666px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">While we need to caution our young people about getting carried away with their passions and marrying strangers I think it may be that there is at least an equal danger in telling them they ought not to have passions, hopes and dreams. It is both good and right that a young woman should be looking for a prince to sweep her off her feet and it is both good and right that a young man should aspire to be that prince. We need dragon slaying men who love their wives and daughters, who serve them and honor them as princesses. We need to keep the dream and belief alive in the hearts of young people that they can slay dragons and love dragon slayers. We need to know that there is truth, goodness and beauty in an objective sense and it is not all relative or simply a certain point of view. What young people need is not to stop believing in fairy tales but, rather, to be the kind of people that the classic fairy tales portray.</span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Believe in love, believe in dragon slayers, believe that goodness is there to be claimed as your own.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 14.6667px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggmnYArbp2vyDWbWsbf2D_CRXNFFE_APwX4aUBO6JMBUpXlDvezt_ajugDcxvG5E86cM_j0q8Y_baPh6zY17JYjrH21nw-z88QN61vnHrBm4Fyg3r-oozAQ474xGXIOwGKDc4rdAQ250M/s1600/Phillip-Vs-Dragon-prince-phillip-38273129-639-253.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggmnYArbp2vyDWbWsbf2D_CRXNFFE_APwX4aUBO6JMBUpXlDvezt_ajugDcxvG5E86cM_j0q8Y_baPh6zY17JYjrH21nw-z88QN61vnHrBm4Fyg3r-oozAQ474xGXIOwGKDc4rdAQ250M/s320/Phillip-Vs-Dragon-prince-phillip-38273129-639-253.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-77864487461246811172015-12-04T09:25:00.000-08:002015-12-14T12:52:47.773-08:00Why is Homosexuality a Sin?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A student recently asked me why homosexuality was sinful and I could tell that she wanted a more in depth answer than 'because the Bible says so.' It's understandable, to some degree, that in our culture she would be repulsed by the notion of calling homosexuality sinful. Everything she sees, hears and reads in the media and entertainment industries is geared towards telling her that homosexuality is perfectly normal. They tell kids, as early as they can get their attention, that homosexuals are people just like you and I who want to love and be with people they care about.* They would like to say that it is no different than our mother and father's love for and relationship with each other.** To deprive homosexuals of the 'right' to same sex marriage*** is an atrocity and to condemn their love as sin is simply archaic and back wooded nonsense.<br />
<br />
You cannot watch a new television show which does not feature a homosexual or two or three. Everyone has a gay friend and/or family member. It's normal and they are everywhere you go. They are presented as happy, healthy, attractive, and well adjusted people who are committed to a long term and monogamous relationship with their partner. They just want to love and be loved and to be accepted like everyone else.<br />
<br />
So why call such a perfectly normal thing, a natural thing, a good thing...sinful?<br />
<br />
This question is best answered by asking another question. Why call anything sinful? The term 'sin' has, after all, been attached to a lot of other things besides homosexual behavior. Heterosexual sex outside of the context marriage is also called sin. Lying is called sin. Stealing is called sin. Coveting is called sin. The list of sins rolls on. But why are any of these things sinful?<br />
<br />
To put it another way, to use a bit less 'religious' term, we might say that these things are morally wrong. It is wrong to lie and steal and cheat. It is wrong to murder and enslave other people. It is wrong for a man to beat on his girlfriend or to sexually fondle a young child. It is wrong... Isn't it?<br />
<br />
I think all but sociopaths just answered yes.<br />
<br />
But why is it wrong? How can you say that murder or rape or molestation is objectively wrong? You may think these things are wrong but the person committing those same acts might not agree with you. If it is simply you against him then who is right? Why is your opinion more valid than his? Surely no human being can dictate morality for all others! 'Who are you to judge me?' the rapist says!<br />
<br />
So you take the next logical move you can make and you appeal higher. You say that 'no individual person can dictate morality but society as a whole can'. Really? 'Yes,' you say 'society agrees together what is best for human flourishing and this agreement is what morality is. Murdering people does not aid the flourishing of our civilization, nor does molesting children, therefore they are wrong.' But I have a few questions.<br />
<br />
What if I can get away with it? What if I commit the act and am never caught and therefore there is no punishment? Furthermore what if I really enjoy doing this act and feel it benefits me personally? Why ought I not to do it then? And before you say 'I should care for the good of the rest of society' I ask you why should I care about other people or what is good for society? It does not seem to follow that simply because a lot of people are saying something is so that it in turn actually <i>is </i>so. If an action benefits me and I can accomplish it without any harm to me, you have hardly given me a reason why I ought to not do the thing.<br />
<br />
Furthermore your notion 'society defines morality' has some real difficulties. For one, it justifies a lot of atrocities throughout history and into our present day. Our society once felt that human slavery was permissible and, indeed, the majority supported it. Under the reasoning of 'society decides morality' we would have to say that slavery was morally good while the majority supported it. That moral reformers were actually evil because they opposed the norm and said the majority were in the wrong. Moral reform is impossible when we are simply counting noses.<br />
<br />
Even further we have the problem that societies do not always agree with other societies. Who were we to tell the NAZI's to stop killing all the Jews and handicapped people? If their society was in favor of it then who is our society to judge them? This just takes us back to the difficulty we had before when you and the rapist were in a disagreement. You kicked it up the chain a bit to the level of society to avoid the problem of individual morality but it did not work. The problem is the same but merely on a larger scale. We think we ought not to murder people because of their ethnicity, they think it is for the good of all mankind to do so. Who is to say?<br />
<br />
Who is to say?<br />
<br />
It would seem that you have a real choice to make. You can choose between option A) that there is actually no objective morality which is binding on the consciences of all people everywhere across all times and cultures or B) That God exists. You might think that I have just tried to pull a fast one on you but, I assure you, I have not. I have however backed you into a corner with only two options. It is time that you faced them.<br />
<br />
The problem of objective morality, that some things are really right and others really wrong, is that if it exists it is not a product of man. Mankind cannot, in themselves, account for morality. If morality is man made then it is just 'you versus me' or 'us versus them' and, in neither case, do we have objective moral truth that is binding for all people. The only place such an objective moral standard could come from is a Creator-God.<br />
<br />
If it is the case that we are made by God and that he designed us and placed us upon this earth then he alone can state what our purpose is and how we are to function in relationship with one another and with him. He provides the accountability, He is the ultimate will-answer-to, that we lack if morality is man made and subjective. I ought not to do something, even if I can get away with it and it benefits me immediately, because it is actually wrong and I will be held accountable for my actions before God.<br />
<br />
If there is no God then there is no objective morality. If there is objective morality then there is a God. These are your options.<br />
<br />
And so now we come full circle. 'Why is homosexuality a sin?' It is a sin because it is contrary to the design and purposes of God for human life and flourishing and he has made this plain both in natural revelation and in special revelation (Scripture). Or there is no God, homosexuality is not sin, and all is permissible.<br />
<br />
What I have trouble tolerating is people who try to play around like there is a middle option. I assure you there is not. The problem is that mankind is in rebellion to its Creator. We think we know better than our designer how we ought to behave and function. We reject him, we normalize what he has forbidden and we destroy ourselves in the process. Homosexuality is sin, just as heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sin, just like lying is sin, just like murder is sin and stealing is sin, etc., because God has made us and knows what is best for us and has told us how to live and we are either in accordance with his will or in rebellion.<br />
<br />
If we say that homosexuality is not sin then we simply are rejecting God either in his existence or his authority.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*And, of course, homosexuals are people just like you and I who want to love and be loved and we ought to love them as people. But they are also living in sin (just like you and I apart from Christ) and they need to turn away from sinful desires and submit to the will of God. All of us have sinful impulses whether they be homosexual or otherwise. All of us have to deny ourselves certain things we crave because they are wrong.<br />
<br />
** There is an obvious difference, however, because the human form was designed in such a way that the opposite sexes were complimentary and that the sexual organs, male and female, actually complete one another and produce offspring.<br />
<br />
*** The issue of rights is similar to that of morality. Who can give individuals 'rights' beside their creator? Who defines marriage but the one who created the institution in the beginning?</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-86748991522271742992015-08-06T09:27:00.000-07:002015-08-06T09:30:50.789-07:00Covenant Baptism of my Three Youngest Children<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I've written and podcasted on the issue of infant baptism and how my convictions have changed from a credobaptist position to a paedobaptist position. This past Sunday I was blessed to be able to follow through with those convictions. With the recent birth of my fourth child we moved forward with baptizing her and my other two youngest children. My oldest son has already been baptized as a believer.<br />
<br />
I'm thankful to God for his goodness and grace and the covenant faithfulness he has promised not only to my wife and I but also to our children. As 1 Corinthians 7:14 tells us the children of believers are holy to God, they are set apart from the world, and members of the covenant of grace. If you have never seen a covenant baptism before it is my pleasure to share this special moment with you.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BydfXx-3ytc" width="400"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a href="http://jacoballee.blogspot.com/2015/04/for-paedobaptism.html" target="_blank">Blog Post on Paedobaptism</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://jacoballee.podbean.com/e/on-infant-baptism/" target="_blank">Podcast on Paedobaptism</a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-78464775613663591672015-07-21T10:16:00.000-07:002015-07-21T10:16:52.789-07:00On the Usefulness of Natural Theology: Providing Grounds for Supernatural Theology<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Introduction</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Historically Christians have affirmed two primary ways in which God has revealed himself to the world, namely, supernatural revelation and natural revelation. Louis Berkhof gave a helpful delineation between these two kinds of revelation in his </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Systematic Theology</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> when he wrote “The mode of revelation is natural when it is communicated through nature, that is, through the visible creation with its ordinary laws and powers. It is supernatural when it is communicated to man in a higher, supernatural manner, as when God speaks to him, either directly, or through supernaturally endowed messengers.”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Most, therefore, of what is typically thought of as Christian Theology entails the study of supernatural revelation; what God has said directly to man through supernatural means. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">According to the Bible itself supernatural revelation has come to man in a couple of different forms. The author of Hebrews has written:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.”</span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-a1692c12-b19a-5499-37d2-53a2d34af7c1" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So, then, the prophets were one means by which God revealed himself supernaturally. The apostle Peter likewise spoke to this when he wrote:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But it is not just the prophets whom God spoke through according to Scripture but the same passage of Hebrews also says God supernaturally revealed himself in the person of Jesus, the uniquely divine Son of God. The Apostle John magnified the role Jesus played in furthering the revelation of God in the first chapter of his Gospel when he wrote “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.”</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> So then God has supernaturally revealed himself through prophets and even in coming of Jesus as the God-man.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Furthermore the apostle Paul has told us that God revealed himself in the Scripture writing “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> It is here, upon the Scriptures, where most of Christian theology rests. It is precisely because the prophets and apostles have gone on to be with the Lord and that the Lord himself has ascended to the Father that Christians turn primarily to the Scripture, the breathed out word of God, to find his will for their lives. The Scriptures contain a record of God’s revelation through the prophets, apostles and Jesus himself and therefore it serves as the cornerstone for theological study and inquiry. The Scripture rightfully deserves to have the place of preeminence in Christian theology because it is a direct, supernatural and clear word from the maker of the universe.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even so, natural revelation plays a very significant role in Christian theology and it is the purpose of this paper to argue that natural revelation is an essential part of Christian theology. From natural revelation we can do what is called ‘natural theology’. Natural theology is what we can learn about God from just what is commonly available to man in the natural order. Accepting Berkhof’s definition of natural revelation as the way in which God reveals himself “</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">through the visible creation with its ordinary laws and powers” this paper will demonstrate, first, the advantage natural theology has over and against supernatural theology and, second, how from natural revelation, and by doing natural theology, it can be reasonably established that belief in God is rationally acceptable and, in turn, supernatural revelation is entirely plausible.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Advantage of Natural Theology and Its Warranted Use</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Rene’ Descartes once wrote “And first of all there is no doubt that in all things which nature teaches me there is some truth contained; for by nature, considered in general, I now understand no other thing than either God Himself or else the order and disposition which God has established in created things…”</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> If natural theology has any clear advantages over supernatural revelation it is, first, in its universal accessibility to all mankind and, second, its logical priority epistemologically speaking. To the first point, natural theology works from a book that everyone can read no matter their language or location. There is no library card needed to check out the book of nature all you have to do is go outside. Whereas supernatural revelation requires either being in the presence of a true prophet or at least being able to access the true records of their teachings, which may exclude some or many from access, natural revelation has no restriction in this way. All people with normal mental capacities can use those faculties to examine the natural realm in order to draw these principles and conclusions from their observations. Natural theology, then, works from a place of neutrality, utilizing concepts upon which there is widespread knowledge and acceptance, to reason towards truth about God’s existence or the will of God.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As to the second point, while supernatural theology may have the preeminent place in Christian theology, natural theology has a logical priority over supernatural theology in that it demonstrates the rationality of belief in God and thereby makes the possibility of receiving direct communication from a supreme creator all the more acceptable. It is only common sense to answer the question ‘does God exist?’ prior to asking the question ‘what has God said?’. As such it follows that we ought to start with natural theology so we might then decide if the whole enterprise of studying special revelation is a worthy goal. Working from the advantageous position all mankind shares (equal access to nature) we can indeed establish with certainty that belief in God is rational and that therefore supernatural revelation from God is plausible. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is certainly worth noting, especially for those Christian who might have their doubts about the viability of natural theology, Scripture actually affirms the truth that God can be known through the things he has made. None may have said it better than the apostle Paul who wrote:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">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.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Claiming to be wise, they became fools,</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That God has made himself plain to all people in the things he has made is evidenced by certain philosophers like Plato whom Augustine would go so far as to say was a lover of God.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Even the apostle Paul encouraged the Athenian philosophers that God made this world in such a way that he was discoverable and “</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him.” </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thus validated by Scripture, and by example in the history of philosophy, there is good reason to be hopeful about the enterprise of using natural theology to find evidence for God. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Natural Arguments for a Supernatural Being</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As Clenias has said “It is a matter of no small consequence, in some way or other to prove that there are Gods, and that they are good, and regard justice more than men do.”</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> The question of God’s existence is not a newly debated subject but it is inestimably important because on the answer to this question rests meaning, morality and eternity itself. It is no small wonder that the number of volumes which treat the subject are innumerable to mortal men. In the following section there will be given but a very small sampling of some of arguments of natural theology which have been put forward to make a case for the existence of God. It will be shown that these arguments are worthy of serious consideration and that they demonstrate belief in God is not an unevidenced assumption but, rather, a rational position held by thinking people across the centuries who have seriously considered the natural world and what it tells us.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Although the following arguments are often referred to as ‘proofs’ for God’s existence it would be easy to overestimate what they may reasonably accomplish. Alvin Plantinga, a contemporary Christian philosopher, has written about how he formerly had unreasonable expectation for natural theology:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I employed a traditional but wholly improper standard: I took it that these arguments are successful only if they start from propositions that compel assent from every honest and intelligent person and proceed majestically to their conclusion by way of forms of argument that can be rejected only on pain of insincerity or irrationality. Naturally enough, I joined the contemporary chorus in holding that none of the traditional arguments was successful. (I failed to note that no philosophical arguments of any consequence meet that standard; hence the fact that theistic arguments do not is of less significance than I thought.)</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Natural theology, and the arguments made from it, provide a reasonable platform for belief in God. They do not prove God’s existence (if what is meant by ‘prove’ is that no one can contest any of the premises or conclusions) but they do provide a rational defense of the existence of God which many rational people find convincing. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If we are rationally warranted in believing God exists then we have a basis for believing that God would speak directly to us and therefore we have grounds for supernatural theology. For the the purposes of this paper four arguments will be considered in favor of rational belief in God’s existence. The first argument is known as the Ontological Argument, the second is known as the Cosmological Argument, the third is known as the Teleological Argument and the fourth is known as the Moral Argument. More arguments could certainly be given and discussed but even these will only be touched upon briefly in light of all that could be said about them and the numerous forms that each of these arguments have been presented in throughout the centuries.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Ontological Argument</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Of all the classical arguments for God’s existence produced by natural theology the Ontological Argument may be the most controversial. Because of this fact more time will be given to the opposition to this argument than with the rest of the arguments that follow. The Ontological Argument is so named because ‘ontology’ is the branch of metaphysical philosophy that addresses the question of being, that is, it asks ‘what is?’ Some have hailed the argument as the definitive answer to atheists whereas other Christians have themselves rejected the argument as little more than clever wordplay. Nevertheless the argument has been championed by a number of great philosophers throughout history and is still well represented today by some formidable scholars.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The first person to champion this argument with the confidence that it certainly proved God’s existence is Anselm. In his work </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Proslogion</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> he wrote thus:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be thought. So can it be that no such thing exists, since “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’”? (Psalm 14:1; 53:1) But when this same fool hears me say “something than which nothing greater can be thought,” he surely understands what he hears; and what he understands exists in his understanding, even if he does not understand that he exists [in reality]. For it is one thing for an object to exist in the understanding and quite another to understand that the object exists [in reality]. When a painter, for example, thinks out in advance what he is going to paint, he has it in his understanding, but he does not yet understand that it exists, since he has not yet painted it. But once he has painted it, he both has it in his understanding and understands that it exists because he has now painted it. So even the fool must admit that something than which nothing greater can be thought exists at least in his understanding, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood exists in the understanding. And surely that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist only in the understanding. For if it exists only in the understanding, it can be thought to exist in reality as well, which is greater. So if that than which a greater cannot be thought exists only in understanding, then that than which a great cannot be thought is that than which a greater can be thought. But that is clearly impossible. Therefore, there is no doubt that something than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in the understanding and in reality.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Since Anselm made this argument it has been adopted and offered in various forms by proponents such as Renes’ Descartes and </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Gottfried Leibniz and still more recently are advocates such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But while there have certainly been some brilliant minds who have found this argument compelling it can hardly be said to have been met without criticism. David Hume, for example, makes an argument concerning the capacity of human thought that would seem to offer a reasonable challenge to Anselm’s argument. Hume writes:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What never was seen or heard of, may yet be conceived, nor is anything beyond the power of thought except what implies an absolute contradiction. But though our thought seems to possess this unbounded liberty, we shall find upon a nearer examination that it is really confined within very narrow limits and that all of this creative power of the mind amounts to no more that the faculty of compounding, transposing, augmenting or diminishing the materials afforded us by the senses and experience. When we think of a golden mountain, we only join two consistent ideas, gold and mountain, with which we were formerly acquainted. A virtuous horse we can conceive, because, from our own feeling, we can conceive virtue; and this we may unite to the figure and shape of a horse, which is an animal familiar to us. In short, all the materials of thinking are derived either from our outward or inward sentiment. The mixture and composition of these belongs alone to the mind and will. Or, to express myself in philosophical language, all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If Hume is correct about his understanding of the nature of human thought, that all thought comes from sensory experience and the rearrangement thereof, then this is a significant challenge to Anselm’s Ontological Argument.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hume would, in effect, be able to say to Anselm that the being of which no greater can be imagined is simply a combination and augmentation of experiences you have actually had. Not that there is actually a maximally great being but one has met a great person and could therefore think of the qualities of that great person and enhance them in the imagination. The God of Anselm, then, could be little more than the combination and augmentation of other ideas that have been received through sensory perception in the world. Not that this at all defeats the notion that God may exist, but that Anselm’s argument may not achieve its goal of proving it.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Like Hume there have been other skeptics have not found this argument convincing but it is not just those who doubt the existence of God who are skeptical about this particular argument for his existence. In actuality some of the brightest minds of Christian intellectual history have also found Anselm’s Ontological Argument uncompelling. Aquinas, for example, writes in his </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Summa Theologica</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some believe God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word “God” is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists in the intellect. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought. And this is what is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So one the Christian faith’s greatest defenders in history, does not think the ontological succeeds either. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To the defense of the Ontological argument, many who have championed it since Anselm have given it new life by reworking it. Perhaps Anselm had a good idea which simply needed some work so it could avoid the objections it was at liable to in its original form. This is indeed what William Lane Craig believes to be the case. Craig thinks that Plantinga’s approach to the Ontological Argument succeeds and does so in part because Plantinga has profited “from the missteps and oversights of his predecessors”.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Utilizing the philosophical concept of ‘possible worlds’ Plantinga offers a new form of the argument that may be more cogent. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This version of the Ontological argument starts with the premise that the idea of God is not a self-contradictory idea, that is to say that a being such as God is logically possible and goes on to demonstrate that God is not merely logically possible but logically necessary. Craig offers the following formulation of Plantinga’s argument:</span></div>
<ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is possible that a maximally great being exists.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This formation of the argument avoids the problem raised by Hume’s understanding of human ideas because it is no longer arguing, as in its original form, that if a person conceives of a maximally great being then that being must necessarily exist. Instead it is arguing that if the idea of a maximally great being is not logically incoherent, then it must exist. How one came to conceive of this being is not relevant in this form of the argument, only whether or not the conception is logically possible; and it seems to be.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even though the Ontological Argument is controversial it is, nonetheless, a very provocative argument produced by natural theology that has been found cogent by some very learned philosophers. As Plantinga has stated an argument does not have to convince everyone in order to be a good argument because intelligent people disagree all the time. With that being said let us now consider some other arguments from natural theology that have been more convincing to an even greater number of people.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Teleological Argument</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The next argument from natural theology to be considered is known as the Teleological Argument. This name is derived from the Greek word ‘Telos’ which refers to the end or aim of a thing (i.e. its purpose). The argument makes the case that the universe has the appearance of design towards some end which in turn leads to the necessity of a designer whom we call ‘God.’ When the argument is placed in deductive form it is often stated in a syllogism such as the following:</span></div>
<ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Everything which is designed has a designer.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The universe/biological life have indicators of having been designed.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Therefore the universe/biological life are best explained in reference to a designer.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Probably the most famous rendering of this argument comes from William Paley who famously used an example about finding a watch. In his work </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Natural Theology</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Paley wrote:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer. that. for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of the answer. But suppose I had found a </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">watch</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. To reckon up a few of the plainest of these parts, and of their offices, all tending to one result: We see a cylindrical box containing a coiled elastic spring, which, by its endeavor to relax itself, turns round the box. We next observe a flexible chain (artificially wrought for the sake of flexure) communicating the action of the spring from the box to the fusee. We then find a series of wheels, the teeth of which catch in, and apply to each other, conducting the motion of the fusee to the balance, and from the balance to the pointer; and at the same time, by the size and shape of those wheels, so regulating the motion, as to terminate in causing an index, by an equable and measured progression, to pass over a given space in a given time. We take notice that the wheels are made of brass in order to keep them from rust; the springs of steel, no other metal being so elastic; that over the face of the watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no other part of the work; but in the room of which, if there had been any other than a transparent substance, the hour could not be seen without opening the case. This mechanism being observed (it requires indeed an examination of the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have said, observed and understood), the inference, we think, is inevtiable; that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Paley, just a little further down in his book follows this by saying, “For every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For Paley, if we can clearly and indisputably discern that a watch requires a watchmaker then we are all the more so obligated to designate the natural realm as having been created by a nature maker because everything about the complexity of the watch is mirrored in nature and indeed the natural world has complexities that far exceed any watch. Obviously whatever would stand outside or above nature in order to create it would be, by definition, supernatural. Paley’s argument has been and continues to be influential for those considering the implications of the appearance of design in the universe and in biological life forms.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Paley aside, the Teleological Argument has been represented by many others both considerably earlier than Paley and up to this present day. To give chronology preference let us consider the ancient source first, Epictetus. Epictetus was Stoic philosopher born in the mid first century living contemporarily alongside some of the events recorded in the New Testament and early church fathers. Although he held a different conception of God than a Christian would he nevertheless made a case for the existence of God using a form of what could easily be identified as the Teleological Argument as it entails an argument for the existence of deity from the presence of complementary design. In his work, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Discourses,</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> he wrote:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If God had made colours, but had not made the faculty of seeing them, what would have been their use? None at all. On the other hand, if He had made the faculty of vision, but had not made objects such as to fall under the faculty, what in the case also would have been the use of it? None at all. Well, suppose that he had made both, but had not made light? In that case, also, they would have been of no use. Who is it, then, who has fitted this to that and that to this? And who is it that has fitted the knife to the case and the case to the knife? Is it no one? And, indeed, from the very structure of things which have contained their completion, we are accustomed to show that the work is certainly the act of some artificer, and that it has not been constructed without a purpose. Does then each of these things demonstrate the workman, and do not visible things and the faculty of seeing and light demonstrate Him? And the existence of male and female, and the desire of each for conjunction, and the power of using the parts which are constructed, do not even these declare the workman?</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It should not be missed that there is a distinct point, albeit a complementary point, that is being made by Epictetus. Whereas Paley argued from the complexity of design to the necessity of a designer Epictetus points out not merely is there a complexity of design in nature but there is a multi-faceted complexity of design so as that one element of the universe is completely dependent upon another or upon numerous others elements for it to be able to fulfill its proper function (i.e. its ‘telos’). The interdependency of various functions we see in nature, according to Epictetus, is unexplainable apart from the existence of God. Epictetus says that things fit too nicely together, like a knife in a knife case, for us to determine that they are but mere coincidences of nature. It is more logical that there is an artificer behind the unity of nature than that these things are as they are by mere chance and Epictetus says to the skeptic, “let them explain to us what it is that makes each several thing, or how it is possible that things so wonderful and like contrivances of art should exist by chance and from their own proper motion?”</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Interestingly, when we take Paley’s argument and Epictetus’ approach together, we find they become very similar to how the current Intelligent Design movement lays out its case. What Epictetus said so long ago, joined with Paley's observations, have now found new life and even more power with modern scientific discoveries. In fact the contemporary Intelligent Design movement has created an argument about design in the universe based upon the concept of what is called ‘specified complexity’ in the universe and biological life. To understand what is meant by specified complexity let us give our attention to the work of William Dembski.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Dembski explains in his book </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Understanding Intelligent Design</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> what is meant by specified complexity; “Complexity is the opposite of simplicity. It ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can be readily explained by chance. Specificity is the opposite of randomness. It ensures that the object exhibits the type of pattern that could signal intelligence.”</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Dembski argues that neither of these things, complexity or specificity, are sufficient in themselves to indicate a designer but when both of them come together this is how we detect the presence of intelligent design. This is what Dembski calls a design inference. He goes on to explain why both components are necessary but are insufficient when alone:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">...complexity alone is not enough to eliminate chance. Complex things happen by chance all the time. For instance, if you flip a penny one thousand times, you will witness a highly complex event, and therefore one that is highly improbable to reproduce by chance. Indeed, the sequence you flip will be one in a trillion trillion trillion…, where the ellipsis needs 21 more trillions. But this sequence alone will not trigger a design inference. Why not? Though highly complex, the pattern will in all likelihood fail to exhibit specificity. Contrast this with the sequence of prime numbers from 2 to 101. This sequence not only is complex but also is specified by an independently given pattern.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So, to put it another way, if you imagine looking down in your alphabet soup and seeing the word ‘sad’ spelled out in your bowl you could say that is an appearance of specificity because it is an intelligible word. Even so it lacks complexity because a three letter word is simple enough that one could expect random chance to align those three letters together in your bowl given enough chances. However if you looked down at your bowl of soup and read “I am really sad and am thinking of killing myself today” you now have both specificity and complexity which makes the likelihood of random chance highly improbable. You also have the need to talk with your loved ones to see who spelled this in your soup!</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Obviously the argument goes beyond prime numbers and alphabet soup, but the principles apply to what we see in the universe both in the cosmos at large and also in biological living systems. Both the complexity of, for instance, the human body with all of its many parts, and the specificity of how those parts work and interact with one another have design inference. This is true not only of the human body but even of individual cells therein, and of all living organisms. In a similar way we see complexity in the universe as a whole with the various forces (such as gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism) in relationship to all of the physical aspects of the universe (such as stars and planets) and we also see specificity in the way all of objects and forces of the universe work together in harmony to make life possible and the universe sustainable.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Whereas the Ontological argument is less accessible to the non-philosophically inclined majority, the Teleological argument is very practical and can utilize examples common to every person. It has had strong enough effect to not only instill greater confidence in those who believe but actually to change the mind of some of those who have previously not believed in God. A good present day example is Antony Flew, a long time critic of theism and committed atheist, Flew has admitted that the evidence is for design is, for him at least, so strong that it is not something he could deny any longer.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Cosmological Argument</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b> </b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Another argument many have found persuasive is known as the Cosmological Argument. As is implied in the name, with the embedded root word ‘</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">kósmos’</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> from the Greek, the argument has to do with the universe itself, specifically the origin thereof. In its deductive form the argument is sometimes formulated as follows:</span></div>
<ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Everything that begins to exist has a cause.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The universe began to exist.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Therefore the universe has a cause.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There are numerous versions of the Cosmological Argument but all of them hinge on the concept of a final or sufficient cause as the explanation for everything else that exists. This sufficient cause would have to be, itself, uncaused, necessary and eternal among other things. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Augustine, in his work </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">City of God</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, wrote about how the Platonists used their philosophical method to come to the conclusion that there is one sufficient cause for all other things that are not itself and that this being must be immaterial rather than corporeal:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">These philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedly exalted above the rest in fame and glory, have seen that no material body is God, and therefore they have transcended all bodies in seeking for God. They have seen that whatever is changeable is not the most high God, and therefore they have transcended every soul and all changeable spirits in seeking the supreme. They have seen also that, in every changeable thing, the form which makes it that which it is, whatever be its mode or nature, can only be through Him who truly is, because He is unchangeable. And therefore, whether we consider the whole body of the world, its figure, qualities, and orderly movement, and also all the bodies which are in it; or whether we consider all life, either that which nourishes and maintains, as the life of trees, or that which, besides this, has also sensation, as the life of beasts; or that which adds to all these intelligence, as the life of man; or that which does not need the support of nutriment, but only maintains, feels, understands, as the life of angels - all can only be through Him who absolutely is.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What the Platonists realized, said Augustine, is that the first efficient cause must be immutable, that is, unchanging. The reason for this is because everything that is changing must be so by cause of something outside of itself. And whatever effects change upon something else must precede that which it affected. Therefore that which is the efficient cause of all things must itself be unchanging.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Aquinas argues similarly in the second of his five ways in his work </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Summa Theologica</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The second way is from the notion of efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes, all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The principle of causality, although challenged by skeptics like Hume, is not a principle that can be rationally doubted. For even in rejecting to the principle one might be asked ‘to what are you responding?’ and find themselves damned from the outset. So then if the universe is not eternal (which there is not sufficient room to demonstrate beyond the implications of what Aquinas has already said) then it must be caused and because an infinite regress is impossible there must be a efficient cause that is itself uncaused. This universe causing being is what we call God.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Moral Argument</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Of all of the arguments we have considered in this paper this next one is perhaps the most accessible and often the most persuasive to the average person. The moral argument, as the name implies (this time free of the language barrier), is an argument for God upon the basis of morality. As before let us consider the argument in its deductive form:</span></div>
<ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If objective moral values exist then God exists.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Objective moral values exist.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Therefore God exists.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To consider this argument further we should consider the work of C. S. Lewis.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lewis, in his book </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mere Christianity</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, wrote about one issue that really caused him trouble as an atheist, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">just</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">unjust</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> So the very idea of just versus unjust caused Lewis a problem because he realized that if he could recognize things that were unjust he needed a perfect standard by which to measure them against. But where was such a standard to be found?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Furthermore Lewis points out that this is hardly a difficulty just for himself but that all men recognize the reality of justice and injustice in our world:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: ‘How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?’ -- ‘That’s my seat, I was there first’ -- ‘Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm’ -- ‘Why should you shove in first?’ -- ‘Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine’ -- ‘Come on, you promised.’ People say things like that everyday, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: ‘To hell with your standard.’ Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that it it does there is some special excuse….This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lewis’ point is unmistakeable, if morality is not objective, that is true equally for all people no matter their country or culture or time, then we can not rightfully aside blame nor praise to any action in any meaningful way.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But what is this standard and how did it come to rest upon all of mankind in such a way that it is undeniable? The founding fathers of our nation agreed that there are certain moral truths which are not reasonably denied and they named the source of those moral truths when they wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Thomas Jefferson, and the founding fathers of the United States of America along with him, grounded moral truth in the Creator, God, and rightfully so. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There is no other place where one could possibly hope to ground objective morality than in the Creator of the universe. If morality were grounded in individuals or even nations as whole this would still lead to irresolvable conflicts because it is merely people disagreeing with one another none of whom have ultimate authority over the other. If there is a binding moral code that is upon all mankind it must come from a higher authority not from within man. Essentially the Moral Argument, if it succeeds, leaves the skeptic with two choices. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One choice is simply to deny that there is such a thing as right and wrong. This would mean that torturing babies, raping women and beheading people because they are a different color than you is not wrong. You may not like how it makes you feel, but you cannot object to it on the basis of any kind of objective standard of moral truth. Might and majority define what is right for the moment in these situations. Furthermore the person who pushes a child out of the way of a car and sacrifices his life in the process is not a hero, he has done nothing truly good. You just have warm feelings for what he has done. There is nothing blameworthy or praiseworthy in any meaningful sense by which you ought to expect others to see it the same as you. The other choice, however, is to admit that there is objective moral truth and all that this entails, namely, that God exists as the only sufficient ground for morality.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Conclusion</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It has been the purpose of this brief paper to demonstrate the usefulness of natural theology for Christian theologians. It has been demonstrated that there is an important distinction between supernatural revelation and natural revelation and that the universal availability of natural revelation makes it an appropriate starting place to discuss the possibility of God’s existence and, in turn, the reasonability of God’s self disclosure to mankind (special revelation). After the establishment of this distinction it has been demonstrated that from philosophical reasoning, and interaction with the physical world, arguments can be formulated that point strongly to the reasonableness of God’s existence. In the Ontological Argument it is shown that the very concept of God may be self authenticating. In the Teleological Argument it shown that the universe has elements of design which are best explained by an intelligent designer. In the Cosmological Argument, by observing cause and effect relationship and the impossibility of infinite regression, it was shown that there must be an efficient cause for all things that is, itself, uncaused, eternal and unchangeable. Finally in the Moral Argument it was demonstrated that only a Moral Law giver, the Creator, can establish grounds for objective morality and so if objective moral values exists then God exists.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is, of course, obvious that so much more could be said about any one of the argument presented in this brief paper. That being said the purpose of this paper was to establish the usefulness of natural theology, particularly in demonstrating that belief in God and doing supernatural theology is completely rational. This has been accomplished if what is meant by rational is not that all rational people must be persuaded, necessarily, to agree that God exists and that he has revealed himself in supernatural ways but, rather, that rational people may have substantial ground to stand on when they are persuaded. Rational people disagree about all kind of issues and they are not necessarily irrational for their position, even if it turns out that they were wrong, if they had sufficient warrant for believing what they did.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Natural theology provides a firm foundation for those who believe in God and who believe that God has spoken. It not only gives confidence to those who believe already but it also gives skeptics a reason to consider God’s existence as a real possibility. Because natural theology derives all of its arguments from information that is generally accessible to all mankind, unlike supernatural revelation, it is the best place to start when making a case for belief in God. Through the use of natural theology the truth of theism can be reasonably defended and offered to others as a platform to believe more as revealed by supernatural theology.</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bibliography</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Anselm; </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Proslogian. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In Cahn, Steven M., ed. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Classics of Western Philosophy</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. 7th ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Co., 2006.</span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-a1692c12-b19a-ac70-d724-5e1792f31296" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Aquinas, Thomas; </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Summa Theologica. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In Great Books of the Western World vol. 16, 2nd ed. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Augustine; </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">City of God</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. In Great Books of the Western World vol. 16, 2nd ed. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Berkhof, Louis. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Systematic Theology</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Craig, William Lane. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. 3rd ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Craig, William Lane; </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Ontological Argument.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> In </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Dembski, William A., and Sean McDowell. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Understanding Intelligent Design</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Descartes, Rene; Meditations. In Great Books of the Western World vol. 28, 2nd ed. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Epictetus; </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Discourses</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. In Great Books of the Western World vol. 11, 2nd ed. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Flew, Antony. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. New York: HarperOne, 2007.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2004.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Jefferson, Thomas; </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Declaration of Independence</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. In Great Books of the Western World vol. 40, 2nd ed. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1990.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lewis, C. S. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mere Christianity: A Revised and Amplified Edition, with a New Introduction, of the Three Books, Broadcast Talks, Christian Behaviour, and Beyond Personality</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. harpercollins ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Paley, William. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Natural Theology: Or, Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Edited by Matthew Eddy and David M. Knight. Oxford World's Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Accessed July 14, 2015.</span><a href="http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0726/2005026316-b.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0726/2005026316-b.html</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Plantinga, Alvin </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Warranted Christian Belief</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Accessed July 10, 2015. </span><a href="http://images.contentreserve.com/imagetype-100/1316-1/%7Bdb01e99b-5f4b-4da6-bdf5-71e1109b68d6%7Dimg100.jpg" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://images.contentreserve.com/imagetype-100/1316-1/{db01e99b-5f4b-4da6-bdf5-71e1109b68d6}img100.jpg</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 2.4; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Holy Bible, English Standard Version </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(Crossway: Wheaton, IL.) 2001.</span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-33820413015230157022015-07-03T11:46:00.003-07:002015-07-03T11:46:50.710-07:00Podcast Ep. 12: Contending for the Faith<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="100" id="audio_iframe" scrolling="no" src="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/dt7h4-571b5a" width="100%"></iframe></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-60251652537022492382015-06-26T11:31:00.000-07:002015-06-26T11:31:47.352-07:00Thinking Christianly Ep. 11: Christianity in Light of the S.C.O.T.U.S. Decision<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/4w5uz-56f44c" width="100%" height="100" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-33772157295219378532015-06-10T10:37:00.003-07:002015-06-10T10:37:43.784-07:00Podcast Ep. 10: A Sexually Confused Culture<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="100" id="audio_iframe" scrolling="no" src="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/2zqga-569407" width="100%"></iframe><br />
<br />
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">This show introduces the series on Biblical Sexuality and Gender. Below are some of the examples I cited in this show about the mass confusion both in the culture and in the visible church. Next episode we will begin to break down issues and think </span><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">biblically</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> about what God has said.</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
Trans-Disabled...that was the term I was searching for. Able bodied people who believe themselves to wrongfully be able bodied and wish to be disabled. There are multiple articles I found by using that term "trans-disabled". Here is one:</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/becoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">On Tony Campolo's decision to support homosexuals as church members:<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
</span></span><div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></span></div>
</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">http://tonycampolo.org/for-the-record-tony-campolo-releases-a-new-statement/#.VXdsiPlViko</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Church of England ministers who want to call God a woman:</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/church-of-england-god-she_n_7486498.html</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Bruce Jenner, Call me Caitlyn:</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-bruce-cover-annie-leibovitz</span></span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-29477909733674420942015-06-03T12:40:00.000-07:002015-06-03T12:40:28.261-07:00Jude the Brother of James<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I’m currently preparing a sermon from the epistle of Jude for this coming Sunday. Every time I read Jude (and I read it often because it is one of my favorites) I am always blown away by the humility he expresses. That humility might be easily missed if you don’t realize who Jude is. After all this letter is full of rather harsh judgments so what is humble about Jude? Well, for one, Jude identifies himself in the very first verse in this way:</span></div>
<b id="docs-internal-guid-7ae2e4eb-baee-411e-8737-e96401c62a03" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">An obvious question at this point would be ‘who is James?’ That was not an uncommon name in the first century and in that geographical area. The fact that Jude identifies himself simply as the brother of James suggests that the original audience knew exactly what James was in mind and he was important. The James he was referring to would have a status that obviously elevates him in the reader’s mind above their neighbor or cousin also named James. This is THE James that Jude is saying he is brother of. Kind of sounds braggy, right? Yet I am saying he is humble? Keep reading.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the first century Christian world who was THE James? There are three primary candidates. One is James, the brother of John (both of whom were sons of Zebedee) who was one of the original 12 apostles. Another is James, son of Alphaeus, who was also one of the original 12 apostles. (c.f. 10:2-3). The final candidate is James, the brother of the Lord Jesus himself (c.f. Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19).</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As to the first two candidates, between the two of them, the first would be much more likely than the second. Why? Because James the brother of John is a much more prominent figure in the Gospels whereas James the son of Alphaeus is not mentioned much at all. Peter, James and John form the inner circle that Jesus kept closest to him during his earthly ministry. It was they who were with him on the mount of transfiguration (c.f. Matthew 17:1-2) and it was they who were with him when he was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane (c.f. Matthew 26:36-37). Indeed this trio, Peter, James and John, is seen all throughout the Gospel accounts as receiving more time and attention from Jesus (Mark 5:37; 13:13; Luke 8:51, etc.).* By comparison, James the son of Alphaeus is hardly mentioned.** </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That being the case the most reasonable inference is that James the brother of John is much more likely to be the James whom Jude is saying is his brother rather than James the son of Alphaeus. But, alas, this is still not likely when compared to our third candidate, James the brother of the Lord Jesus. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The first reason is because James, the brother of John, dies early in the church’s story. He is, in fact, the first of the apostle to be martyred. Acts 12:1-13 informs us:</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">He killed James the brother of John with the sword,</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread.”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So then the likely choice between the two apostles named James died early on in the church’s history. This makes him less likely to be the one Jude calls his brother because the implication of Jude’s letter is that James is someone the people know, not used to know. The dating of Jude’s epistle is challenging but most scholars agree it is no earlier than 67 A.D. and may be as late as 80 A.D. Regardless of where it fits into that spectrum it is a significant amount of time since the passing of James the brother of John which makes Jude’s identification of this James as his brother very unlikely. Especially since Jude would then be able to say he is also the brother of the apostle John who would have still been living and well known.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So then Jude’s brother James is not likely the son of Alphaeus because he is a more marginal figure in the church and New Testament Scriptures. Furthermore he is unlikely to be James the brother of John who would have been long since martyred before Jude wrote his letter and he could have mentioned John instead would also have been his brother and who was still living at the time. So this leaves us with James the brother of Jesus as the most likely candidate.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">James, the brother of the Lord Jesus, is not only the best candidate by process of elimination, however. There is also strong positive evidence for him being Jude’s brother. First there is the fact that Jesus’ family is identified in Matthew 13:55-56. Let’s look:</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In this text not only do we see James mentioned as one of Jesus’ brothers but also Joseph, Simon and… Judas. Judas from which the name Jude is derived from! So we now have evidence that Jesus has a brother named James and also a brother named Jude. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We ought to mention more about this James because he undergoes a radical shift in his life. James did not believe in his brother Jesus as the Messiah, not at first. John 7:5 tells us “For not even his brothers believed in him.” Elsewhere we see that Jesus’ family thinks he has gone mad and they try to lay hold of him (Mark 3:21). And yet we see in Galatians 1:19, years later, that Paul speaks of James being among the Jerusalem apostles. It is in connection with this that we see James, the Lord’s brother, is the same James who is a prominent leader in the Jerusalem church. In Acts 15 this James exercises considerable sway in the debate over circumcision and gentiles becoming Christians. As a leader in the church at Jerusalem, the birthplace of the church, James would be a figure that many Christians would know by name. He is a very fitting candidate for Jude’s brother on that front. THE James is James the leader of the church in Jerusalem, the brother of the Lord Jesus himself.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What was it that took James from an unbeliever who thought his brother had lost his mind and formed a ‘messiah complex’ to being a believer who held a very important role in the early church? The answer is clear in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The text separately mentions an appearance of the risen Lord to James. Not James the brother of John or James the son of Alphaeus, for they are numbered with the 12 whom Jesus already appeared to. But James, Jesus’ own brother. And as a result we see in Acts 1:12-14 this:</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The same family who thought Jesus was crazy, the same brothers who didn’t believe in him, are there with the 120 in the upper room, in one accord with the believers, when the Holy Spirit comes at Pentecost.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The fact is that the death and resurrection of Jesus made a believer out of his own family. James in particular was clearly impacted and had a first hand encounter with his brother as the risen Lord. It is what led to him being a leader in the church. It was what led to his writing of the epistle bearing his name where he introduces himself as “James, a slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” He doesn’t even feel worthy of mentioning that Jesus is his brother but he humbles himself as a slave of Jesus. Jude follows suit. He too is a slave to Jesus, his own brother. He does not feel worthy to address him so informally as his brother but he is willing to call James his brother.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Can you imagine what would have to happen in your life to where you would with full sincerity call your sibling your master and Lord? That you would say of yourself you are their slave? Imagine having your brother saying that he is the God of all creation, sovereign over the things of heaven and earth. You would think he was mad too. You wouldn’t believe him either. But something convinced James and Jude that their brother was indeed God in flesh and that they were his slaves. That something was his public execution and public resurrection.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So everytime I read Jude (or James) I am taken back by the humility expressed. It is entirely appropriate, of course, but almost unbelievable. Only the resurrection of Christ makes sense out of it all.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><br /></b><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">*This might be seen as Jesus playing favorites but there an alternative to this. First these three may have been in the most need of Jesus spiritual guidance because they were the most susceptible to fall. James and John are nicknamed “the sons of thunder” by Jesus because they were quick to want to call down fire on unbelievers (the nickname proves Jesus was funny by the way). Peter, as we know, whacked a guy’s ear off in the garden of Gethsemane and denied Jesus three times. So it may not be the case that Jesus was playing favorites at all but that certain students need more help and personal attention than others.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">However, even if it is the case that Jesus was closer to these three than the rest of the 12, so what? Do not most people experience a closer bond with some friends than others? Jesus may have found their close companionship more comfortable that he did some of the others. That is no sin.</span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">**James the brother of John is often called James the Great whereas James the son of Alphaeus is often called James the Less or James the Younger.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-883439732841535762015-06-02T15:48:00.000-07:002015-06-02T15:48:05.077-07:00Podcast Ep. 9: The Gospel in a Post-Christian Culture<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="100" id="audio_iframe" scrolling="no" src="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/5pr3h-566e14" width="100%"></iframe><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-54346418884585015342015-05-27T11:58:00.000-07:002015-05-27T11:58:00.878-07:00Podcast Ep. 8: Making the Pro-Life Case<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="100" id="audio_iframe" scrolling="no" src="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/wxsi8-564c35" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<h2 style="font-family: 'Open Sans', serif; line-height: 20px; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">Join the Facebook group: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/groups/ThinkingChristianly/" style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 1.38; text-decoration: none;">www.facebook.com/groups/ThinkingChristianly/</a></span><span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 1.38;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 1.38;">Follow the show on Twitter: @TChristianly</span></span><span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">Email us: <a href="mailto:ThinkingChristianly101@gmail.com" style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 1.38; text-decoration: none;">ThinkingChristianly101@gmail.com</a></span><span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 1.38;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 1.38;">Websites: www.jacoballee.blogspot.com or www.jacoballee.podbean.com</span></span><span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 1.38;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 1.38;"><u>Resources mentioned on the show:</u></span></span><span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; text-decoration: none;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Life-Equipping-Christians-Culture/dp/1433503204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1432752580&sr=8-1&keywords=the+case+for+life" style="text-decoration: none;" title="">The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf</a></span></span><span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; text-decoration: none;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://store.str.org/SearchResults.asp?Search=making+abortion+unthinkable&Submit=Search" style="text-decoration: none;" title="http://">Making Abortion Unthinkable Curriculum from Stand to Reason</a></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.prolifetraining.com/" style="text-decoration: none;" title="http://">Life Training Institute</a></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
</h2>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; text-align: left;">
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-50023428405773114152015-05-20T10:21:00.002-07:002015-05-20T10:21:56.644-07:00Podcast Episode 7: What About the Gift of Tongues?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="100" id="audio_iframe" scrolling="no" src="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/k296r-56210b" width="100%"></iframe><br />
<br />
Here is an article discussing the IMB's decision to allow potential missionaries to apply whom practice speaking in tongues.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px; line-height: 20px;">http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/may-web-only/imb-ban-speaking-in-tongues-baptism-baptist-missionary.html</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-11331148684776514862015-05-15T17:55:00.000-07:002015-05-15T17:55:00.420-07:00Podcast Ep. 6: Logic and Apologetics<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="100" id="audio_iframe" scrolling="no" src="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/3nsvh-55d2eb" width="100%"></iframe><br />
<br />
<div style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: initial; border-radius: 0px; border: none; font-family: 'Open Sans', serif; font-size: 14px; height: auto; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px; overflow: hidden; padding: 5px;">
Books I mentioned on the podcast:</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee; font-family: 'Open Sans', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee; font-family: 'Open Sans', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Enough-Faith-Atheist-Foreword-Limbaugh-ebook/dp/B0029RJ7D8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430956873&sr=1-1&keywords=i+don%27t+have+enough+faith+to+be+an+atheist" style="color: #333333; outline-offset: -2px; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="">I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek</a></div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee; font-family: 'Open Sans', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
</div>
<div style="color: #eeeeee; font-family: 'Open Sans', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas-ebook/dp/B001QOGJY0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430956903&sr=1-1&keywords=the+case+for+the+resurrection+of+jesus" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" title="http://">The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona</a></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-12059950576892777412015-05-06T14:51:00.000-07:002015-05-06T14:52:08.199-07:00Most Arguments Against Paedobaptism are Arguments Against Circumcision<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As I have begun to discuss my change of conviction about baptism I have realized that just about every argument against why we should baptize infants is also an argument against circumcising. For instance one argument often levied is that baptism is only for those who have expressed personal faith in Christ because baptism points to the salvation offered in the gospel. But this is no different than circumcision in the Abrahamic Covenant. According to Paul in Romans 4 circumcision is a sign and seal of the righteousness that comes by faith. Even so, God told Abraham to circumcise his children.<br />
<br />
The confusion comes when credo-baptist believers argue that baptism points to the faith of the believer, but baptism is not supposed to point to the faith of the believer. Baptism points not to our faith but to God's promise to save those who believe. If we are to argue that the sign and seal is not to be applied to our children today because they have not yet believed then that argument would also deny that we Abraham should have circumcised his male descendants. But God commanded him to do so.<br />
<br />
Likewise I had a brother in Christ argue that if an infant is baptized in a Christian home it does not do anything for them. What if the baby's parents die and he is given to an unbelieving home? What then has his/her baptism done for them? But one could argue the same thing in circumcision. What if Abraham had died and his wife with him? What if Isaac had been raised in the home of a Moabite after being circumcised as a Jew? The 'what if' scenario can equally be applied to either instance but it does not invalidate the command to give our children the sign of the covenant. Nor, by the way, does it negate the covenant relationship that child was initiated into with YHWH. God is faithful and may yet draw that child to himself despite the circumstances.<br />
<br />
Most arguments I have heard about why we ought not baptize infants are also arguments that could have been levied against Abraham and circumcision also. Something to think about.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-86896981289996768162015-05-05T12:53:00.004-07:002015-05-05T12:53:37.257-07:00Podcast 5: A Theology of Violence<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="100" id="audio_iframe" scrolling="no" src="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/2nrsc-55caf9" width="100%"></iframe><br />
<br />
<div style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: initial; border-radius: 0px; border: none; font-family: 'Open Sans', serif; font-size: 14px; height: auto; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px; overflow: hidden; padding: 5px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Is boxing and UFC style fighting immoral? Are Christians supposed to be pacifists? Is that what Jesus taught? Is it okay to learn martial arts? Can Christians defend their own families from intruders? This and more on episode 5!</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">
Also, be sure to check out Eric Welch's YouTube channel. Eric graciously gave permission for his song <em><strong>Death Can't Hold You</strong></em> to be used as theme music for Thinking Christianly:</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Open Sans', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/EricWelch4Christ">https://www.youtube.com/user/EricWelch4Christ</a></span></span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-44589609333097400242015-04-29T17:17:00.002-07:002015-04-29T17:18:32.777-07:00Podcast 4: "On Infant Baptism"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /></div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="100" id="audio_iframe" scrolling="no" src="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/jbzc7-55a7ed" width="100%"></iframe></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-19258525254742450472015-04-23T16:04:00.002-07:002015-04-23T16:41:49.194-07:00Thinking Christianly Podcast: Episode 3 "Two Apologists and a Microphone"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<iframe frameborder="0" height="100" id="audio_iframe" scrolling="no" src="http://www.podbean.com/media/player/aqern-5586ba" width="100%"></iframe>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">This show includes special guest Dr. Peter Rasor, professor of Christian Worldview at Grand Canyon University's College of Theology. Dr. Rasor earned a Ph.D.in Philosophy from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (www.sbts.edu) and is currently working on co-authoring a book with Dr. Ted Cabal on the divide within Christianity over the issue of the age of the earth/universe. You can learn more about Dr. Rasor at his blog: </span><a href="http://thebladeonline.org/wordpress/" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">http://thebladeonline.org/wordpress/</a><br />
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
The Thinking Christianly Podcast is now on iTunes. Just search for the show by name and you will find it. If you enjoy the show please give us a good review and rating. If you don't like the show...please go rate someone else ;-)</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
Here are some links to books mentioned in this podcast or books for further study:</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<br /></div>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-E-Johnson/dp/0830838317/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429832440&sr=8-1&keywords=Darwin+on+trial" style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;" target="" title="">Darwin on Trial by Philip E. Johnson</a><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Know-Believe-Little-Books-Paperback/dp/B00DWWGYXA/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429829771&sr=1-4&keywords=know+why+you+believe" title="">Know Why You Believe by Paul Little</a></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Has-Its-Reasons-Integrative-ebook/dp/B0087HTC02/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429829857&sr=1-1&keywords=faith+has+its+reasons" title="http://">Faith Has its Reasons by Boa and Bowman</a></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Faith-3rd-Christian-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B00G5M1BFK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429829913&sr=1-1&keywords=reasonable+faith+by+william+lane+craig" title="http://">Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig</a></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Really-Biblical-Worldview-Truth-Believe/dp/1935495070/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429829943&sr=1-1&keywords=who+is+god+apologia" title="http://">Who is God? from Apologia Press (Great curriculum for pre-teens and teens)</a></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-God-Really-There/dp/1935495968/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429830006&sr=1-1&keywords=Melissa+Travis" title="http://">How do we Know God is Really There? by Melissa Travis (apologetics for kids) </a></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-God-Created-Life/dp/1940110238/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429830006&sr=1-2&keywords=Melissa+Travis" title="http://">How do we Know God Created Life? by Melissa Travis (apologetics for kids)</a></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6067388410659058426.post-7138866818315428152015-04-17T09:00:00.000-07:002015-04-17T09:00:16.905-07:00For Paedobaptism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue;"><b>I was asked recently to write a letter to my favorite podcast, The Gospel Friends, by the guys who host the show, to defend / make a case for infant baptism. A position which I have very recently adopted as my own. This is the first time I have talked about this issue publicly since my convictions have changed from credobaptist to paedobaptist. The following is my letter to The Gospel Friends:</b></span></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="text-align: left;"><br /></b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="text-align: left;">A Few Preliminary Remarks</b></div>
</div>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Obviously volumes can and have been said on this debate and there will not be time on your show to discuss this at the kind of length that would be necessary to answer every question or objection that could be raised. For that reason I am simply outlining what I see to be some of the major issues and arguments for paedobaptism, and I will answer a few objections leveled against it. Before I get to the body of the argument I did want to give you just a little bit of my background so you can understand better where I am coming from.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I came to know Christ at 15 and became involved in the charismatic/pentecostal movement. The group I was in initially was indefensibly unbiblical in its practices (I was taught to speak in tongues by the pastor, I saw people rolling on the floor, falling over everywhere, flags whistling by your head, ‘holy laughter’, and every other chaotic thing you can think of that 1 Cor. 14 would have squashed had the Bible been read). I got uncomfortable with that stuff the more I read my Bible, I eventually moved to a charismatic church that was a lot more toned down. Eventually I moved to a new town after getting married and started attending a Southern Baptist Church and started working in the youth ministry. I was eventually called as the youth pastor there and during that time I became a full cessationist (I still lean that direction but have realized the Holy Spirit is also not on vacation). Since that time I have been in ministry for about 11 ½ years. 10 of those years were in Baptist churches, 8 ½ of them were in Southern Baptist churches specifically. I was ordained as a Southern Baptist minister and have been fairly active within the SBC, attending local association meetings, state meetings, and Convention wide meetings. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">All of that to say my background is diverse, but none of it was anything like Presbyterian. I have been the guy that says “love those presbyterians like Ligon Duncan, but man are they off about baptism. How can guys who know the Bible so well be so wrong?” So I am writing to you as one who has only very recently (in the last 6 months) become convinced that the Presbyterian view of baptism is correct and biblical. I have been a Calvinist for quite a while now, but I utterly rejected covenant theology for a long time and that was primarily because I did not understand it. Since I have embraced covenant theology I feel that I see the Bible with a greater unity and clarity than I used to. Holes that had been in my theology for years got filled in. So that’s my story. Here is my argument for paedobaptism.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What is the difference between my kids and my pagan neighbor’s kids?</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As a parent of four kids (number 4 due in July) I have been very concerned to see my children raised to know and love the Lord. But one of the questions I have struggled with is how do I address my kids? I believe in the doctrine of original sin and the depravity of man and I believe that my kids need to repent from their sin and trust in Jesus to be saved just like everyone else. But does that mean I treat my kids as unbelievers just as the child growing up in a pagan household? Or is there something different about the children of Christians that ‘sets them apart’ from the rest?</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The first passage of Scripture that really hit me hard when it comes to covenant theology was 1 Corinthians 7:10-14.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.7999999999999998; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">10 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">11 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">12 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">13 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">14 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I’ve always had trouble making sense of this passage in the past. What does it mean that the unbelieving spouse and children are made “holy” by the believing spouse? The word holy means, of course, to be set apart. But set apart in what way? It does not guarantee their personal salvation just because they have a believing spouse or parent; too much Scripture speaks against such an idea. But what does it mean?</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The best way to understand this is to say that the believing spouse brings covenant grace to the whole family. The family is recognized by the Lord as a covenant family because of the believing spouse. So the children of even one believer, all the more of two believers, are set apart as holy to the Lord. The children of the righteous are not the same as the children of pagans who are separated from the promises of the covenant. The children of believers are holy and are to be raised as Christians. Note I am not saying that they are justified, made right with God, merely by relationship to their believing parent(s) alone. But they are to be considered as holy, belonging to the Lord, set apart from the world in a covenant way.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Christians should speak to their children about things as “what we believe as Christians.” How we live our lives “not like those in the world who do not know God.” We should speak to our children with the expectation that they do believe as far as they understand and will believe when they fully grasp the gospel. We should not talk to our children as if they are in a totally different category from ourselves. Christian families are not half Christian and half pagan until the kids express repentance and faith, they are all set apart as holy and in visible covenant relationship with the Lord.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Abraham and the Covenant of Grace</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We all know the beautiful picture of God’s grace in Abraham’s life which we see in Genesis 15:3-6</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">4 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And behold, the word of the </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: small-caps; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lord</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> came to him: “This man shall not be your heir;your very own son shall be your heir.” </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">5 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">6 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And he believed the </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: small-caps; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lord</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, and he counted it to him as righteousness.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This passage is wonderful proof that the gospel of salvation by grace through faith is not a New Testament idea, it is a Bible idea. Salvation by grace through faith has always been the way God saves people. The law was never intended to save but to show people their need for God’s grace and to make them cling to him. Abraham believed God’s promise and was counted as righteous by faith apart from works of the law and before he was circumcised.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But here is the big question. What is the point of circumcision? Obviously it is not salvific because Abraham is justified by faith, not by the work of circumcision. So then what is its purpose? Paul answers this question in Romans 4:11-12</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">12 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So, according to Paul, circumcision was received by Abraham “as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was uncircumcised.” Circumcision points to the righteousness that is acquired by faith. Circumcision does not point to the person, or the faith of the person, but to the righteousness that comes by faith. Whose righteousness is that? Christ’s righteousness (Romans 3:23-26).</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now when we talk about baptism, as a good Baptist, I always said “Baptism is an outward expression of an inward reality.” Which is to say that it is an outward picture of the washing away of sins and regeneration which, for a believer being baptized, is absolutely true. It wouldn’t be true if we baptized a baby though, would it? It’s not a reality for them yet. So if we baptize an infant it has to be something a little different than an outward sign pointing to an inward reality. And with Abraham, whom we could rightly say about his circumcision that it was an outward sign of an inward reality (that is an inward reality of a circumcised heart Deut 30:6), it is the same. Circumcision for him, as a believer, would be different from the circumcision of an infant.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But here is the thing, Abraham was commanded to circumcise his infant son and the male descendants thereafter. Why? Those children are not believers yet. In fact many of those children, as the Old Testament abounds in examples of, never became believers and were lost to hell. So why are they to be circumcised and what does their circumcision do for them? It points them to the righteousness that can be had by faith, just as Abraham received the righteousness of God by faith. Circumcision is a sign of God’s covenant promise to save all who believe just like Abraham did. Children in the Old Covenant were called to live in light of their circumcision, to remember who they are as the covenant people of God, to express faith in the Lord just like Abraham.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Baptism as the sign of the New Covenant</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Few Christian theologians disagree with the following statement. “Circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant, baptism replaces that symbol as the sign of the New Covenant.” I hope it is safe to assume that you would agree with me there. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As a Baptist I argued that this was indeed the case but that one of the major points of difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant was the way God gathered his covenant people. I would have said God had a national/ethnic people as his covenant people then and people were born into covenant relationship in the Old Testament whereas now God gathers people into covenant relationship as individuals, not by means of a national ethnic people. Born into covenant in the Old Testament, added to the covenant by personal faith in the New Testament.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In some ways that is true. There is no doubt that the true elect of God (spiritual Israel) are gathered individually as God calls them to himself by His Spirit (John 6:37, 44), and it is true that God had a nation of people set apart for himself in the Old Testament and worked through the Jewish people primarily. It is further true that now the church is a multi-national, multi-ethnic group made up of all believers and is not tied to a particular nation or ethnic group. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But here is what I was doing wrong. I was failing to see the distinction between the visible and invisible church, between national Israel and Spiritual Israel. As Paul writes in Romans 9:6-8</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">6 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">7 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">8 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">God has always had his true people within the visible people. Israel as a nation was the visible people of God, but not all of them were true Israelites spiritually. In our churches today we have a visible community but not all in our midst are really believers just as Jesus notes in Matthew 7, “many will come to me saying Lord, Lord”.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So the reality is this, God is not gathering his people differently in the New Covenant than he was in the Old Covenant. There is a visible community and within that visible community there are genuine believers and others not so genuine, even though outwardly they are referred to as God’s people, the Church. We may speak of the church as the bride of Christ while knowing that not all who take part in the visible church really belong to him.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So then, since baptism is the sign of the new covenant, replacing circumcision, to whom should it be applied? It should be applied to the visible church, all who belong to it by proclamation of faith or by virtue of being born into it. It is not to say that they are thereby saved, but it is to say that baptism is the mark of those in covenant relationship with God under the New Covenant and the children of believers are in covenant with the Lord because they are holy to him (1 Cor. 7). </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The problem of discontinuity</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Imagine yourself to be a Jewish believer in Yahweh who is listening to Peter preach at Pentecost. As the people are cut to the heart by the gospel message the following unfolds in Acts 2:37-39 </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">37 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">38 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">39 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now, you’re a Jew...what did you just hear? Who is this promise of salvation for? It’s for me, and for my children, and for all people that the Lord will call. What is the sign that accompanies the promise of salvation to those who repent and believe? Baptism.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I’m a Jew. I am in covenant with Yahweh. My children are in covenant with Yahweh and I have circumcised them as covenant children to point them towards the righteousness that comes by faith in the Lord, just like Abraham. God is doing something new, something greater, something bigger. It’s a promise to me and to my children and all who are far off. Sounds like the Old Covenant, just even better.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One way the New Covenant is better is that its application is wider. Baptism is not just for male children but for all my children. In Christ we are all adopted as sons with full rights. But the last thing that Jewish believer thinks is this:</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“My kids were holy and in covenant with Yahweh, and now they are cut off from the covenantal blessings until they are old enough to repent.”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That is not what they heard. It is not what was said. And if it were the case that the covenant sign of baptism (the sign that marks them as belonging to the Lord in covenant relationship) was not to be applied to their children then it would need to be explicitly taught. But it is not taught. In fact it is not even implied anywhere.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Jewish convert to Christianity would have understood that the promise and the sign of the promise was for his whole family, even his children.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some objections:</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">You don’t see any infant baptism in Scripture.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Certainly this was one of my primary arguments against infant baptism as a Baptist. I mean, case closed right? I thought so. But put on a fresh pair of lenses and look again. I am not arguing that there are any clear instances of infant baptism and I am even willing to admit there may actually be no instances where it is seen at all. There are a few cases where it is at least possible that there were infants baptized, but it’s altogether unclear </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">either way.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> The text does not explicitly say there were no babies baptized nor does it explicitly say that everyone was older and everyone believed. For instance you have household conversions in the New Testament. Just one example is Acts 16:30-34 and the Philippian jailer:</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">30 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">31 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">32 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">33 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">34 </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Again, it may certainly be the case that all in his household were older, and all expressed personal faith in Jesus. But that is an assumption. If paedobaptism is correct nothing in this text forbids the idea of his children receiving baptism. Also it is interesting that the text says “he rejoiced along with his entire household that </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">he</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> had believed in God.” The emphasis is on his faith and conversion even though the whole household was baptized. The idea of corporate family solidarity as opposed to the individuality of our culture is an issue to consider. In the Old Testament there are numerous cases when a head of household made a decision which affected the whole family, either in conversion to Israel and all are circumcised (down to the servants) or in situations like Achan’s sin where the whole family pays for his sin.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So this may be a case where there is infant baptism, it may be a case where all are older and all believe personally. The issue is that the text can fit both paradigms without any trouble. The other thing I would say is that all of the baptisms you see in the New Testament are of first generation Christians. There is no example in the New Testament of a baptism of a second generation Christian. Even paedobaptists believe in believers baptism when they have not been reared in the home of saints.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One last point here. Everywhere you see baptism in the New Testament where names are mentioned (as opposed to the more than 3,000 at pentecost) it is a household baptism. The only exceptions are the Ethiopian eunuch (for obvious reasons) and Simon the magician (who actually shows himself to be unregenerate although baptized). The corporate solidarity of the family (the household can be more than just blood relatives in Scripture) is a huge aspect in Scripture, both Old and New Testaments and it is often easily overlooked. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<ol start="2" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Baptism means immersion...so there!</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some will point out that the primary lexical definition of the Greek word baptizo is “to immerse”, so that settles it. Nobody thinks we ought to put 8 day old babies under the water so the discussion is over since sprinkling and pouring are out by definition (actually the Eastern Orthodox apparently do full immersion for babies I’m told…). Well, it would end the conversation (for most of us) except for the fact that the word baptizo is used numerous times in the New Testament to refer to situations where immersion is not in view.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mark 7:4 “and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The word used for “washing” is a form of the word baptizo. But it is very unlikely that they are completely immersing entire dining couches. Likewise in Luke 11:38 “The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner.” It is not likely that the pharisee was astonished that Jesus did not fully immerse himself before dinner, but that he didn’t wash his hands like we typically think of. In 1 Corinthians 10:2 baptism is referred to in relationship to crossing the red sea and being in the cloud (no one even got wet). Basically nowhere in the New Testament does the word baptism get defined as immersion, it is an a priori assumption that is read into the text. It most certainly can mean immersion, it may often mean immersion, but it does not have to mean that. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<ol start="3" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Unregenerate church membership is dangerous.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It definitely can be. But it is also an undeniable reality. As we have already said there are tares among the wheat. People who name the name of Jesus whom Jesus does not know. The visible church is always mixed with the elect of God and those who are lost. But the children of believers, while unregenerate until they repent and believe, are set apart as holy and are a part of the church. They are (in Presbyterian terms) non-communicant members until they profess faith in Christ personally. But they are covenant members of God’s household and to be treated as such until or unless they actually reject the Lord and then they are to be dealt with as unbelievers.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The problem of nominalism, which comes from unregenerate people in the church, is not just a problem for churches who practice infant baptism and non-communicant membership. Although the idea in credo-baptist circles is that every member is a committed believer, the reality is that many credo-baptist churches are very nominal and have a mix of true believers and lost but professing individuals. Nominalism is not caused by paedobaptism it is caused by sin and lack of faithfulness in biblical teaching and preaching. In Reformed circles the non-communicant member of the church holds no possibility of teaching or influence in the church, only those who have expressed faith in Christ and repentance from sin can hold offices or teach in the church. Lack of faithful exposition of Scripture and holding the line on truth is what causes churches to sink.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<ol start="4" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Infant baptism will confuse people and give them false assurance of salvation.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It could easily do that if the church fails to be faithful in the consistent preaching of the word of God. But there are also credo-baptists who wrongly assume their baptism has saved them and they are good-to-go. The truth is if a church teaches faithfully and consistently that baptism does not save you, only repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus saves you, then this shouldn’t be a problem. Faithful Reformed preaching tells people they need to live in light of what their baptism points to, the righteousness of Christ that can be theirs by faith. They do not have a righteousness to themselves, their baptism does not save them or infuse them with grace, but that it is a sign of God’s covenant to save them if they will repent and believe the gospel.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is important to distinguished the Reformed/Presbyterian understanding of paedobaptism from Roman Catholic paedobaptism and Lutheran paedobaptism which do teach that baptism is salvific in nature. Roman Catholics and Lutherans believe it washes away original sin, the Reformed/Presbyterians do not believe that. Both RC’s and Lutherans practice confirmation where the non-communicant member is confirmed at a particular age, Reformed/Presbyterians do not. A person becomes a communicant member when, and only when, they personally express repentance and faith, there is no age in particular.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<ol start="5" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Jesus was baptized as an adult.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">True story. But something needs to be considered here. John’s baptism is not the same baptism Jesus commands in the Great Commission. Baptism was a relatively common ceremonial practice in Jewish circles as a symbol of cleansing and preparation, but Jesus instituted a Trinitarian baptism for the church to use which was different. The baptism of John, which Jesus was baptized with, is not synonymous with the baptism Jesus later commanded after the New Covenant had been inaugurated by his death.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A final thought</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In credo-baptist circles baptism is said to point to the believer’s faith in Jesus. In paedobaptist circles baptism is said to point to the righteousness of Christ itself that can be appropriated by faith. That is to say that as a paedobaptist I am arguing that we should see baptism primarily in terms of a visible seal of the covenant that points people toward the righteousness of Christ that is received by faith. We should not make baptism about the one who has believed but about the one whom we are to believe in (Christ).</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thank you for letting me write to you. I know that this may not convince anyone but I hope it is helpful for discussion on the show. I love you guys as brothers and I appreciate your show, the laughs and the good discussion. If you would like to follow up on any of this with me at some point I would be glad to clarify any point or answer any questions I can. My email is </span><a href="mailto:jacob.allee84@gmail.com" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">jacob.allee84@gmail.com</span></a><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and I welcome correspondence about this if you’d like. Here are some recommended resources for further study if you so desire:</span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break" /></span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sproul on paedobaptism</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.gty.org/resources/Articles/A361/Case-for-Infant-Baptism-The-Historic-PaedoBaptist-Position" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://www.gty.org/resources/Articles/A361/Case-for-Infant-Baptism-The-Historic-PaedoBaptist-Position</span></a><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Dennis E. Johnson on paedobaptism</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/den_johnson/TH.Johnson.Baptism.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/den_johnson/TH.Johnson.Baptism.html</span></a></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Liam Goligher on changing his mind towards paedobaptim</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.tenth.org/resource-library/articles/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-infant-baptism" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://www.tenth.org/resource-library/articles/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-infant-baptism</span></a></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Kevin Deyoung’s short article on Paedobaptism which includes further resources:</span></div>
<a href="http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2015/03/12/a-brief-defense-of-infant-baptism/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2015/03/12/a-brief-defense-of-infant-baptism/</span></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com