• Videos of each session in our current series, God and Logic series 1, are now available for purchase and download from our online AIM Store. Just $5 per session!
• To view this week’s The College of Theology (TCOT) program right now go to HisChannel.com Video on Demand (VOD) and click on The College of Theology.  
• Programs from our previous series are also available for purchased and download from our site in audio or video formats. We have Craig’s COT series on Soteriology, Christology and God and Logic series 1 available. Order, download and view! For more information click here!
• Craig’s outline for our current series, God and Logic part I is available for viewing online or download!
• Coming in February 2010, God and Logic part 2!
• Craig co-hosts Living by the Word which airs Sundays from 10 PM to 12 AM (PST) in Southern California on KKLA, FM 99.5  and around the world online at kkla.com.
• Please pray for AIM, particularly in these challenging times.  And let us know you are praying. We greatly appreciate our prayer partners!
• Prayerfully consider a year end donation. A drop in donations is limiting our ministry.  If you are able to contribute, send your donation to P.O. Box 10375,  Santa Ana,  CA    92711-0375. Or donate right now, securely online by clicking here.  Thank-you for praying and giving as God enables and directs you.
• We have updated e-mail addresses. Visit our contact page for the update!

Check back frequently for ministry updates, new prayer requests and new products to help you grow in your Christian faith!

1. The Supreme Example of Christ
   1. The Use of Objective Evidence
   2. If Jesus, God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, used objective evidence to validate His claims, a fortiori, how much more so for you and me!
      1. Mark 2:1-5-12
      2. John 2:18-21
      3. John 10:30-31-32-33, 37-38
      4. John 15:24-25
      5. John 20:24-29
   3. The Use of Reason (Argumentation)
      1. Matthew 12:24-30
         1. Argument from analogy (vv. 25-26)
         2. The law of logical or rational inference (v. 26)
         3. Reductio ad absurdum (vv. 25-26)
         4. Argument from analogy (v. 27)
         5. The law of logical or rational inference (vv. 28, 29)
         6. Argument from analogy (v. 29)
         7. The law of contradiction (v. 30)
         8. The law of excluded middle (v. 30)
2. The Apostles
   1. The Use of Objective Evidence:
      1. Peter: Acts 2:14-32-39; 3:6-16; 4:8-14-20
      2. Paul: Acts 26:26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8
      3. The Appeal to Objective Eyewitness Testimony:Luke 1:2-4; John 1:14; 19:35-36; 20:24, 30-31; Acts 1:1-3; 3:6-16; 4:8-14-20; 9:3-8, 17;
         22:6-9; 14; 26:12-18-26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-3, and so forth
   2. The Use of Reason–Rationality:
      1. Paul: Acts 17:2-3, 11, 17, 22-31; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; 26:25; 1 Timothy 6:20
      2. Apollos: Acts 18:27-28. Note: commended by God!
      3. Dialegomai is the Greek word used in the above passages.
      4. Dialegomai: to argue, dispute, or reason. BAG: “discuss, conduct a discussion…of lectures which were likely to end in disputations….” Vine’s: “`to think different things with oneself, to ponder’; then, with other persons, `to converse, argue, dispute’”… “`to dispute with others…’” (see Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; Jude 9).
      5. Like Considering or Weighing the Evidence of the Worth of One Truck against Another: Feature by Feature (4 vs 5 Speed, Horsepower, Seats, Stereo, Dollar Per Dollar)
3. The Value of the GOD Given Mind
   1. Isaiah 1:18; Mark 12:29-31; Acts 26:25
   2. We are created in the imago Dei–the image of God. This includes, among other attributes, the ability to reason.
   3. Thus, this entails the value of evidence and reason. As Charles Hodge informs us:”If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational….We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend.”¹
4. Uses of Logic/Reason
   1. Ministerial Use of Reason. This is the use of logic/reason as a servant or “handmaid” to the Bible and theology. Logic/reason is not put on par with or above the Bible, but stands in a subordinate role to God’s revelation. This is the role of reason that I am advocating.
   2. Magisterial Use of Reason. This is the placing of logic/reason on par with or actually above the Bible. Here logic/reason (that of the individual or a group) is allegedly the final judge, arbitrator, or authority of truth. This is not the role of reason that I am  advocating. This is an incorrect use–abuse–of reason.
   3. Anti-Intellectual. This is the position of depreciating or out-right denying the role of reason/logic in apologetics and other concerns of Christianity. Unfortunately, this is the view that many Christians, intentionally or not, advocate.
5. God gave us a mind and He expects us to use it (Mark 12:29-31)
   1. It is not true that the mind is a terrible thing, “so waste it.”
   2. The emotional nature of mankind is just as fallen as the intellect. Thus, we should not exalt it relating to conversion either.
   3. If we are going to glorify God as Christians and in sharing the Gospel with others,  we must not ignore or in an unscriptural manner down-play the importance of the mind in the preaching of the Gospel.
   4. This is in actuality a form of false humility or false spirituality, and should be denounced for what it is–unscriptural and dishonoring to God!
6. Logic Defined
   1. Before we proceed any further, we should define the term logic.
      1. “Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning.”²
      2. It is the study of the laws or principles of thought or reason, that is not just mere thought or thinking per se, but of the type of thought or thinking we term reasoning. Irving Copi states that “The distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning is the central problem with which logic deals.”³
      3. Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks tell us that “Logic is the study of right reason or valid inferences and the attending fallacies, formal and informal“⁴ (emphasis in original).
7. The Nature and Necessity of Logic. Logic is undeniable, unavoidable, self-evident, or self-explanatory. One cannot not use it. One has to use it to refute it. All such claims are self-contradictory defeating, refuting, or self-stultifying. The four laws or principles of logic/reason are invaluable!  We need to know and correctly use logic. We must train ourselves, our children, and the church to properly use logic.
   1. The Undeniableness of Logic. For all of people’s rhetoric against logic, one cannot not use logic. It is impossible to think or engage in any type of coherent dialogue and not use logic. The laws or principles of logic are what are termed first principles–first principles of epistemology. Logic is indispensable for at least five reasons.
      1. The primary principles or laws of logic/reason are first principles of epistemology.
         1. Peter Angeles states, among other things, that first principles are “Statements (laws, reasons, rules) that are self-evident and/or fundamental to the explanation of a system and upon which the system depends for consistency and coherence.”⁵
         2. That is, there is no getting “behind” or “around them.”
         3. They are axiomatic or self-evident.
         4. That is, we cannot not use them (see points 2 and 3).
      2. Second, the very distinction between true or false or applicable or not only exists or has meaning if logic is true or applicable. Without logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction) there would be no such thing or concept of true or false. Thus, there could be no true or false statements in the first place, such as logic is not true or it is false that it is applicable to a given topic. This is because the law of (non-)contradiction “…itself draws the line between true and false. So we can’t call it false without assuming that it is true (Geisler and Brooks, 16)” The same holds true with the other laws of logic. As Geisler and Brooks tell us:Logic is built on four undeniable laws. There is no “getting behind” these laws to explain them. They are self-evident and self-explanatory. There is also no way around them. In order to reject any of these statements, one must assume the very principle he seeks to deny. But if you must assume that something is true to say that it is false, you  haven’t got a very good case, have you?For example, the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A) says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, “The law of non-contradiction is false,” he would have a problem. Without the law of noncontradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false. So we can’t call it false without assuming that it is true. The same thing happens when someone tries to deny the other laws: the law of identity (A is A), the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A), and the law of rational inference (emphasis in original).⁶
      3. Third, furthermore, a statement’s meaningfulness (let alone significance or truthfulness) depends upon logic. If logic is not true, or applicable to the topic at hand then the statement is meaningless. A statements very meaning or meaningfulness exists only because logic is true or applicable. Otherwise the statement could or would be both true and not true or applicable and not applicable, since it would no longer be true that statements can not be both true and not true (false) in the same time and sense. Both are now true or applicable since a statement can be both true and not true (false) at the same time and in the same sense. Thus, one could just as well say that “logic is true or applicable to the topic at hand” in the same breath as the previous statement, or “I will see you Wednesday and I will not see you Wednesday,” etc. Thus, to deny logic or state that it is not true or applicable only has meaning if logic does apply to the original statement. But this refutes the original claim. Thus, any statement or claim only have meaning, a fortiori significance or truthfulness, if and only if logic does apply or is true. Thus, the claim that “logic is not true or applicable” is meaningless unless logic is true, but in that case the original claim is false, indeed, self-defeating.
      4. Fourth, to deny or try to disprove the need for, necessity of, or truth of logic one must first utilize it, thus disproving their original assertion. One has to use logic to try to disprove, refute, or even deny it. If one must use logic in the effort to refute it, then the argument is self-evidently not true. One has only proven its truthfulness or applicability (ironically in the very attempt to refute it).
         1. To deny logic or say that it is false or not true or applicable to a certain topic entails the use of logic in the very assertion itself (thus, it is true or applicable). This is like a person who says, “I can not utter a word in English.” But, they just did. They should either quit speaking English or retract the original statement. The original statement is false, indeed self-defeating.
         2. Further examples of these types of claims:
            1. “Logic is not applicable to this topic.”
            2. “This topic, view, or realm is `beyond’ logic.” The idea is that logic’s reach simply does not extend to the topic.
            3. “This is just a case of the Eastern versus Western or Aristotelian bias or perspective on logic.” The idea is that one is insisting on a Western worldview perspective, while ignoring or to the detriment of an Eastern or occultic view.
            4. “This is the mundane versus `spiritual’ perspective.”
            5. “This is merely the emotions versus the realm of rationality or logic.”
            6. “This is the altered versus normal states of consciousness viewpoint.”
            7. “This is a case of this plane versus other planes or levels of reality or existence.”
            8. “This is only a case of this level versus other levels of meaning.”
            9. “Logic is not true.”
            10. This is a modern versus a postmodern perspective.
            11. All these claims are based upon logic in the first place.
         3. Logic is undeniable; one cannot not use it.
         4. Thus, to deny logic or assert that logic is not true (i.e., false) or applicable is itself based upon logic. The statement or distinction itself is built or predicated upon logic. Logic had to be employed to formulate the assertion. The statement “logic does not apply” involves the distinction of “logic does not apply,” versus “logic does apply.” However, it is possible to make this distinction itself only because of the laws of logic. Therefore, logic is–must be–true or does apply. But, this is self-refuting or refutes the original claim.
      5. Fifth, one cannot not use logic in the real world. Try driving to the grocery store while denying the validity of logic. (Indeed, what grocery store? The one that is and is not there?) One can not successfully cross the railroad tracks without it. Next time you’re at the railroad crossing with an apparent train speeding down the line imagine thinking that the train is there and it is not there. Would you? No! Try this in the “real” world. Logic is necessary or indispensable in or for life. One literally can not live (long) without it!
         1. Example: Francis Schaeffer, the Hindu student, and the teapot….
         2. Example: The Christian Scientist who tries to hand you a book that is not there….
         3. Example: the Hindu or Christian Scientist who looks both ways before crossing the street….Why do they look both ways before crossing the street?
   2. Self-Refuting
      1. All attempts to deny or refute logic fail. They are false (indeed, are meaningless or nonsensical), self-contradictory, or self-stultifying assertions.
      2. Terms for a statement or proposition that does not fulfill or satisfy itself–its own criteria or requirements (of acceptability)⁷ include: self-defeating, self-refuting, self-stultifying, self-referential absurdity or self-referentially absurd.
         Examples of self-refuting claims include:
         1. A person saying “I do and do not believe in logic” or “logic is and is not true” (at the same time and in the same sense).
         2. A person “saying I am and am not an atheist.”
         3. A person who claims that they “do and do not hold to postmodernism” or “do and do not believe that postmodernism is true.”
         4. A person saying “I am and am not a New Ager” or “I am and am not a neopagan.
         5. A person saying “I am and am not a Christian.”
         6. A person saying “Jesus is and is not God” (the second person of the Trinity).
      3. The previous absurd claims are logically and ontologically equivalent to the following ones:
         1. A person who believes in “square circles.”
         2. A person writing “I cannot write a word in English.”
         3. A person saying “all the statements I make are false.”
         4. A person claiming that “all sentences that contain over five words are false.”
         5. A person stating that “I will only believe what can be proved by the scientific method!”
         6. A person saying “my brother is an only child.”
      4. Ronald Nash notes: “…a denial of logic has consequences not only for epistemology and metaphysics, but for ethics as well. If all predications are true, there is no difference between walking to a nearby city and walking over a cliff; there is no difference between drinking milk and imbibing arsenic. But obviously there is a difference.”⁸
      5. Thus, if logic is not true or transculturally applicable then now A can be non-A at the same time and in the same sense and hence, for example, the postmodern’s position is now the same as the orthodox Christian’s. Or, the postmodernist does not hold to postmodernism. But, even the postmodernist does believe this. They, in this case rightly, would assert, that their view is not our view–that is why we would be having a discussion with them in the first place. Nor would they affirm that they do and do not hold to the premises of postmodernism. This is absurd, but this is what follows if one denies the universal applicability and truthfulness of logic. By God’s grace, we must try and help the postmodernist and others who deny the universal validity of logic see the implications of their views.
   3. Logic is the straitjacket of life for those who argue insanely or, at least mentally, refuse to live in the real world!
   4. One can not even cross the street, let alone the metaphysical highway without using logic.
   5. Logic is indispensable–period. Moreover, it is an invaluable tool for dismantling non-Christian views. We must know logic and become competent in using it.
   6. The Three Cs of Logic:We cannot comprehend, let alone confirm, let alone conform our thoughts and lives to God’s revelation without the use of Logic.
      1. Comprehension (or to Apprehend)If a person can not apprehend the content of the Gospel, then certainly they can not
         understand it, and a fortiori they can not believe in it!
         1. Illogical or self-contradictory statements and beliefs are incomprehensible in the sense that they are nonsensical. Nonsensical assertion are not to be believed, whether religious or “secular.” They are to be seen and rejected for what they are–nonsense.
         2. It follows therefore that reason and logic are necessary for intelligible and reasonable propositions, which are a necessary precondition for the communication of truth to individuals. Truth must be logical so as to presented to a person’s mind as intelligible thoughts, so that they might be embraced or rejected. As Charles Hodge so precisely stated it: In the first place, reason is necessarily presupposed in every revelation. Revelation is the communication of truth to the mind. But the communication of truth supposes the capacity to receive it. Revelation cannot be made to brutes or idiots. Truths, to be received as objects of faith, must be intellectually apprehended…The first and indispensable office of reason, therefore, in matters of faith, is the cognition, or
            intelligent apprehension of the truths proposed for our reception.⁹
      2. Confirmation:
         1. Since God does not contradict Himself, or ask us to believe contradictions or that which is inherently self-contradictory (see e.g., 1 Tim. 6:20), revelations from Him will not contradict previously given revelations, or the sound reasoning processes necessary to even comprehend these revelations. Hodge informs us: “If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption
            that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational….We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend.”¹⁰
         2. Thus, in one sense, reason is accorded the purgative to judge the trustworthiness of an alleged revelation. That is, before an alleged revelation from God should be accepted, we need to first discern that it is in fact from Him. Again, Hodge has written definitively on the topic:It is impossible that He should require us to believe what contradicts any of the laws of belief which He has impressed upon our nature [i.e., the laws of thought or logic¹¹]…Faith includes an affirmation of the mind that a thing is true. But it is a contradiction to say that the mind can affirm that to be true which it sees cannot possibility be true. This would be to affirm and deny, to believe and disbelieve, at the same time….The ultimate ground of faith and knowledge is confidence in God. We can neither believe or know anything unless we confide in those laws of belief which God implanted in our nature. If we can be required to believe what contradicts those laws, then the foundations are broken up. All distinction between right and wrong, would disappear…and we should become the victims of every adroit deceiver, or minister of Satan, who, by lying wonders, should call upon us to believe a lie.¹²
         3. It should be evident that faith is inherently reasonable. Its very nature demands such.¹³ Moreover, since faith in Christ is self-commitment to the truth, necessarily, its content or what is believed corresponds to reality, as well as is consistent or non-contradictory.
            Thus, it fulfills the requirements of the two primary truth tests (the correspondence and coherence theories of truth). Remember, we are told that we are saved because we believe the truth (see e.g., John 18:37; 2 Th. 2:13), and that conversely those who will not believe the truth are lost (see e.g., 2 Th. 2:10-11).
      3. Conform: We are to conform our thoughts and lives to God’s revelation. But we cannot do this without the use of logic. For example, we cannot say that “Christ is both God and not God” or that “we are and are not to sin.”
   7. Christian Thinkers Addressing the Biblical Position Regarding Logic
      1. A number of influential Christian thinkers have well summarized the biblical teaching regarding logic. I would like to quote some of them (in addition to the previous quotes from Charles Hodge) for further conformation.
      2. For instance, Carl F.H. Henry remarks: “…Scripture affirms that God is the source and ground of reason and truth and that the imago Dei in which He created and preserves humanity includes rational and moral capacities.”¹⁴ Henry also insightfully writes: The laws of logic are not a speculative prejudice imposed at a given moment of history as a transient philosophical development. Neither do they involve a Western way of thinking, even if Aristotle may have stated them in an orderly way. The laws of valid inference are universal; they are elements of the imago Dei. In the Bible, reason has ontological significance. God is Himself truth and the source of truth. Biblical Christianity honors  the Logos of God as the source of all meaning and considers the laws of thought an aspect of the imago….The pluralistic approach to world religions now often champions the need to recast the gospel in other than “Western thought forms” and in non-Western “logics,” as if logic were an Aristotelian invention. Such emphases often relativize Christian theology and replace it with non-Biblical philosophy under the guise of Christian mission.¹⁵
      3. R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley likewise note: “Biblically the contradiction is the hallmark of the lie. Without this formal test of falsification, the Scriptures (and any other writings) would have no means to distinguish between truth and falsehood, righteousness and unrighteousness, obedience and disobedience, Christ and Antichrist.”¹⁶ Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley also rightly state (contra post-modernism): “The law of noncontradiction as a necessary presupposition or prerequisite for thought and life is neither arbitrary nor subjectivistic. It is universal and objective. What is subjective and arbitrary is the forced and temporary denial of it.”¹⁷
      4. Arthur Holmes responds: “…the law of noncontradiction is a universal condition of intelligible thought. Aristotle’s famous `negative proof’ shows this by asking that one who denies the law practice his denial in speaking. Unintelligible utterances may be possible without it, like talk of a square circle, but unintelligible utterances hardly qualify as intelligible thought or speech. Where this law of logic is ignored, all logic and intelligibility are gone.”¹⁸ Holmes also remarks: “Thinking is subject to logical laws, for I cannot contradict myself and talk sense, yet alone construct a valid line of argument. Good logic is one of God’s good gifts, and it is essential to thinking in this and any world.”¹⁹
      5. Lastly, we note the view of Augustine: “The true nature of logical conclusions has not been arranged by men; rather they studied and took notice of it so that they might be able to learn or to teach it. It is perpetual in the order of things and divinely ordained.”²⁰
8. The Four Primary Laws of Logic.  While many people talk about logic (and often as if they could do without), at least the five letter word in English, logic, however not very many really know or understand what logic is, or what are termed by some, the four primary principles or laws of logic. Thus, to help us comprehend and better understand the nature and necessity of logic I want to at least briefly examine the four primary principles or laws of logic.
   1. The Law of (non-)Contradiction
      1. The first of the primary principles of logic is the law of (non-)contradiction. It states that no statement (proposition, assertion, etc.) can be both true and not true–false–(e.g., A can not be non-A) at the same time and in the same sense.
         For example, it cannot both be true and not true (in the same time and sense) that a person is and is not a Christian. All such statements are false.
      2. Thus, any statement or proposition that asserts that it is (both) true and not true (false) at the same time and in the same sense is itself false. A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the exact same sense; or any statement that states A is not-A (or p &~p) at the same time and in the same sense is false.
         1. It is a first (or self-evident) principle of thought or epistemology. One has to use it to refute it.
         2. To deny it is like saying “I cannot utter a word in English.”
         3. One cannot not use it (logically or ontologically).
         4. The distinction between it applying to a statement, view, person, or group and not applying to them is itself based on this law.
         5. All statements are meaningless unless the law is true.
         6. The distinction between true and false is based on this principle.
         7. Practically speaking, one cannot live in the real world without it. Try crossing the street while denying it (e.g., the Mack truck that is there and is not there!).
   2. The Law of Excluded Middle
      1. The second primary law of logic is the principle of excluded middle.
      2. The law of (non-)contradiction simply states that A cannot equal non-A (or p & non-p) at the same time and in the same sense. But both could be, say, “quip,” that is, neither true or false–simply not both–but not necessarily true or false.
      3. But, the law of excluded middle states “A or non-A,” that is, a proposition or statement is either true or false–it must be one or the other (and not quip)!
         Thus, a proposition or statement must be true or false.
      4. Example: Matthew 12:30
   3. The Law of Identity
      1. The third primary law of logic is called the law of identity.
      2. It states that A=A or that “if any statement is true, then it is true.”²¹
      3. Example: Christ is Christ (and not non-Christ)
      4. Importance: Sound Doctrine Versus the Cults/Occult: Christ is Christ (i.e., the Christ of the Bible: fully divine–God the Son, the second person of the Trinity–and fully human) and not non-Christ (e.g., the Christ of the Bible is not the  “Christ[s]” of the cults and/or the occult).
      5. Thus, we can see the importance of the law of identity.
      6. While this law should seem very obvious, and not even have to be mentioned because it is so obvious, nonetheless, this basic law of logic is often violated (e.g., by people committing what is called the four-term fallacy or by other equivocation fallacies).
   4. The Law of Logical or Rational Inference
      1. The fourth primary law of logic is the law of logical or rational inference.
      2. An example of it or one way it is expressed is: “if A=B, and B=C, then A=C.”
      3. Importance: All Discursive or non-Axiomatic Knowledge
      4. Key Example: The Trinity
         1. While the word Trinity (from Latin) is not found in the Bible, the concept clearly is!
         2. See, for example, Deuteronomy 6:4; Ephesians 1:3; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 5:3-4; and Mark 12:29-30.
         3. Also see John 2:19-21; Romans 8:11; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; and Acts 2:24, 32; 4:10 and 17:30-31.
   5. These four primary laws of logic are the essence of logic and are vital to all coherent or intelligible discussions or arguments. Try as one may one cannot–in any intelligent sense–not use them (e.g., even when trying to argue against the laws of logic).
9. Examples of the Importance of Logic (and Not Being Illogical)
   1. The Reductio ad Absurdum Technique
      1. John 1:1-3
      2. Philippians 2:5-11
   2. Equivocation Fallacies: This is the use of a word (term) or phrase with two or more different meanings.
      1. Example: Read Jesus Daily:
      2. Example: Jesus is Triune:
      3. Example: The Skeptical Skeptics:
10. Examples of Self-Refuting Claims
    1. Charles Kraft: Culturally Conditioned Conclusions
       1. Charles Kraft comments: …there is always a difference between reality and human culturally conditioned understandings (models) of that reality. We assume that there is a reality “out there” but it is the mental constructs (models) of that
          reality inside our head that are the most real to us. God, the author of reality, exists outside any culture. Human beings, on the other hand, are always bound by cultural, subcultural (including disciplinary), and psychological conditioning to perceive and interpret what they see of reality in ways appropriate to these conditionings. Neither the absolute God nor the reality [God] created is perceived absolutely by culture-bound human beings.²²
       2. If we take Kraft’s claims seriously, then they would also apply to his own understanding(s) of reality, which is culturally conditioned. Thus, why should we listen to him? His views here are self-refuting.
    2. The Verification Principle
       1. What is by now fairly well-known, but is nonetheless a classic example of a self-referentially refuting claim, is the so-called verification principle of the philosophical logical positivist movement which was held to by many leading intellectuals of this century. As Carl F.H. Henry succinctly states it: “Logical positivists postulate that only premises verifiable by sense data can be meaningful or true. But in that case this very premise–itself empirically unverifiable–cannot be considered meaningful or true.”²³ Thus came about the eventual discarding of the verification principle.
    3. W.V.O. Quine: “[N]o statement is immune to revision.”
       1. The famous philosopher of science, W.V.O. Quine, with his theory of “pragmatic holism” claimed that “no statement is immune to revision.” However, if this statement is true then it too is not immune to or from revision. One revision of it is that “some statements are immune to revision.” But, this contradicts the original claim of Quine. Quine’s claim is self-refuting.
    4. Larry Laudan’s Nonself-correcting Views
       1. Larry Laudan, author of among other works, Progress and Its Problems and Science and Values espouses a number of self-refuting ideas. For instance, Laudan claims that Charles Sanders Peirce’s view that science is self-correcting is “simply incorrect” and uses examples from the history of science in an attempt to prove that Peirce is wrong.²⁴ However, Laudan has stated that: “Determinations of truth and falsity are irrelevant to the acceptability or the pursuitability of [scientific] theories and research traditions.”²⁴ But, based on his own theory, Laudan blatantly contradicts himself. That is, if the issue of truth or falseness is irrelevant to scientific theories, then according to Laudan’s own theory, Peirce cannot be “simply incorrect,” nor can any of the other individuals or theories that Laudan corrects be incorrect.²⁶ In fact, much of Laudan’s writings are “correcting” what he sees as incorrect or (dare I say it?) false
          scientific theories. Thus, some of Laudan’s key views are self-refuting.
    5. William Lane Craig shares an insightful instance of self-refuting claims:Or consider the claim that “God cannot be described by propositions governed by the Law of Contradiction.” If this proposition is true, then, since it describes God, it is not itself governed by the Law of Contradiction. Therefore, it is equally true that “God can be described by propositions governed by the Law of Contradiction.” But then which propositions are these? There must be some, for the Eastern mystic is committed
       to the truth of this claim. But if he produces any, then they immediately refute his original claim that there are no such propositions. His claim thus commits him to the existence of counterexamples which serve to refute that very claim….²⁷
    6. Some of the views of B.F. Skinner, Sigmund Freud, Ludwig Feuerbach, and many other well-known thinkers are self-refuting.
11. Other Fun Fallacies
    1. Aidan Kelly: “all truths are merely metaphors.”
       1. The previous statement is a believed truth (or Kelly would not have stated it). Is it only or merely a metaphor? That is, it is not to be understood literally. Therefore, it is not literally true that “all truths are merely metaphors”? But, this
          contracts the original assertion.
       2. Is Kelly’s claim to be understood metaphorically, non-metaphorically, or both, or neither?
          1. If it is only metaphorically true, then it is not literally true that “all truths are merely metaphors.” Therefore the statement is false. Worse yet it is self-defeating, indeed, nonsensical.
          2. If it is non-metaphorically (literally) true, then the statement itself is merely a metaphor. Therefore, it is not literally true that “all truths are merely metaphors.” Thus, again, the statement is false.
          3. To say it was both metaphorically and non-metaphorically true (I present this option not because it is really possible, but some Neo-pagans think so), it would still be false, in fact, self-refuting.
          4. Just for the sake of argument, if the statement was intended neither metaphorically or non-metaphorically true then why would anyone state it?
          5. These types of claims are at best false, at worse nonsense because they are self-defeating. Aidan Kelly’s comments regarding reality result in absurdity.
    2. “All truth is relative” or “there are no absolute truths.” “There are absolutely no absolutes!”
       1. Joseph Campbell, Postmodernism, and Many Others
       2. “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative” (Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, 25).
       3. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.” Isaiah 5:20-21
       4. Edgar Sheffield Brightman (a past professor of philosophy at Boston University) said “In a universe where Christianity and Christian Science are both true, we do not have a universe, but a cosmic nut-house!”
       5. Joseph Campbell:Joseph Campbell in The Power of Myth states, “…The person who thinks he has found the ultimate truth is wrong” (55). Yet he repeatedly propounds what he believes to be ultimate truth, such as his belief in an impersonal and amoral divinity. This is kind of like “He who thinks they know doesn’t.” Hum?
       6. “There is no one or ultimate truth.”Then is this statement true? How could it be? It would contradict itself. Besides if all
          truths are relative then this statement too would be relative. Thus, it would also mean that “There is one or an ultimate truth,” (at least sometimes). Ooops!
    3. Not Either OrFirst, for instance, some neo-pagans oppose either/or statements (e.g., A or not-A), preferring both/and propositions (e.g., A and not-A). An example is either Sue believes in witchcraft or she does not.
       1. However, the distinction or preference between either/or as opposed to both/and propositions is itself an either/or proposition. It is an either/or proposition which in effect says do not use either/or propositions, but do use both/and ones. Thus, people who promulgate this idea are using the very distinction they allegedly oppose.
       2. Second, if we tried to consistently apply this advice then we should and should not use either/or statements since all propositions, including “do not use either/or statements,” must be turned into both/and propositions. Therefore, we should and should not use either/or statements. Ooops!
       3. Second, two more examples come from William Dyrness in his Learning about Theology from the Third World²⁸. Dyrness remarks that: “In general, Indian thinkers point out, Western thought patterns are fundamentally dualistic [i.e., based on the law of (non-) contradiction], therefore analysis is the primary mode of critical thought. Eastern patterns favor nondualistic modes, therefore thinking tends to be synthetic.”²⁹ Dyrness proceeds to mention S.J. Samartha and his book, The Hindu Response to the Unbound Christ as an example of this. Dyrness also writes:There are those who argue that these Eastern patterns of thought are inviolable and Christianity must adapt to them completely. Jung Young Lee has argued that in Asia we must get out of the habit of thinking in terms of either/or; we must be able to think of both/and. Change, he believes, may be the key to the universe, and ambiguity and differences merely the reflection of aspects of reality. In traditional Chinese thought, yin and yang are believed to be complementary modes of being….[H]e seeks to apply this to his view of God….³⁰
    4. “All truths are half-truths.”Another example of a supposed revelatory truth which is self-defeating is quoted by Laurie Cabot: “…all truths are half-truths; everything contains its opposite; extremes meet; and every pair of opposites can be reconciled. Knowing this is the key to making the universe work for you….”
       1. If all truths are half-truths, this would include the previous statement which is an alleged truth. It too would be a half-truth. Thus, is it only half-true? Or, is it both true and false? Which half of the proposition is true?
       2. Or, is it false half of the time, but true the other half? Thus, fifty percent of the time the proposition is not true. This would entail that about fifty percent of the time all truths are not half-truths. But, this contradicts the original statement that “all truths are half-truths.”
       3. Furthermore, if “everything contains its opposite” as well as “extremes meet,” this would include the above statement. Therefore, truly, “all truths are half-truths” and “all truths are not half-truths.” Ooops!
    5. These assertions are self-contradictory, self-defeating, or self-refuting. They are nonsensical!
12. The Challenge for You and Me
    1. 1 Corinthians 10:31 (NIV)”So whether you eat or drink [or think] or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”
    2. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (NIV)”For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to
       Christ.”
    3. Mark 12:29-31!

ENDNOTES

Copyright ©1999 Craig S. Hawkins. All Rights Reserved.  

Justification – A Right Relationship with GOD

by Craig S. Hawkins

  “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.“  - 
Romans 3:28 NIV 

 

Doctrinal Summary

The teaching or doctrine of justification has rightly been seen by many theologians (see below)  as a central, if not the central, doctrine of Christianity. There is much to be said regarding the biblical doctrine of justification–”the justice” or “the righteousness of God” (see e.g., Rom. 1:17: dikaiosyne theou in Greek, iustitia Dei in Latin).

Among the many key words in the Greek New Testament that pertain to our topic, I want to note in particular three key terms: dikaios, dikaiosyne, and dikaioo. In the context of our discussion (among other meanings), dikaios means upright, just, or righteous.⁽¹⁾ Likewise, in the context of our study, dikaiosyne means uprightness or righteousness (e.g., Phil. 3:9).⁽²⁾ Dikaioo, in context here, means “justify, vindicate, treat as just,” and Paul’s use of it as “be acquitted, be pronounced and treated as righteous…be justified.”⁽³⁾ For example, in Romans 5:1, 9; and Titus 3:7, dikaioo occurs in the aorist, passive participle form (dikaiothentes), meaning “having been justified.” Thus, it is a past completed action with on-going effects or results that is done to or for the believer by God (i.e., passive voice–which means that the subject is the object of or receives the action–which in this case is that the believer is justified); that is, God justifies the believer in or by or because of the work of Christ. We read in BAG that “Paul … uses the word almost exclusively of God’s judgment…[especially] of men dikaiousthai[:] be acquitted, be pronounced and treated as righteous and thereby become dikaios, receive the divine gift of dikaiosyne….”⁽⁴⁾

Definition of Justification

The believer, the one who trusts in Christ Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior is not only pronounced not guilty, is not only pronounced innocent, but is pronounced righteous (positionally now and eventually practically as well) by God (see e.g., Rom. 1:17; 3:21-24). J.I. Packer states that it (dikaioo) “…is to pronounce, accept, and treat as just, i.e., as, on the one hand, not penally liable, and, on the other, entitled to all the privileges due to those who have kept the law.”⁽⁵⁾ In other words, God views the believer as if they had/have completely or perfectly obeyed the law (i.e., the Ten Commandments). Note the following five summations in particular–among the many excellent ones–of the doctrine of justification–specifically what is termed subjective justification (the latter four):

The article of justification, which is our only protection, not only against all the powers and plottings of men but also against the gates of hell, is this: by faith alone (sola fide) in Christ, without works, are we declared just (pronuntiari justos) and saved.⁽⁶⁾

As soon as a contrite sinner believes the divine promises of grace which for Christ’s sake is offered to him in the Gospel, or as soon as he puts his trust in the vicarious satisfaction which Christ has made for the sins of the world by His perfect obedience, he is justified, or declared righteous before God….Subjective justification may therefore be defined as the act of God by which He removes from the believer the sentence of condemnation to which he is subject because of his sin, releases him from his guilt, and ascribes to him the merit of Christ. Baier defines justification as “the act by which the sinner, who is responsible for guilt and liable to punishment…but who believes in Christ, is pronounced just by God, the Judge.”⁽⁷⁾

“Justification is a judicial and at the same time a gracious act by which God, reconciled by the satisfaction of Christ, acquits the sinner who believes in Christ of the offenses with which he is charged and accounts and pronounces him righteous.”⁽⁸⁾

We explain justification simply as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as righteous men. And we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.⁽⁹⁾

…God forgives sinful individuals, counts them as righteous on the basis of their faith in Christ, and accepts them as his own reconciled children, apart from all human merit and solely because of the superabundant merit of Christ’s work of satisfaction….⁽¹⁰⁾

The Forensic Nature of Justification

Moreover, the pronouncement of “justification” or of the believer being “justified” by God is forensic.⁽¹¹⁾ That is, it is declaratory or a legal declaration by the Sovereign Judge–indeed the Supreme Court of the universe–that the believer, on the account of the finished work of Christ, is forgiven of their sins and pronounced “righteous.” J.I.Packer declares: “It [dikaioo] is thus a forensic term, denoting a judicial act of administering the law–in this case, by declaring a verdict of acquittal, and so excluding all possibility of condemnation. Justification thus settles the legal status of the person justified.”⁽¹²⁾ However, as the TDNT points out: “Forensically does not mean….moral rectitude is attained. What it does mean is that the man who has dikaiosyne is right before God.”⁽¹³⁾ (The Reformers would often say or argue that a person was not made righteous, but declared righteous by God, by the imputed grace of God and not by “infused” grace of God.) That is, positionally speaking, the believer in Christ is declared right or righteous (in a right standing and in a right relationship with God), but this does not entail that in this present life (practically speaking), in their daily living, that they always act righteous–do not commit sins of commission or omission.

Additionally, and related to the previous point, according to the Protestant Reformation (I would argue biblical) view(s) this righteousness is said to be alien or external and objective since it is imputed or given to the believer by God because of the work of Christ. That is, this righteousness is not inherent to or from the individual, but is given to them from God. Thus, it is alien (Luther’s term) or external–it is not or did not come from within the individual, but from God; hence, it is external to the individual. Another way to say it is that this righteousness is not subjective or inherent to the individual, or a result of their working or working with or cooperating with God for salvation. Thus, “[o]ur righteousness is wholly and solely that of Christ, imputed to us; we contribute nothing.”⁽¹⁴⁾

Justification is Not because of Our Works

Throughout church history there have been discussions, disagreements, and debates about the nature of justification,⁽¹⁵⁾ for example, about the role and relationship of good works to or for salvation. Nonetheless, evangelical and orthodox Christians have been united on the above mentioned points.

Some individuals have tried to argue that good works are necessary for salvation in the sense that one needs to cooperate with God in salvation, and their part is the good works. For instance, some people have taught the idea that James (chapter 2) contradicts the Pauline teaching regarding the role and relationship of justification and faith and works (e.g, Rom. 4 and 5), and that James proves that works are part of salvation in the sense that we must cooperate with God by our good works to be declared righteous by Him. However, the Bible does not teach in James or elsewhere that we must earn or in some other way “cooperate” with God for our salvation (i.e., to be declared righteous by God). These types of claims have been thoroughly answered.⁽¹⁶⁾ Indeed, in summing-up the biblical view of Paul and James on justification and noting the views of Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer, Geoffrey Bromiley remarks: “True faith manifest itself in good works. Absence of the latter denotes absence of the former.”⁽¹⁷⁾ This distinction is between a true or genuine or saving faith and a “false faith,” and not between a genuine saving faith and works (See the previous footnote for more complete argumentation of this point). A true or saving faith always will produce good works, but the works do not save or justify the person. The works are evidence that the person possess saving faith or already is justified.

Given the points mentioned in the previously sections and the ones to follow, we see that the believer is justified because of the finished work of Christ and not because of any good works that they do or have done to earn this standing with God. For example, Paul teaches very clearly that no one is saved or justified by works (see, e.g., Rom. 3:27-28; 4:1-11; 9:30-32; Gal. 2:15-16, 21; 5:4).

Of the many passages cited and many others that could be mentioned, I will just quickly examine Romans 3:28. In Romans 3:28 Paul declares that “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (NIV). The phrase “observing the law” is an idiom for the Old Testament law, for instance, the Ten Commandments. The English word “apart” is the Greek preposition choris. In the context of Romans 3:28 (and 4:6) choris means “without or apart from” or “without relation to or connection with someth[ing]…independent of someth[ing].”⁽¹⁸⁾ In this case the something is “without regard to the observance of the law….”⁽¹⁹⁾ Thus, we are declared righteous by God without, or independent of, or separate from our obeying the law, that is, any good works. The biblical teaching here is clear.

Faith and Justification

Another point of misunderstanding that some have is regarding the role and relationship of faith to justification. It is not our faith or the faith of the individual believer that justifies, but God who justifies by grace through faith.⁽²⁰⁾ That is, faith is what is called the instrumental means or cause of salvation, not what is termed the efficient cause. As J.I. Packer rightly remarks: “Paul says that believers are justified dia pisteos (Rom. 3:25), pistei (Rom. 3:28), and ek pisteos (Rom. 3:30). The dative and the preposition dia represent faith as the instrumental means whereby Christ and his righteousness are appropriated; the preposition ek shows that faith occasions, and logically precedes, our personal justification. That believers are justified dia pistin, on account of faith, Paul never says, and would deny.”⁽²¹⁾ Packer also remarks: “faith is…personal trust and confidence in God’s mercy through Christ; that it is not a meritorious work, one facet of human righteousness, but rather an appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ….”⁽²²⁾ B.B. Warfield notes:

It is, accordingly, solely from its object that faith derives its value. This object is uniformly the God of grace….Jesus Christ, God the Redeemer, is accordingly the one object of saving faith….The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests…It is not faith that saves, but faith in Jesus Christ…faith in any other saviour…brings not salvation but a curse. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith….⁽²³⁾

Alister McGrath states: the reformers’ in “…faith as the sole instrument of justification. In justification, we receive by faith the effects of the work of Christ on our behalf, appropriating it and making it our own.”⁽²⁴⁾ McGrath also comments: “The objective basis of our justification is the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the means by which we appropriate this justification and make it our own is faith. To repeat: justification by faith does not mean that we are justified on account of our faith, but that we are justified on account of Christ through the grace of God.”⁽²⁵⁾

Thus, faith, which is itself a gift from God in the first place, is the instrumental cause; it is not what justifies or saves us, but it is how we appropriate what does justify or save us–God’s grace as expressed through the finished work of Jesus for us (Eph. 2:8-9). The Latin phrase per fidem propter Christum (through [or by] faith on account of Christ) rightly summarizes the biblical teaching on how we are justified and hence saved with our sins being forgiven.

Forgiveness of Our Sins

Another key aspect regarding the nature of justification is that it entails the forgiveness of the believer’s sins and their guilt before God (see e.g., Ps. 32:1; Isa. 1:18; Rom. 4:6-8; Col. 3:13). Our sin and guilt is removed from us as far as the East is from the West. This is a biblical expression used to convey this concept (Ps. 103:12).

Moreover, in the Old Testament and under the old covenant certain animals were sacrificed as offerings to cover the peoples’ sins and guilt (see, e.g., Lev. 5:16-18; 19:22). However, in the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29, 36). Jesus, by His propitiatory work on the cross, forgives our sins (John 3:16; 1 Peter 2:24). In essence, by Jesus paying the just penalty for our sins and guilt on the cross, those who trust Him as their Lord and Savior receive His righteousness imputed to them (2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9). Luther called this the “great exchange”: Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and we are credited with His righteousness.

Lastly, regarding the nature of justification I note that it is considered among many theologians (e.g., Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Mueller, Sproul) to be a, if not the, chief, crucial, or foundational doctrine of the church. For instance, J.I Packer remarks: “the doctrine of justification determines the whole character of Christianity as a religion of grace and faith….It is the heart of the gospel. Luther justly termed it articulus stantis vel[sic: et] cadentis ecclesiae: a church that lapses from it can scarcely be called Christian.”⁽²⁶⁾ This is the great doctrine of justification (hence salvation) by grace alone through faith alone on the account of Christ alone.

Cultural Contradictions

Most if not all of our culture completely rejects the above ideas. This can be seen in many areas.

First, for example, many people in our society do not even believe that they are sinners in the first place. Thus, they do not believe that they need to be forgiven in the sense discussed above, let alone justified. These individuals would hold to the worldview perspective that people are basically good. The source(s) of difficulties in life are not from sin and being alienated from and in need of forgiveness by God, but do the failure of government or other social institutions, lack of education, and/or whatever else. Given more time and education, entertainment, government, prosperity, psychology, recreation, science, social programs and/or whatever else, these problems are sure to take care of themselves, or simply will not be seen as a problem at all (e.g., homosexuality).

Second, since many do not believe that God exists, if they believe that they need to be forgiven, then they might talk about just forgiving themselves for past failures (e.g., not realizing one’s potential), or for letting down a friend, family member, or otherwise, or not being very nice or “there for them” in some area of life or another.

Third, given the view that people or certainly most people are basically good and the incredible amount of pop-psychology and aversion of taking responsibility for one’s choice, many today generally want to blame somebody, anybody, else but themselves for the problems in their life. Many in our culture believe that they are a victim, that they are not responsible for the choices they have made. Few want to or will own their mistakes.

Fourth, some in our society who are involved in the New Age Movement, some Eastern religions, other forms of the occult, or whatever else, see any problems that they have as stemming from not realizing their alleged inherent divinity (e.g., Shirley MacLaine, Tom Cruse).

Fifth, if a person has any background in Christianity, or otherwise is willing to admit that they are a sinner, well “they’re not that bad” or “certainty not as bad as so-and-so.”

Thus, God will forgive them, especially if they do some good things to balance out or make up for the bad–have more good deeds than bad ones. Besides, even if they are “that bad,” many in our culture today assume that there are many paths, many ways, many religions whereby one can get right with God.

Sixth, and often in conjunction with the last point, people are sure that “God helps those who help themselves.” These people know that God wants them to cooperate or help-out in getting them saved. Surely, it is said, that there is something for us to do, something that we must contribute. The pride problem here is unfortunately alive and well. Full-fledged Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism are with us today. In short, many want to out-right earn their salvation by good works or at least contribute to some part of the “process.” This is a part of the “can-do” American spirit that many have: “One can do anything [even make themselves right with God] if they just set their mind to it and work hard enough.”

These items are some of the components of many people’s worldviews in our culture that contradict the biblical teaching on justification.

Church Accommodations

Unfortunately, instead of teaching the correct biblical view(s), as opposed to all the above mentioned ideas, much of the church (at least the professed church) is often going along with many of these ideas. In other words, much of the church, instead of attempting to correct these false notions, is to a greater or lesser extent simply accommodating some or many of these presuppositions of the non-Christian worldviews of our day.

First, whether this is being done out of sheer ignorance, that is, by people who just do not know the gospel and the great teaching of justification, or people who do know better, but have convinced themselves that you cannot tell people the truth because they will be offended and leave (before or after one tells them the truth?).

Second, for instance, I believe that we see this accommodation–comprise and watering-down of the gospel–in the little or complete lack of teaching in many churches regarding the biblical teaching of justification.

Third, since the church often as well as non-Christians down-plays or soft-sells sin and the effects of the fall and our sins, whether because this is really how these Christians view sin or in order not to offend anyone, their listeners don’t take sin too seriously either. Thus, “what’s the big deal?”

Fourth, intentionally or not, it seems that some churches use the real guilt that people have over their sins, and/or their desire to earn a right standing with God, to get all kinds of things done in the church. Thus, some churches can appeal to all the wrong reasons for people, Christian or not, to get involved, tithe, help out, get to work–you can and should do something–because there is much to do, so get busy, and “God will be pleased with you.” Thus, it seems to me that some parts of the church have fallen into the trap of manipulating people in the area of their guilt, pride (e.g, “You are just indispensable! What would we ever do without you?”), and so forth.

For whatever reasons, many in the church today seem to be greatly influenced by some of the worldview components of the worldly culture at large around us, and have taken a much weaker or no biblical view at all of sin, and the corresponding need to be right with God–justification, and ironically of the great blessings that derive from knowing, teaching, and possessing justification.

Change of Thinking

There are a number of very important ideas and implications from these ideas that impress themselves upon me as I have once again given serious thought to the great biblical truth of justification.

First, it reminds me of the importance of teaching the Bible and the great truths, that is, great doctrines that it reveals. These truths bring light and liberty to life. Thus, given the essential nature of the doctrine of justification relevant to the gospel–salvation, it and its implications reminds me of the freedom it brings or rather that God brings through it. I believe that justification needs to be regularly and thoroughly taught.

The teaching of justification has revolutionized my life and should do the same for everyone else. That is, since I know that through the finished work of Jesus, I am already right with God, this gives me a great desire to serve and worship Him, not out of mere fear, or the desire to get right with God or keep in His good graces, but from the basis of gratitude for who God is and what He has already done for me. It motivates me to serve and worship, and indeed to love God.

For instance, I know that I am not on some type of works righteous tread-mill that I must keep up with or that I will fall off and God will not be pleased with me. He already is pleased with me through Christ. Thus, I am not worrying about not going to heaven because I might not be good enough (in and of myself, I know that I am not good enough!). I know that God has already accepted me, that I am currently in a right relationship with God and hence am not trying to earn or keep my good standing by my works. Jesus has done it for me. I already possess eternal life (see e.g., 1 John 5:13).

If people only knew who God really is (and to be sure the mess that one is in who has not trusted in Christ as their Lord and Savior), and what He has done for us, and will do for us; I believe that this could and would revolutionize their lives and the preaching and teaching of the word of God, and church services. That God will take away our guilt and condemnation, and that one can know God’s verdict of pronouncing them righteous because of Jesus, what better news do we have than this?

In other words, and among many other points that should be made, the “gospel” is not “a take it or leave it,” or you too can begin working for God and hope that He will accept you, or other similar types of propositions. No, the gospel message, and the doctrine of justification clearly brings this out, tells us that while the news is at first hearing worst than we thought (the law, the bad news is that we are really in big trouble that we cannot get ourselves out of), it is also in the end much better than one ever thought. God has done for us what we cannot do for ourselves! Jesus has Himself paid the penalty for our sins. Thus, the news for the Christian and non-Christian is not that God has an instatement payment plan that he has started for you and He has paid in so much and you can pay in so much and you just might make it–pay it off. No! God has paid it in full! In Christ, God has given us everything. Now this is good news! This is what needs to be shared with Christians and non-Christians alike.

The biblical teaching of justification has transformed my life and I believe can and will transform the lives of other Christians and non-Christians as well. Praise be to God!

In light of the teaching of justification, Christians and the church today must reevaluate their thinking. Instead of guilt, God offers forgiveness and peace. Instead of condemnation and always trying to measure up and never being able to, God grants absolution. Instead of a works program, God pronounces “paid in full.” These aspects and more of the teaching of justification can and will transform or revolutionize the life of the believer in particular and the church in general, and the non-Christian that God grants mercy to.

Conclusion

What great news. What marvelous deeds God has done for us! Would to God that everyone would know the freedom that God grants (John 8:36). Would to God that every Christian would be taught in its fullness the great biblical teaching of justification, and understand it, and share it with others. Free indeed, freed and declared justified by the righteousness of God!

Endnotes

3. BAG, 196-97. Also see DNTT, Vol. 3, 352, 363, 370; TDNT, vol. 2, 214-19.

4. BAG, 196.

5. J.I. Packer, “Justification” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. by Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 593.

6. Martin Luther, as quoted in What Luther Says, Ewald M. Plass (St. Louis, Concordia Publishing, 1959), s.v. “2186: What is Justification?,” and “2187: Another Definition.”

7. John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1934) 367.

8. Hollaz, as quoted in John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 367.

9. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. by John T. McNeill, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), vol. 1, 3.11.2.

10. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker), s.v. iustificatio.

11. See, e.g., Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983, 1984, 1985), 955-59; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols., reprint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), vol. 3, 118-134; Alister E. McGrath, Justification by Faith: What it Means to Us Today (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 55-57; Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 374-75; Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek, s.v. “actus forensis,” “actus iustificatorius,” “iustificatio“; J.I. Packer, “Justification,” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Elwell, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker), 593-94; R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 95-116; and the TDNT, vol. 2, 204, 215.

12. J.I. Packer, “Justification” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 593.

13. TDNT, vol. 2, 204. See also 215.

14. Bruce Milne, Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, ), 165.

15. See, e.g, Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Edinburgh, England: Banner of Truth Trust, 1937), 203-224; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 229-39; J.I. Packer, “Justification in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology; Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. The Beginnings to the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); and Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. From 1500 to the Present Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

16. See, e.g, Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, 203-10; Bromiley, Historical Theology, 230-32, 233, 234-36; Calvin, Institutes, vol. 1, 3.11.13-15, 17-20; Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 134-41; McGrath, Justification by Faith, 30-31; James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion 1 Vol. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962) 2:191-93; Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 369-71, 376-78, 379-80; R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone, 155-171; TDNT, vol. 2, 201, 219.

17. Bromiley, Historical Theology, 235-36.

18. BAG, 899.

19. Ibid.

20. See, e.g., Berkhof, History of Christian Doctrines, 203-10; Bromiley, Historical Theology, 230-37; Calvin, Institutes, vol. 1, 3.11.19; Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 165-70; McGrath, Justification by Faith, 66-67; Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 376; Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek, s.v. “instrumentum iustificationis“; J.I. Packer, “Justification”, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 596-97; Sproul, Faith Alone, 67-81.

21. J.I. Packer, “Justification” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 596.

22. J.I.Packer, “Faith” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 401.

23. B.B. Warfield, “Faith,” in Biblical and Theological Studies, Samuel Craig, ed. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 423-425.

24. Alister McGrath, Justification by Faith, 67.

25. Ibid.

 

 

Bibliography

Arndt, William F., Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 4th rev. and aug. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W.
Historical Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Berkhof, Louis.
The History of Christian Doctrines. Edinburgh, England: Banner of Truth Trust, 1937.

Brown, Colin, ed.
“Righteousness, Justification.” In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.

Buchanan, James.
The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of Its History in the Church and of Its Exposition from Scripture. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955.

Buswell, James Oliver.
A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. 1 Vol. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962.

Calvin, John.
Institutes of the Christian Religion. John T. McNeill, ed. Ford Lewis Battles, trans. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Elwell, Walter A., ed.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

_______, ed.
Topical Analysis of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Erickson, Millard.
Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983, 1984, 1985.

Hodge, Charles.
Systematic Theology. 3 Vols., reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Ladd, George Eldon.
A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

McGrath, Alister E.
Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. The Beginnings to the Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

_______.
Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. From 1500 to the Present Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

_______.
Justification by Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

Milne, Bruce.
Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982.

Morris, Leon.
The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. 3rd rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1965.

_______.
The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance. Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1983.

Mueller, John Theodore.
Christian Dogmatics: A Handbook of Doctrinal Theology. St. Louis: Concordia, 1934, 1955.

Muller, Richard A.
Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

Plass, Ewald M.
What Luther Says. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1959.

Schrenk, Gottlob.
“dike, dikaios, dikaiosyne, dikaioo,…” In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Sproul, R.C.
Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Tappert, Theodore G., trans. and ed.
The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959.

 

Revision Date: 10/22/98  Copyright ©1999 Craig S. Hawkins. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

This paper (1) summarizes the biblical teaching or doctrine of justification (its nature)–of the believer, and some of the problems or concerns relevant to this teaching, (2) discusses how this teaching (justification) is contradicted in the culture at large and even undermined in the church (i.e., how the church has accommodated non-Christian views), then (3) discusses the implications of the teaching of justification for us today–how it should impact believers, and (4) discusses how you and I and the church, in light of the foregoing discussion, can and should adjust our thinking (ideas) in light of this information. Due to space considerations I must limit my discussion to certain key aspects among the many that could and should be discussed in a more lengthy work on this topic. ]]> http://thecollegeoftheology.com/justification/feed/ 0 http://thecollegeoftheology.com/faith-reason/ http://thecollegeoftheology.com/faith-reason/#comments Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:33:08 +0000 admin http://thecollegeoftheology.com/?p=145

Faith and Knowledge, Evidence and Reason:
Their Role and Relationship to One Another

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” – Mark 12:30

1. The Supreme Example of Christ
   • The Use of Objective Evidence
   • If Jesus, God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, used objective evidence to
     validate His claims, a fortiori, how much more so for you and me!
     • Mark 2:1-5-12
     • John 2:18-21
     • John 10:30-31-32-33, 37-38
     • John 15:24-25
     • John 20:24-29
   • The Use of Reason (Argumentation)
   • Matthew 12:24-30
     • Argument from analogy (vv. 25-26)
     • The law of logical or rational inference (v. 26)
     • Reductio ad absurdum (vv. 25-26)
     • Argument from analogy (v. 27)
     • The law of logical or rational inference (vv. 28, 29)
     • Argument from analogy (v. 29)
     • The law of contradiction (v. 30)
     • The law of excluded middle (v. 30)
2. The Apostles
   • The Use of Objective Evidence:
     • Peter: Acts 2:14-32-39; 3:6-16; 4:8-14-20
     • Paul: Acts 26:26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8
     • The Appeal to Objective Eyewitness Testimony:
     • Luke 1:2-4; John 1:14; 19:35-36; 20:24, 30-31; Acts 1:1-3; 3:6-16; 4:8-14-20; 9:3-8, 17; 22:6-9; 14; 26:12-18-26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-3, and so forth
   • The Use of Reason–Rationality:
     • Paul: Acts 17:2-3, 11, 17, 22-31; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; 26:25; 1 Timothy 6:20
3. Apollos: Acts 18:27-28
   1. Dialegomai is the Greek word used in the above passages.
   2. Dialegomai: to argue, dispute, or reason. BAG: “discuss, conduct a
      discussion…of lectures which were likely to end in disputations….” Vine’s:
      “`to think different things with oneself, to ponder’; then, with other persons, `to
      converse, argue, dispute’”… “`to dispute with others…’” (see Acts 17:2,
      17; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; Jude 9).
   3. Like Considering or Weighing the Evidence of the Worth of One Truck against Another:
      Feature by Feature (4 vs 5 speed, horsepower, seats, stereo, dollar per dollar)

   Note: commended by God! 

    

4. The Value of the GOD Given Mind
   • A. Isaiah 1:18; Mark 12:29-31; Acts 26:25
   • We are created in the imago Dei–the image of God. This includes, among other
     attributes, the ability to reason.
   • Thus, this entails the value of evidence and reason. As Charles Hodge informs us:
     • If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational….We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend.
5. Uses of Logic/Reason
   • Ministerial Use of Reason
     • This is the use of logic/reason as a servant or “handmaid” to the Bible and
       theology. Logic/reason is not put on par with or above the Bible, but stands in a subordinate role to God’s revelation.
   • Magisterial Use of Reason
     • This is the placing of logic/reason on par with or actually above the Bible. Here logic/reason (that of the individual or a group) is allegedly the final judge, arbitrator, or authority of truth.
   • Anti-Intellectual
     • This is the position of depreciating or out-right denying the role of reason/logic in apologetics and other concerns of Christianity.
6. God gave us a mind and He expects us to use it (Mark 12:29-31).
   • It is not true that the mind is a terrible thing, “so waste it.”
   • The emotional nature of mankind is just as fallen as the intellect. Thus, we should not exalt it relating to conversion either.
   • If we are going to glorify God as Christians and in sharing the Gospel with others, we
     must not ignore or in an unscriptural manner down-play the importance of the mind in the preaching of the Gospel.
7. Faith: A Biblical Definition
   • This is opposed to false definitions that are often given.
     • The Greek terms in the New Testament have a number of meanings.
   • The Greek pistis (noun) in the context of our discussion means (see e.g. BAG):
     belief, faith, confidence, commitment, conviction, or trust.
   • The Greek pisteuo (verb) in the context of our study means (see e.g. BAG): to
     believe, belief (in), confidence (in), conviction, commitment, to have faith, faith in, or trust (in).
   • In the context of our discussion, faith is a self-commitment or surrender to,
     confidence in, and reliance on what one knows to be true.
   • It is a confident conviction of and commitment to truth–what one believes to be true.
   • It manifests itself, or is seen in action, by acting or living one’s life in accord with
     what one knows, or at least thinks, to be true. In essence, one will live their life or
     govern their actions by their belief that what Christ said and did is true.
     • It is not the action per se, but the cause of (what causes) the action.
     • For example, moving because of a belief that you are in imminent danger.
     • Luther: “Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone.”
     • Saving faith always produces action(s) or work(s).
8. Faith is the instrumental cause, it is not what saves us, but it is how we
   appropriate what does save us–God’s grace as expressed through the finished work of Jesus for us (Eph. 2:8-9). See the Warfield quote.
   • The “object” of faith (truth) in Christianity that one commits themselves to
     is Christ as their personal Lord and Savior (Rom. 10:9).
   • The New Testament word “faith” and the phrase “to believe” are
     technical terms that express reliance on Christ alone for salvation (see, e.g, John 3:16, 36; 1 John 5:13).
9. The Correct and Incorrect Correlatives or Implications of Faith
   • Faith does not mean or entail “believing” what you know in your “heart of
     hearts” not to be true or “flying in the face” of reason.
   • C.S. Lewis, who among other accomplishments was a classical language scholar states regarding faith that it is not “the intention to believe what you want to
     believe in the face of evidence to the contrary” or “the power of believing what
     we know to be untrue.”
   • Charles Hodge tells us “…faith involves assent, and assent is conviction produced
     by evidence, it follows that faith without evidence is either irrational or impossible.
   • Hodge also comments: God requires nothing irrational of his creatures. He does not require faith without evidence. Christianity is equally opposed to superstition and Rationalism. The one is faith without appropriate evidence, the other refuses to believe what it does not understand, inspite of evidence which should command belief.
   • B.B. Warfield writes: Faith is the gift of God: but it does not in the least
     follow that the faith God gives is an irrational faith, that is, a faith without grounds
     in right reason….The Holy Spirit does not work a blind, an ungrounded faith in the
     heart….nor yet new grounds of belief in the object presented; but just a new ability of the heart to respond to the grounds of faith, sufficient in themselves, already present to the understanding. We believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in Him, not though it be irrational….We are arguing that faith is, in all its exercises alike [religious or secular], a form of conviction, and is, therefore, necessarily grounded in evidence. And we are arguing that evidence accordingly has its part to play in the conversion of the soul.
   • J. Greshem Machen notes: “What the Spirit does in the new birth is not to make a
     man a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence.”
   • Kim Riddlebarger remarks: A man cannot acquiesce to the truth of the Gospel
     apart from the enabling of the Holy Spirit. But, a man cannot acquiesce to that which he either does not know or believe to be true. It is thus an illegitimate separation of faith into either a “mind or heart,” “faith or reason” dichotomy. Biblically understood, faith and reason are intimately, completely and inseparably involved in one another.
   • Thus, true biblical saving faith is not synonymous with credulity or having “blind
     faith.”
     • Calvin: “It is the height of absurdity to call ignorance tempered by humility
       faith.”
     • Therefore, neither ignorance nor credulity are Christian virtues!
     • Note previous quote from Warfield.
   • Faith is:
     • Lewis: “Now I define faith as the power of continuing to believe what we once honestly thought to be true until cogent reasons for honestly changing our minds are brought before us.”
     • We continue to believe it because of, not in spite of, the evidence.
     • We hold this view because of the evidence and sound reason, by the grace of God, and will continue to until evidence and sound reason convinces us otherwise.
     • “[T]he conflict is not between faith and reason, but faith and sight.”
     • Reason may win truths, but only faith retains them.
     • Coupled with the concept of appropriating what one knows to be true, is the additional aspect of persevering in the truth one has embraced. With this perspective in mind, C.S. Lewis furthers our understanding of biblical saving faith, and for that matter any exercise of faith (e.g., in the realm of “secular” concerns), in his own inimitable style with his reflections on faith:
       • When we exhort people to Faith as a virtue, to the settled intention of continuing to believe certain things, we are not exhorting them to fight against reason. The intention of continuing to believe is required because though Reason is divine, human reasoners are not. When once passion takes part in the game, the human reason, unassisted by Grace, has about as much chance of retaining it hold on truths already gained as a snowflake has of retaining its consistency in the mouth of a blast furnace.
     • Lewis goes on to say: If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the gift of Faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth.
     • Christianity is true, is reality, but is held on to through faith.
     • Although biblical faith is not blind it certainly is nonetheless tenacious!
     • This is a radically different understanding than most have of faith–but it is the correct understanding!
10. Faith (Sacred and Secular) and Reason
    • Key point: this is true of all matters, sacred or secular, religious or irreligious.
    • Faith is what bridges the gap between the evidence or “probability” (whatever
      percentage it may be) versus certainty.
      • 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%-70%, 80%, 90-99.99999%–to 100% certain or certainty, or apodictic certainty (”absolutely certain”)
      • For Example:
        • Crossing the street
        • Starting your car
        • Driving today (really risky–faith!)
        • Sitting on a chair
        • Being (sitting) in this building
        • All of these are exercises of faith!
    • Faith is the bridge between x percent probability and certainty. Since we can not
      have objective apodictic certainty about anything–sacred or secular–faith is what let’s
      us commit (e.g., crossing the street). We do not have 100% certainty, but we (100% of us) cross the street nonetheless. How can we? We do not have certainty that we will make it. Note we do not just take part of ourselves across the street (corresponding to the percentage of probability we have). We take all of ourselves across the street. Faith is involved in all that we do.
    • Faith is what lets anyone do anything at all in the real world–act in spite of the fact that we do not have objective certainty for our actions–such as getting home safely today!
    • Faith is not opposed to logic/reason and evidence (see above)
    • Faith, sacred or secular, is the same! It is the same for the Christian or
      non-Christian, the religious or non-religious!
    • This is true of all matters, sacred or secular, religious or irreligious.
      • Note Warfield’s quote below.
    • Thus even an agnostic or the most ardent atheist daily exercises faith. In fact the
      atheist has the “blind faith,” that is against or in the face of the overwhelming evidence and sound reason, that God does not exist. They are gambling–to say
      the least against the odds that God does not exist….Talk about a credulity quotient, the atheist has more “faith” than the Christian!
    • Biblical saving faith is trust in the finished and atoning work of Christ for us by
      knowing that it is true and appropriating it for ourselves.
      • See, for example, Romans 10:9.
11. The Reformation–Biblical Understanding of True Saving Faith
    • Saving faith is composed of three elements, which together constitute its essence. They are necessary in the sense that they comprise the very essence or nature of true biblical saving faith.
      • Thus, all three must be present in an individual or they do not–can not–possess saving faith.
    • Notitia: the Data, Evidence, or Knowledge
      • This is where one has knowledge or is cognizant of a given claim or event or other alleged fact.
      • In our case it is knowledge of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 10:14-17). It is “the actual content of the gospel and the promises of God.”
      • If a person is not familiar with the historical personage of Christ and His life, death, resurrection, and teachings, then not only do they not have knowledge of Him, but self-evidently can not consider, let alone believe or trust in Him for salvation (Rom. 10:14-17).
      • Simply stated, how can one believe in Christ unless they have heard of Him in the first place? At least a minimum of knowledge is required to believe in Christ.
      • As essential as notitia or knowledge is to saving faith, nevertheless, in and of itself, it is not saving faith (see Heb.4:2-4).
    • Assensus: to Intellectually Acknowledge as True the Claim(s) Statement(s) or
      Proposition(s) Put before You
      • It involves assenting to the veracity (truthfulness) of the knowledge or information in question as worthy of being received as fact.
      • In our case it is to intellectually assent to the events of Christ’s life as described in the New Testament as true, and hence His teaching’s as worthy of acceptance. One assents to the reality of the content (orthodoxy) of the Gospel message.
    • The Gospel message is true.
      • Assensus is the act of the intellect acknowledging the truth of the notitia,
        but, “apart from any personal trust or saving appropriation of that knowledge.”
    • Now, one has not only heard the Gospel message or is just acquainted with the
      information, but they grant that it is true.
    • However, as important as the above two are, indeed are necessary preconditions for true saving faith to exist, in and of themselves they are not sufficient.
    • Even assensus in conjunction with notitia is not sufficient for saving
      faith to be present. This type of belief is termed fides historica or (mere)
      historical faith, as opposed to fides salvifica (saving faith).
      • See, for example, James 2:19.
      • Assensus and notitia are necessary but not sufficient (pre-)conditions.
      • An example is having completed classes that one must take in order to earn a given degree–that are prerequisites, but not having completed all the classes that are necessary to obtain the degree. The former are necessary but not sufficient for the desired state to obtain–you receive the degree.
      • Thus, as essential as notitia and assensus are in order to possess saving
        faith, there is still an additional element that is required–fiducia.
    • Fiducia: to Appropriate what One Knows to be True for Themselves
      • Fiducia is the third and final necessary component of saving faith.
      • Fiducia is the Latin word for trust, “the essence of fides”
        (faith), “which appropriates savingly, by an act of the will, the true knowledge of the promises of God in Christ.”
      • Saving faith is not mere intellectual assent, but it requires it as a precondition or prerequisite.
      • Fiducia entails a self-surrender, commitment, and reliance upon what one knows to be true–here–the Gospel message. It pertains to the volition or will.
      • What is accomplished in this final element of faith is the moving of the individual’s will or volition, enabled by the Holy Spirit, to truly trust and thus to live in accord with what they know to be true. Fiducia primarily concerns the will or volition of an individual.
      • In saving faith the will is freed by the Holy Spirit to submit to what it is familiar with and knows to be true–the Gospel message–to commit oneself and trust in Christ as Lord and Savior.
      • Only the Holy Spirit can enable or move an individual to appropriate the gift of life through Christ by faith.
      • Fiducia is the (saving) appropriation of the knowledge or information–what one knows to be true. In the case of the Gospel it appropriating the saving work of Christ.
        The key idea is to appropriate, not merely “know.”
      • J.I. Packer grasps the essence of this point when he writes that faith is “an
        appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ….”
      • Hence, one lives their life as if they really believe that the Gospel message is true.
        • A bomb scare
        • The analogy of a curative medicine: seven (7) scenarios
      • The genuineness of someone’s faith is not predicated on how sincere they are or how much they believe something, but only on the content of what they believe. This alone decides whether their belief is orthodox (correct belief), or a false gospel.
      • Genuine saving faith entails orthodoxy.
      • Even the most sincere and/or tenacious, but nonetheless misplaced faith or trust only leads to ruin (Prov. 14:12).
        • Orange County investors
        • People who thought they could fly
        • Heaven’s Gate group
      • Thus, B.B. Warfield rightly remarks: It is, accordingly, solely from its object that faith derives its value. This object is uniformly the God of grace….Jesus Christ, God the Redeemer, is accordingly the one object of saving faith….The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests…It is not faith that saves, but faith in Jesus Christ…faith in any other saviour…brings not salvation but a curse. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of
        faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith….
      • Although fiducia is a volitional act, it can only occur (in saving faith), when
        conjoined with knowledge and assent to this knowledge as true.
      • Only with all three components (notitia, assensus, and fiducia)
        present, can biblical saving faith exist. Any other belief is a counterfeit and therefore is unbelief.
      • Thus, all three components (notitia, assensus, and fiducia) are
        necessary, and when found together are sufficient for saving faith to exist. But, if any one of the three is missing in an individual, then so is saving faith.
      • The essence of faith itself refutes the idea that faith is blind or can be possessed independent of knowledge acquired via evidence and reason.
      • Faith is founded on fact. Biblical saving faith is commitment to the truth–Jesus Christ, truth incarnate.
12. The Role of the Holy Spirit and Knowledge, Evidence, and Reason in Saving
    Faith and Biblical Apologetics
    • Do we merely “argue” or “reason” people into the kingdom of God? Is
      this just like the issue of whether one car is a better buy than another?
      • No! Only the Holy Spirit can enable a person to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We are clearly told in Scripture that one can only believe the Gospel message if and only God calls and enables them to believe through the work of Holy Spirit testifying to the truthfulness of the Gospel message.
      • See John 1:13; 6:44, 65; 16:8-11; Romans 9:16; Ephesians 2:8-10; 1 Corinthians 2:14 and so forth.
      • This is necessary due to man’s fallen and corrupt nature (1 Cor. 2:13-14; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph. 4:18).
      • The very ability to “hear,” consider, and respond to the Gospel is from first
        to last the gift of God (Rom. 1:17; Eph. 2:8-10). No one can believe or even begin “looking” for the gift of salvation through the Gospel, save by the gracious calling of God (Rom. 3:10-13).
      • However, the Holy Spirit does not do this independent of knowledge, evidence, and solid reason(s).
    • The role of the Holy Spirit, and knowledge, evidence, and reason are not opposed to each other.
      • The Holy Spirit uses the word of God and knowledge, evidence, and reason from it to draw or lead people to trust in Christ as Lord and Savior.
      • See Acts 17:22-31-34.
      • See 1 Peter 3:15.
      • God ordains both the means and the ends (analogously see, e.g., Acts 27:22-26 and 29-34).
    • It is not a case of either having evidence and being reasonable, or being
      “spiritual.”
      • They are not “at each other’s throats.”
      • They are not contradictory but complementary.
    • Thus, it is a false dichotomy to juxtapose knowledge, evidence and logic/rationality, versus the work of the Holy Spirit.
      • The past (Old) Princeton great J. Gresham Machen states: What the Spirit does in the new birth is not to make a man a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence.
      • Dr. Kim Riddlebarger rightly remarks: A man cannot acquiesce to the truth of the Gospel apart from the enabling of the Holy Spirit. But, a man cannot acquiesce to that which he either does not know or believe to be true. It is thus an illegitimate separation of faith into either a “mind or heart,” “faith or reason” dichotomy. Biblically understood, faith and reason are intimately, completely and inseparably involved in one another.
      • Thus, while it is true that no one using human reasoning, unassisted by the Holy Spirit, is going to reason their way into the kingdom, it is equally true that saving faith is not independent from evidence and reason either.
      • In the last analysis you can not divorce the mind from the work of the Holy
        Spirit in conversion.
      • The Holy Spirit enables one to properly attend to the clear evidence for the truth of Christianity (John 16:8-11).
    • Therefore, we are not usurping the role and work of the Holy Spirit by using knowledge, historical evidences, and logic/reason in apologetics.
      • In fact, we are being obedient to what He has called us to do when we do this.
      • See 1 Peter 3:15!
    • Again, you can not by using only “evidence or reason and argumentation,” that
      is, in and of themselves, lead a person into the kingdom, but neither can they believe unless they are given at least a minimal amount of information or answers.
      • See 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 and Ephesians 2:1-2.
      • See Romans 10:9-14-15.
      • Recall the above quotes (Machen and Riddlebarger).
    • Thus, the working of the Holy Spirit and His use knowledge, evidence, and reason are necessary preconditions for salvation.
      • See Romans 10:9-14-15.
      • B.B. Warfield, another great past theologian of Princeton, comments: Faith is the gift of God: but it does not in the least follow that the faith God gives is an irrational faith, that is, a faith without grounds in right reason….The Holy Spirit does not work a blind, an ungrounded faith in the heart….nor yet new grounds of belief in the object presented; but just a new ability of the heart to respond to the grounds of faith, sufficient in themselves, already present to the understanding.
      • Therefore, by the grace and working of the one true triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit we exhort Christians to be confident in the claims of Christ Jesus and “…in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:15).

 

 

 

 

]]> http://thecollegeoftheology.com/faith-reason/feed/ 0 http://thecollegeoftheology.com/a-philosophical-critique-of-reincarnation/ http://thecollegeoftheology.com/a-philosophical-critique-of-reincarnation/#comments Wed, 13 May 2009 07:52:26 +0000 admin http://thecollegeoftheology.com/?p=141 A Philosophical Critique of Reincarnation
and Related Worldview Correlatives

 
APOLOGETICS INFORMATION MINISTRY
Professor Craig S. Hawkins, President
P.O. Box 10375 Santa Ana, CA   92711-0375   www.apologeticsinfo.org  

 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.- Colossians 2:8 NIV

Introduction

The belief in reincarnation or transmigration, in one form or another, has been around for quite some time. Due to many factors, at least in the so-called Western world, these views appear to be gaining ground–a wider acceptance. Given the increasing popularity of reincarnation and/or transmigration among Westerners, I believe that there is an acute need for solid critiques of these perspectives. In particular, I think that this is an area where Christian apologists should exercise a concerted effort to accurately understand and then critique these views. Certainly this needs to be done (and has been done) from a biblical/theological perspective.⁽¹⁾ In addition to the biblical/theological critiques of reincarnation and transmigration, I strongly believe that there needs to be solid philosophical (e.g., ethical, metaphysical/ontological) evaluations as well.⁽²⁾

Reincarnation: The Answer or Part of the Problem?

Analysis

There are certain issues that will be addressed in this paper–are of a direct concern to this paper–and others that I will have to forego.

For example, there are various reasons for the popularity of reincarnation (and at that with reincarnation more so than transmigration) in the Western world. However, I do not have the space in this paper to explore in detail these factors. Besides, even if I could give an accurate account for the popularity of reincarnation in the West, this would not necessarily help us to critique it.

Moreover, as it should be inferred from some of my previous comments, this analysis will not include, per se, a biblical/theological critique. There are a number of reasons for this. First, this has already been done by a number of authors (see note 1). Second, while I believe that the Bible is the word of God and that God’s word never fails to accomplish God’s sovereign purposes (see e.g., Isa. 55:11), many do not accept what God has revealed to us and therefore has to say in the Bible. Third, among the multitude of reasons that could further be cited, since people are made in the imago Dei (see e.g., Gen. 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9) and in light of general revelation (see e.g., Ps. 19:1-4; Rom. 1:19-20), I believe that we can and should also appeal to philosophical principles and critiques that logically and ontologically follow from the nature of God, the God given constitution of humans, and the world that God has created, that are either explicitly or implicitly taught in Scripture–the Bible–and therefore logically and ontologically follow from God and what He has revealed to us in the Bible.

Nor does this analysis pretend to be an exhaustive treatment of the topics under discussion. For example, a multitude of philosophical critiques can and have been given against reincarnation and transmigration then space allows me to present here (see note 2). I will have to greatly limit the scope of concerns covered in this analysis: I will have to content myself with certain ethical (e.g., some of the reincarnation theodicies) and metaphysical/ontological critiques of reincarnation.

This paper will proceed in the following order: (1) I will briefly explain part of the context in which reincarnation or transmigration appeals to people and hence the need for our analysis, (2) present and define some of the key terminology or definitions and concepts relative to reincarnation, for example, briefly comparing and contrasting reincarnation with transmigration, and then (3) expound on three critical concepts that are generally tenets of the teaching of reincarnation. This will be done in order to set the stage for the primary purpose of this paper: (4) to present philosophical critiques, primarily ethical ones and concerns relative to the problem of evil, of both reincarnation and corollary views to it.

Thus, in this paper I want to examine some of the teachings and implications of various types of reincarnationists’ views, and the philosophical implications of the world view context in which these views are found (e.g., polytheism, pantheism, panentheism). Therefore, I will examine what reincarnationists explicitly espouse, as well as what logically and ontologically follows from their views.

Reincarnationists appeal to reincarnation and the law of karma to explain the existence of most if not all of the evil and suffering that occurs in the world. Reincarnation and karma supposedly supply the answers to the difficult dilemmas of the evil and suffering that we see. I believe that this is one of the reasons why reincarnation is so popular, and increasingly so in the West. I will present extensive quotations in this paper to allow reincarnationists to speak for themselves on these concerns.

Reincarnationists believe that reincarnation, in one form or another, helps to answer most if not all of the problem(s) of evil and suffering: “Why is there so much apparent inequality, injustice, evil, and suffering in the world?” “Why do seemingly good, nice, or innocent people suffer, while others seem to be getting away with just about everything?” “Why is it that the worse things in life (e.g., tragic deaths) seem to happen to good people?” Moreover, for some of these people, no matter what they do, it seems that they cannot improve their lot in life, while others who are unethical appear to only prosper. Reincarnation is proposed as the answer, the key to these concerns, particularly the seeming injustices, inequities, and innocent suffering, and allegedly makes everything all-right in the end. But, is this really the case; is it really true? I will argue that reincarnation does not answer these dilemmas, these questions, but ironically actually causes or makes more problems or moral dilemmas. It is rather ironic that reincarnation is touted as the answer to the injustices of life and the problem of evil and suffering, when the view itself creates these very problems in the first place. Reincarnation precipitates far more many problems than it allegedly solves.

Terminology

Before I proceed in my philosophical analysis of reincarnation it is necessary to first define some, of the many relevant ones, key terms and corresponding concepts that are germane to our discussion: reincarnation, transmigration, karma, and samsara. Along with the definitions of reincarnation and transmigration, I will briefly compare and contrast them.

The first term/concept that needs to be defined is reincarnation. The term comes from the Latin (incarne: “en-flesh”), in the context of our discussion the literal meaning being “re-embodiment.” It is the belief that people live multiple times; that is, their soul or essential immaterial nature, returns multiple times to live again (i.e., rebirth into another body or alleged body). This is always (as opposed to transmigration) in the form of a human being, with a higher or lower social-economic status, greater or lesser abilities or talents, and/or with greater or lesser spiritual and/or intellectual awareness. Reincarnation is understood to work or function in a number of ways.⁽³⁾ However, what these views all have in common is the idea of entering another body (or alleged body for some Hindus) for another physical life (or alleged physical life for some Hindus). Thus, if one continues to be reincarnated, it will be as a human. This is determined by the operation of (one’s) karma.

Transmigration, our second term/concept under discussion, is basically the same view as reincarnation, except with the belief that one does not always or necessarily come back as a human, but could return as a different life form, such as a bird, bat, bug, or cow, or in the form of a so-called (for some transmigration) inanimate object, such as part of a piece of chalk, rock, wall, etc. This is determined by the operation of (one’s) karma.

The next term that needs defining is samsara. Samsara is the wheel or cycle of (re)births through which one is successively incarnated in reincarnation and transmigration. Most reincarnationists, except many neopagans, and transmigrationists want to escape or get off the wheel or cycle of reincarnation or transmigration–samsara. Whether or not one continues on the wheel or cycle of rebirths is determined by the operation of (one’s) karma.

Karma is the last term/concept, for our purposes, that needs defining. Karma comes from Sanskrit and means among other things, action, cause, destiny, or fate. It is the universal (spiritual and impersonal) law of cause and effect that governs reincarnation and transmigration. That is, for every action, choice, or event that has moral implications or ramifications, there is or are corresponding consequences–positive or negative karma. It is generally believed to be a universal law from which there is no exception to or escaping from (e.g., forgiveness or mercy from). It is often said that it must be completely balanced or “paid-off” in this life or subsequent ones. One’s karma determines his or her status in possible succeeding reincarnations or transmigrations.

With the above terms sufficiently defined, I am now in a position to proceed to the next three critical concepts that are relevant to our discussion.

Three Critical Concepts

There are three key tenets that are generally found (as corollary views) with the teachings of reincarnation and/or transmigration. Actually, the first concept contains two key elements, but for the purposes of this paper, since they are so closely related, they will be treated as one. I am not saying that all three are always found together, though they often are, but that at least one is (to the best of my knowledge) always found, and that even if only one is found this tends to cause the view in question to commit the naturalistic fallacy (see below). These three key concepts include–in no particular logical or ontological order: (1) the belief that one or their immaterial essence never ultimately dies and will always be reincarnated or transmigrated into one form or another, and that whatever happens to an individual in this life–their form and/or status–is due to the accrual of negative or positive karma, (2) the belief that one chooses (conscious or unconscious, before or during this life) to experience everything–that they do or that happens to them–in this life, and (3) the belief in the necessity to eventually experience everything or every type of experience or event or occurrence for one’s alleged intellectual/spiritual development, progression, or evolution to/towards, among other things, acquiring, developing, or realizing deity–becoming or just realizing that one is allegedly divine.

The Nature of Humanity and Karma

The first idea is that one will never cease to exist–in one form or another–and that one’s karma determines their present (and future) circumstances. Thus, for example, the circumstances of one’s life are a result of one’s accrued negative karmic debt. Closely related to the latter part of this idea is that one’s karmic debt needs to be balanced-out or “paid-off;” thus, one’s life and the circumstances thereof are orchestrated by or are the result of one’s karma and/or need to balance-out any negative karmic debt–with one’s life being the result. Put crassly the reincarnationist or transmigrationist could say “I owe, I owe, It’s off the wheel of reincarnation I go.” Many examples could be cited to illustrate these ideas.

For instance, the Bhagavad-Gita contains a prime example of this teaching. In the Bhagavad-Gita (Sanskrit for “the song of God”), one of the Hindu writings (indeed purported to be the most popular of the Hindu religious literature),⁽⁴⁾ there is an alleged dialogue between Arjuna, a warrior who is lamenting having to go into battle and kill many individuals, including some of his kinsmen, and Krishna. We read among other things the following comments and/or counsel from Krishna to Arjuna (I will quote at length so that the correct context of this passage can be seen so that, among other points, I cannot fairly be accused of misquoting or quoting it out of context.):

Your words are wise, Arjuna, but your sorrow is for nothing. The truly wise mourn neither for the living nor the dead.

There was never a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor any of these kings. Nor is there any future in which we shall cease to be.

Just as the dweller in this body passes through childhood, youth and old age, so at death he merely passes into another kind of body. The wise are not deceived by that….

That which is non-existent can never come into being, and that which is can never cease to be. Those who have known the inmost Reality know also the nature of is and is not.

That Reality which pervades the universe is indestructible. No one has power to change the Changeless.

Bodies are said to die, but That which possesses the body is eternal. It cannot be limited, or destroyed. Therefore you must fight….⁽⁵⁾

But if you should suppose this Atman [the soul, or according to the Bhagavad-Gita, the "Godhead that is within every being"⁽⁶⁾] to be subject to constant birth and death, even then you ought not to be sorry.

Death is certain for the born. Rebirth is certain for the dead. You should not grieve for what is unavoidable….

Before birth, beings are not manifest to our human senses. In the interim between birth and death, they are manifest. At death they return to the unmanifest again. What is there in all this to grieve over?….

He Who dwells within all living bodies remains for ever indestructible. Therefore, you should never mourn for any one.

…[Y]ou ought not to hesitate; for, to a warrior, there is nothing nobler than a righteous war. Happy are the warriors to whom a battle such as this comes: it opens a door to heaven….

Die, and you win heaven. Conquer, and you enjoy the earth. Stand up now, Son of Kunti, and resolve to fight. Realize that pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat, are all one and the same: then go into battle. Do this and you cannot commit any sin.⁽⁷⁾

In other words, once Arjuna understands the supposed nature of reality, including transmigration, then he should realize that he can kill–at least in this case–with impunity. Not only is he not guilty of any “sin,” nor of ultimately killing anyone, but his actions are actually virtuous since he is helping others with their karma. To demonstrate that this is not just my “spin” or trying to give the text the worst possible interpretation, or that I am not taking it out of context or misinterpreting it, note the understanding/interpretations of the previously cited text by the following Hindu/New Age leaders.

Vivekananda states, “The murderer too is God.”⁽⁸⁾

Rajneesh exclaims in expounding on the Bhagavad-Gita (including the section cited above): “Even if you kill someone consciously, while fully conscious it is meditative. That is what Krishna was saying to Arjuna…Kill, murder, fully conscious, knowing fully that no one is murdered and no one is killed….Just become the instrument of Divine hands and know well that no one is killed, no one can be killed.”⁽⁹⁾

Rajneesh also states, that you are ignorant of your alleged deity: “This is the sin–not that you have murdered somebody or stolen; that is nothing. Those are minor sins.”⁽¹⁰⁾

In his commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of Transcendental Meditation, writes regarding Arjuna, that he should attain “a state of consciousness which will justify any action of his and will allow him even to kill in love in support of the purpose of evolution.”⁽¹¹⁾

From a related idea we read in the Kaushitaki Upanishad (3:1,2): “The man who know me as I am loses nothing whatever he does. Even if he kills his mother or father, even if he steals or procures an abortion, whatever evil he does, he does not blanch if he knows me as I am.”⁽¹²⁾

The second part of our first concept can also be easily seen in the writings of reincarnationists. Note the following examples.

John-Roger, the leader of the Movement for Spiritual Inner Awareness (MSIA) and self-appointed and would-be messiah is a contemporary example of this mentality:

Let’s look at the Vietnamese people for the last 3,000 years of their existence. As a collective group, they may have gotten exactly what they created for themselves, and they may have balanced all of their karma. Now, is it bad for them to be karmically free of all that? Is that wrong? Perhaps that particular freedom didn’t come about in a really popular way, in terms of what we all might have wanted it to be, but it came about in a way that was entirely perfect. There was no overkill; there was no underkill. The Americans that went over there and were caught up in it were part of the Vietnamese process thousands of years ago, and even though they were born in America [in] this life, they were pulled back there to complete their karma, also. And those who went through the war unharmed were not part of the process and came home safely. So how can that action be judged as “wrong”?⁽¹³⁾

Likewise Sybil Leek demonstrates the same idea. In her book, Reincarnation: The Second Chance, Leek tells us:

As difficult as it may be to understand tragedy, mental deficiency or imbalance seems all but impossible to comprehend. Why should a person, any person, lose his mind or part or it? Why should any child be born retarded and remain retarded throughout his life? Mental imbalance varies from imbecility to raving lunacy; heredity, environment, events all play their part–but why? The reincarnationist may well theorize as to the karmic significance of insanity, whether it be of the mild or the exaggerated sort.

It is possible that, in a former life, the insane of today occupied positions of authority from which they delighted in dictating to the minds of others. Even if they were not in positions of authority, they may have used a powerful personality in such a manner as to make weaker natures vulnerable to them. Whatever the circumstances, those people who cruelly dominate others bring about a particularly unfortunate type of victim–a person who, literally, cannot call his soul his own.

This is a situation that karma can readily solve. Those who rob others of the right to use their own minds may in time become the mindless ones themselves–to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the nature of their offense. What purpose could educational karma have in robbing a person of his mentality, other than to blast the spirit into a realization of the inquity [sic] of arrogantly dominating the mentality of others [emphasis in original]?⁽¹⁴⁾

Thus, Leek postulates that the mentally handicapped might well be simply suffering from their own karma.

I trust that the above references adequately demonstrate the first key concept of the supposed nature of humanity and the law of karma and its results.

Choice

The second critical concept that I want to survey, which stems from the first, is the view that whatever happens to one in life is simply the result of the individual’s choice (made conscious or unconscious, and made before or during this lifetime). One reason for this is that the reincarnationist might well want to work-off as much negative karma, and as quickly at that, as they possibly can in one lifetime–a veritable crash course of negative karma reduction. There are many instances of this type of thinking in reincarnationist’s literature.

For instance, when Shirley MacLaine’s daughter’s acting teacher was burned beyond recognition in a head-on collision, Shirley MacLaine questioned: “Why did she choose to die that way?”⁽¹⁵⁾

The neopagan Ceisiwr Serith writes: “There are two theories of how the circumstances of rebirth are determined. One is that the soul itself decides, based on what it feels it most needs to continue its advancement towards godhood.”⁽¹⁶⁾

In addressing the old assertions that we did not ask to be born or choose our parents, Susan Roberts records in her book, Witches, U.S.A.:

But, you see, you did, according to witchcraft beliefs. And you even chose the circumstances of your birth in order to gain a particular life experience which will speed your progression to an ever-ascending higher plane as one life succeeds another. Therefore, your life is your responsibility alone. If your mother was a fool and your father a brute, that’s their misfortune, not yours.

Nor does it matter how brutal or hopeless such circumstances may seem. If they are physically or emotionally insurmountable, then you are merely discharging a debt which you incurred through misusing some of the assets you enjoyed in a previous life.⁽¹⁷⁾

As bizarre as some of the previous ideas are in explaining why many people experience difficulties and tragedies, some reincarnationists hold views even more outlandish.

For example, Marion Weinstein takes the idea of choosing the circumstances of one’s life (e.g., tragedies) one step further, that is, to the time and manner of one’s death. Weinstein writes, “Within the karmic frame of reference, there are no accidents or coincidences. Nobody does anything to us unless we let them (or invite them). People do not wander into our lives at random. We draw them to us, invite them into our lives.”⁽¹⁸⁾ She also states, “Some events may appear to be accidents, but on closer investigation we can see that we provided the atmosphere for their occurrence. We either created each event, or drew it to us, or participated in it. Coincidences are never arbitrary happenings.”⁽¹⁹⁾ Thus, are we to infer that no matter what happens to us (e.g., devastating diseases, injuries, rape, torture), it is our karma, or we choose, consciously or unconsciously, to have it happen? Weinstein does not leave us guessing. She asserts:

…many other deaths do not seem to be choices: accidents, illnesses, murder, the deaths of young people. So many deaths seem arbitrary and beyond human control. But in the occult view these deaths were not arbitrary [sic] nor beyond the control of the people involved. The death-choices were subconscious choices, but choices just the same for any of a myriad of reasons.⁽²⁰⁾

These are wild claims! But she’s not done yet! Just when one thinks they have heard it all, Weinstein claims:

On the individual level, it may also seem impossible to understand the workings of karma in severe personal tragedy. How does karmic law explain such painful experiences as the loss of a loved one, serious illness, poverty, or any other occurrence which seems to be far from one’s personal choice?

I can only say, although it may sound simplistic in the abstract, that many painful experiences are based on someone else’s personal karmic choice; if such an experience seems painful for you, you may be viewing the other person’s karmic choice with a limiting perception.⁽²¹⁾

Really? So if I cringe at the thought of people being born with birth defects, being badly burned or burned to death, going blind, becoming crippled or deaf, being maimed or otherwise mutilated, dying, and so forth, this is just due to my limited perception?

What It All Means

Synthesizing the teachings of all the previous quotes in this section, we conclude that one is responsible for all circumstances that they find themselves in–including the disastrous ones.⁽²²⁾ All (minimally many) situations one finds themselves in are the result of reincarnation or transmigration and karma (the consequences of previous actions and choices) and/or one’s own conscious or unconscious choices. In the latter case, we allegedly choose each life and everything–all circumstances in that life–including tragedies. Thus, so we are told, we are responsible for our own choices (e.g., being bludgeoned or burned to death, mugged, murdered, suffering crippling injuries from a car wreck, raped, tortured, and so forth.⁽²³⁾

The Necessity to Experience Everything

The third critical concept that I want to briefly discuss is the idea that it is necessary for the reincarnationist to experience everything. That is, many reincarnationists believe that they need to experience, every (or close to it) type of experience possible. There are many reasons held among reincarnationists for this belief. For example, (1) either one has some negative karma in the concern under question and must pay it off, and/or (2) the individual wants to actualize or realize their alleged divine potential and/or potential deity, and/or (3) the person believes that they are divine, but must or at least it would be good for them, to have as many different types of experiences as possible to learn from and draw upon them so as to grow in their knowledge and maturity and/or as deity. (I can still remember the first time that someone–a fellow undergraduate philosophy major–told me that they believed this and wondered why I didn’t want to have every type of conceivable experience.) For these reasons and others, many reincarnationists want to have as many experiences as possible.

For example, the witch Raymond Buckland asserts, “…for its own evolution, it is necessary that the soul experience all things in life. It seems the most sensible, most logical, explanation of much that is found in life…Why should one be born crippled, another fit and strong?…if not because we must all eventually experience all things” (ellipsis in original).⁽²⁴⁾

Sybil Leek offers similar reasons for the existence and necessity of evil in the world.⁽²⁵⁾ For instance, in relating a dialogue regarding reincarnation and the notion that witches long for “numerous experiences,” Leek writes:

…my moderator friend asked me if I felt I had to experience being a murderer. I certainly do not in this life, because I know I have evolved beyond the idea of taking life; the total concept of witchcraft as a nature religion revolves around the aspect of love and the Life Force. How, then, can we want to experience this at this state of our spiritual evolution? Probably in one of my past lives, I too was a murderer; if this is so, then I also accept that in another incarnation I could have been a victim. If we accept logic, we must accept it on all issues.⁽²⁶⁾

Leek is saying in the context of the above passage that she did not at this point in her “spiritual evolution” need to experience being a murderer or other “negative experiences.”⁽²⁷⁾ However, if we follow logic, as Leek recommends we do, if she is to experience all things in her spiritual evolution, at one time she was a murderer. Also, according to her understanding, she already has been murdered in a previous life, or will be in a future life. For Leek this is true for all people.

Quoting from Raymond Buckland again, we see him stating a similar position:

Why should one be born crippled, another fit and strong? … [ellipsis in original] if not because we must all eventually experience all things…In the Witchcraft belief, then, one lifetime’s experiences are not dependent on the previous one’s. For example, if you suffer physical abuse in this life, it does not necessarily mean that you were an abuser in your previous life. It is possible you were, yes. But it is just as possible that you were not but are going to be in the next life. In other words, it is a case of experiencing all things–being both the abuser and the abusee, but one is not necessarily dependent on the other. Several lifetimes could even take place between the one experience and its apparent correlative [emphasis in original].⁽²⁸⁾

Notice that one must “eventually experience all things.” While Buckland, unlike Leek and some other reincarnationists, may not hold that everyone must experience everything (although this is debatable), he does hold that if something happens to a person, they already have, or will do the very same thing or at least something negatively comparable to it. Thus, the latter occurrence is appropriate recompense for the individuals action(s).

Reincarnation, Transmigration, Evil, and the Naturalistic Fallacy⁽²⁹⁾

At this point we need to reflect on and analyze the above concepts relative to reincarnation and transmigration. We basically been told that whatever happens to one in life is the best or morally correct course of events for them. No matter what happens to one it is just, and best for them because:

1. it stems from the nature of reality and one’s karma from action(s) from a previous life or lives, or the present or a future one(s); and/or

2. it is due to one’s own choice (consciously or unconsciously in this life or before it began); and/or

3. it is necessary (or at least desirable) in order for one to experience everything (including the negative or bad: what we call evil).

Given these views, how can reincarnationists conclude that anything tragic that happens to themselves or others is really evil or unjust? There are numerous examples that convey this mentality of reincarnationists.

For example, in Reincarnation: The Second Chance, Leek states: “Whatever the effects of karma, the reincarnationist knows that it works always for his own good. This may be hard to appreciate when we are suffering or see others suffer, but karma is never likely to crush us.”⁽³⁰⁾ In another comment Leek says, “An Eastern mystic once told me that whatever happened to him at any given time was the best possible thing that could happen to him, because it was for his ultimate good [emphasis in original]. I was too young at the time to accept this with understanding, but I never forgot it.”⁽³¹⁾

Another clear example of this occurs when, referring to the dark and light aspects of life and the supposed need to balance both in one’s life, Weinstein writes:

We may judge not only ourselves as “bad” (if we perceive error or negative behavior) but also judge Dark or negative aspects anywhere in life, as “bad” (i.e., death is bad, illness is bad, weakness is bad, old age is bad, anger, anxiety, worry, fear, insecurity, mistakes — all these and many other common occurrences may seem “bad”). But this is like saying the moon is bad when it wanes to crescent form, or that the sun is bad on a cloudy day. There is no judgment on the Dark. It exists in potential, in every life form, and without the Dark there could be no Light [emphasis in original].⁽³²⁾

In light of the quotations cited, here and in previous sections, it appears that no matter what happens to one, it ought to occur.

The Naturalistic Fallacy

The above explanations and views create more problems than they solve! Among these problems is the naturalistic fallacy (discussed below). Let’s examine some of the most problematic ramifications of the preceding views.

First, for example, if a women gets raped (or any other tragedy occurs to someone) in this life, does that means she raped someone in a previous (or will in a future) life, or committed (or will commit) some other equally despicable act to bring about her own rape? Therefore, she is only getting what she has sown (deserves?), thus, reaping her own karma? Hence, why should we feel sorry for her or attempt to intervene? (Furthermore, how can we punish the rapist if he is only fulfilling the law of karma, and actually helping the women?) These are detestable views, which I am not condoning, only extrapolating a point, but ones which nonetheless follow from the aforesaid ideas. Moreover, if these ideas were true, one could rightly ask if anything is unjust, wrong, or evil? But, this flies in the face of our intuition, our innate sense of sympathy, right and wrong, good and evil, and fairness.

Second, for instance, if one must experience all in life, this would include being abused, tortured, and so forth.⁽³³⁾ As ghastly as these thoughts are, this is what follows from the aforementioned concepts and ideas.

Third, in light of Leeks comments that “Whatever the effects of karma, the reincarnationist knows that it works always for his own good,” and her wholesale approval of the Eastern mystic’s remarks that “…whatever happened to him at any given time was the best possible thing that could happen to him, because it was for his ultimate good,” why would or how could one fight against their life circumstances? One should simply resign themselves to their life’s circumstances, no matter how brutal, deplorable or oppressive.

With the factors of the nature of reality, humanity, reincarnation, transmigration, and karma, and consciously or unconsciously choosing all the circumstances of one’s life, and the desire and/or need to experience all, it would appear that one ought to resolve to just accept whatever happens to them in life as the just or right, in fact, the best set of circumstances that could possibly occur to or for them. No matter what transpires–disease, hunger, lose of limbs or life, murder, poverty, rape, slavery, torture, and so forth, just accept it. It’s your life. After all, allegedly, “it’s for your own good,” your spiritual progress.

However, these ideas chaff against our intuition, our innate sense of fairness. Why should we accept these views? For instance, do we really choose our parents and all the circumstances of our lives? For women who are raped, is it their choice or karma, therefore, their responsibility or fault? Do reincarnationists or transmigrationists really believe this, or expect us to? How do they rationalize these views except by saying “whatever is, ought to be”?

It logically and ontologically follows from the previously discussed views that whatever is, ought (morally) to be. This is known in ethics as the naturalistic or is/ought fallacy, as it confuses “the way things are,” with how they morally should or ought to be.⁽³⁴⁾ In other words, one assumes that whatever is the case (descriptively speaking), morally (prescriptively or proscriptively speaking) ought to be the case or exist. (Instances of this fallacy in reincarnation literature are quite common.⁽³⁵⁾) Hence, what about the child born with crippling birth defects who dies an agonizing death within two years? Or what about women who are brutally raped, or people who or tortured or murdered? Should we respond, “Oh well, whatever is, ought to be” and thus just accept it as the way things are and ought to be? (After all it was the person’s karma, or their choice, or it is necessary to experience all things sooner or later.) No, I submit that even reincarnationists and transmigrationists do not, could not live consistently by this philosophy.

For example, imagine that Shirley MacLaine’s house in broken into and that many of her valuable possessions are destroyed or stolen, and she and her household are badly beaten-up and abused. Suppose further that just after her assailants are done and getting ready to leave, Shirley MacLlaine musters what little strength she has and says “Thank you, thank you so much. I really mean it. Oh, and don’t worry about me calling the police and trying to see you punished, you have done me a great favor. Now, actually, I owe you a great favor; you have helped me work-off a great among of negative karma, and of course, after all I did choose to have this happen, and besides, I needed to experience this, sooner or later, so thank you. Have a nice day!” Why not? After all they only helped her work-off negative karma, and she choose to undergo the experience, and needs it for her own spiritual evolution. Thus, the experience is only for her own good! Don’t hold your breath. Intuitively, we know that such a crime (and it is just that–a crime) or occurrence is wrong, and the perpetrators ought to be held responsible for their actions!

Furthermore, people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Se Tung, those who caused/committed the massacres of civilians in the Vietnam war, and others could really be heros.

Whether reincarnationists or transmigrationists like it or not, their worldview(s) logically and ontologically morally justifies any condition or conduct. These views justify any action, any action is right. For example, the torturing, maiming, or whatever, of reincarnationists or transmigrationists is not only okay, but even right, even good: one is just ultimately helping the person. These ideas add new meaning to the saying that “This hurts me more than you!” because whatever happens morally ought to happen; indeed, it is the best for one. By definition, whatever occurs is good.

Loss of Moral Moorings

Given the views of reincarnationists and transmigrationists, how would or could one know–in any objective and non-arbitrary sense whether a decision or what one was doing was right or wrong, good or bad, and hence (or minimally speaking) accruing negative or positive karma by “helping” one’s self or others with theirs? How could one know when they were harming or helping themselves or others? This would be quite arbitrary to say the least.

Additionally, there are other related problems. First, for instance, under these schemes of thinking where does or did the idea of right and wrong come from in the first place? Second, how can or could one distinguish between merely descriptive accounts of an action and proscriptive ones? Would there really be any difference between the two? What real difference or even meaning would or could either of these concepts, such as good or evil, have? Third, even if one could somehow derive such concepts in light of such thinking, again, how could/would one decide consistently and not merely arbitrarily what was good and what was evil or how to or to not accrue so-called negative or positive karma?

I believe that the aforementioned views result in an inability to morally distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong. With such a naturalistic approach one can only describe the way things are (e.g., the drink is hot or cold). One cannot make a moral evaluation. In other words, one can make merely descriptive evaluations, describe the way things are, but not prescriptive or proscriptive ones. How can one call any action morally wrong, including harming reincarnations or transmigrationists? It cannot be done, that is, at least not consistently with the above views. (No one can live consistently with this philosophy.) But reincarnations and transmigrationists often do say some actions are wrong! Or are they simply saying that they do not prefer certain actions? Hardly! Intuitively, they/we know certain things are wrong, such as abusing children, stealing from people, torturing reincarnationists and transmigrationists, and so forth. Reincarnationists do not say these things are merely not preferred, unpleasant, or inconvenient; they often insist that they are wrong! If they are consistent, they cannot call anything evil in the sense that it is wrong or is a “moral” judgment; it is merely descriptive, not proscriptive. Thus, reincarnationists must find a basis consistent with their views for making ethical evaluations.

Reincarnationists cannot, or at least certainly do not, live consistently with their avowed views. They must find some other basis for making ethical evaluations, or simply say “I do not like or prefer this or feel that it is right (such as, depriving reincarnationists of their rights), but not that it is morally wrong. It is just a case of feelings or taste–”some like this, some don’t.” It is mere preference. These statements are based upon feelings, personal preference or opinion, such as “I like corn but not spinach.” Thus, reincarnationists have no bedrock basis for saying that any act is morally evil.

We still have every reason to ask how reincarnationists answer the above dilemmas and the problem of the existence of evil. These are perplexing problems for reincarnationists and transmigrationists given their views. Merely dismissing them will not solve it, nor make it magically disappear.

Further Philosophical Difficulties

Furthermore, there are other significant philosophical (e.g., metaphysical/ontological) critiques that need to be considered relative to reincarnation and transmigration (e.g., relative to the worldviews in which these views generally occur, i.e., polytheism, pantheism, and panentheism). For instance, the worldviews in which most reincarnationists’ and transmigrationist’s views are found do not allow for an ethically justifiable or adequate answer to the problems posed in this paper. That is, the views of reincarnationists and of transmigrationists are not consistent with, nor do they logically or ontologically follow from the worldviews most commonly held by reincarnationists: polytheism, pantheism and panentheism.⁽³⁶⁾

For example, in a pantheistic or panentheistic universe, reincarnationists (all of us for that matter) must realize that, ontologically, evil emanates or flows naturally and necessarily from the very nature of the deity or the One.⁽³⁷⁾ Creation flows from the will or very nature of the deity. Creation and the existence of evil are synonymous and simultaneous.⁽³⁸⁾ This entails that death, destruction, evil, suffering, and so forth are part of the divinity’s or ultimate Beings very essence or nature. Good and evil are both aspects or facets of the One. All is contained in, arises out of, or is a manifestation of the absolute universal Reality or divinity or principle–the One. Evil is ultimately and necessarily part of the One which is all. Therefore, in one sense or another, the divinity (or whatever term is used) is responsible for all the pain, suffering, and evil that has, does, or ever will exist.

In a pantheistic or panentheistic world good and evil are so to speak just different sides of the same coin. Moreover, since the divinity manifests itself in polarities or dualities, such as light-dark, positive-negative, or good-evil, evil is a necessary part of the universe. Thus, who or what brought evil into existence? Evil must ultimately derive from the divinity that many reincarnationists and transmigrationists say they worship.⁽³⁹⁾

Eternal Evil

Whether in a polytheistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic universe, we can have no assurance that the deity(ies) or divinity can or wants to defeat evil. Nor can we be sure that this is even an appropriate question, since in the latter two worlds evil is always part of the deity’s or One’s very nature. Likewise, many if not all reincarnationists who are simple polytheist (i.e., not pantheist or panentheist as well) also view the gods and goddesses as possessing evil in their nature. Therefore, evil will no more cease to exist than these entities or the deity itself. In other words, evil is eternal. It will always be with us–always exist!⁽⁴⁰⁾ Evil is eternal because (1) it is either an aspect of the very nature of the divinity which creates and composes all (pantheism, panentheism), or (2) these deities also contain evil in their nature, and/or (3) are too limited or inept to permanently accomplish the task (polytheism). Only an infinite (e.g., omniscient, omnipotent) and benevolent personal God could and will banish evil from the universe.⁽⁴¹⁾

Given the nature of reality in a pantheistic or panentheistic universe, theoretically speaking, even if evil were to be eradicated or silenced for a period of time, it would only inevitability return again with a shrill scream.

In summation, there are only so many options regarding the future of evil given the reincarnationists’ worldviews: 1) The gods and goddesses cannot and/or will not bring an end to evil (polytheism). 2) The gods and goddesses or divinity cannot and will not stop evil because evil is part of their or its very nature, therefore, also the part of the very fabric from which the universe it cut (pantheism, panentheism). Hence, since evil is part of the very nature of the deity it is also inherent to creation. Therefore, evil is eternal.

Thus, reincarnationists and transmigrationists have no justified hope or expectation that evil in its multitude of manifestations will ever be banished. They have no grounds to believe that the divinity can or ever will put an end to the misery and suffering that pervasively invades our world, nor that they could ever ultimately escaped from samsara.

Evil: No Exit

The problem of evil is an acute dilemma, indeed, an Achilles’ heel for reincarnationists and transmigrationists given their worldviews. There is no way for them to get around it.

Nor will it do for them to say that the divine is “beyond good and evil,” or neither “good nor evil.” Nonsense. These types of statements have no ultimate meaning or significance. More deplorable yet, this statement can result in diabolical consequences. For instance, imagine burning a reincarnationist’s house to the ground. If they said that what was done was wrong (evil even?), one could reply that like the deity these concepts did not apply to them because they were beyond right or wrong, good or evil. Rightly, we do not believe the that the reincarnationist would accept their reply. But, once again the glaring inconsistency between avowed view and practice. The only thing that is beyond anything here is that it is beyond my understanding how reincarnationists can actually make these nonsensical statements. The deity is not beyond evil, it is evil!

Conclusion

Ironically, in light of the claims of reincarnationists and transmigrationists, neither reincarnation nor transmigration are ethically viable answers to the problems of inequality, injustice, suffering and evil. Indeed, I believe that it has been sufficiently shown in this paper, as brief as it is relative to the breadth of the topic, that both of these views not only do not adequately answer the concerns addressed in this paper, but that both are the source of much inequality, injustice, suffering and evil themselves.

Endnotes

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Adler, Margot. Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today. Rev. and exp. ed. Boston: Beacon Press, 1979, 1986.

Adler, Mortimer J. Truth in Religion: The Plurality of Religions and the Unity of Truth. New York: Macmillan, 1990.

Albrecht, Mark C. Reincarnation: A Christian Critique of a New Age Doctrine. Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1982, 1987.

Angeles, Peter A. Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981.

Ankerberg, John and John Weldon. Cult Watch: What You Need to Know about Spiritual Deception. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1991.

_____. Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1996.

Barnett, Paul. Is the New Testament Reliable?: A Look at the Historical Evidence. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, Press, 1986.

Beckwith, Francis J., and Stephen E. Parrish. See the Gods Fall: Four Rival Views to Christianity. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997.

Bonewits, Philip Emmons Isaac. Real Magic. Rev. ed. York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 1989.

Bowman. Robert M. “Reincarnation–Did the Church Suppress It?” In the Christian Research Journal. Vol. 10, no. 1 (summer 1987): 8-12.

Bruce, F.F. Jesus & Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Buckland, Raymond. Buckland’s Complete Book of Witchcraft. St. Paul: Llewellyn Publications, 1988.

Cabot, Laurie and Tom Cowan. Power of the Witch. New York: Dell Publishing, 1989.

Carnell, Edward John. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Clifton, Chas S., ed. Witchcraft Today, Book One: The Modern Craft Movement. St. Paul: Llewellyn Publications, 1992.

Copi, Irving. Introduction to Logic. 7th ed. New York: Macmillan, 1986.

Corduan, Winfried. Reasonable Faith: Basic Christian Apologetics. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1993.

Crowther, Arnold and Patricia Crowther. The Secrets of Ancient Witchcraft with the Witches Tarot. Secaucus, N.J.: University Books, 1974.

Edwards, Paul. “The Case Against Reincarnation: Part 1.” Free Inquiry 6 (fall 1986): 24-34.

_____. “The Case Against Reincarnation: Part 2.” Free Inquiry 7 (winter 1986/87): 38-43.

_____, ed. in chief. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Macmillan and The Free Press, 1967.

Eliade, Mircea. Occultism, Witchcraft and Cultural Fashions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.

Ellwood, Robert. Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

Farrar, Janet and Stewart. A Witches Bible Compleat. New York: Magickal Childe Publishing, 1984.

Farrar, Stewart. What Witches Do: The Modern Coven Revealed. London: Sphere Books Limited, 1973.

Finegan, Jack. Myth and Mystery: An Introduction to the Pagan Religions of the Biblical World. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.

Flew, Antony, editorial consultant. A Dictionary of Philosophy. Rev. 2d ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984.

Geisler, Norman L. Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976.

Geisler, Norman L., and J. Yutaka Amano. The Reincarnation Sensation. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1986.

Geisler, Norman L., and David K. Clark. Apologetics in the New Age. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.

Geisler, Norman L., and Winfried Corduan. Philosophy of Religion. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.

Geisler, Norman L., and William Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and exp. ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Geisler, Norman L., and William D. Watkins. Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.

Guiley, Rosemary Ellen. The Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft. New York: Facts on File, 1989.

Hackett, Stuart C. Oriental Philosophy: A Westerner’s Guide to Eastern Thought. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979.

Hawkins, Craig S. Witchcraft: Exploring the World of Wicca. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

_____. Goddess Worship, Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism. Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1998.

Hick, John H. Death and Eternal Life. New York: Harper and Row, 1976.

_____. Evil and the God of Love. Rev. ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1978.

Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1997.

Jones, Prudence and Caitlin Matthews, eds. Voices from the Circle: The Heritage of Western Paganism. Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England: The Aquarian Press, 1990.

Jong, Erica. Witches. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1981.

Kelly, Aidan. Crafting the Art of Magic, Book I: A History of Modern Witchcraft, 1939-1964. St. Paul: Llewellyn Publications, 1991.

Leek, Sybil. The Complete Art of Witchcraft. New York: Signet Books, 1971.

_____. Diary of a Witch. New York: Signet Books, 1969.

_____. Reincarnation: The Second Chance. New York: Bantam Books, 1975.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity.. New York: Macmillan, 1975.

_____. The Screwtape Letters. New York: Macmillan, 1975.

_____. Surprised by Joy. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich, 1984.

Lewis, C.S. Walter Hooper, ed. “Myth Became Fact.” In God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. 63-67.

Luhrmann, T.M. Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft: Ritual Magic in Contemporary England. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Machen, J. Gresham. The Origin of Paul’s Religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1925, 1978.

Martin Walter R. The Riddle of Reincarnation. Santa Ana, CA: Vision House, 1977.

MacLaine, Shirley. It’s All in the Playing. New York: Bantam Books, 1987.

_____. Out on a Limb. New York: Bantam Books, 1983.

Martello, Leo. Witchcraft: The Old Religion. Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1973.

Martin, Michael. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

Melton, J. Gordon. Biographical Dictionary of American Cult and Sect Leaders. New York: Garland Publishing, 1986.

_____. The Encyclopedia of American Religions. 3d ed. Detroit: Gale Research, 1989.

_____. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. New York: Garland, 1986.

_____. Magic, Witchcraft, and Paganism in America: A Bibliography. New York: Garland, 1982.

Melton, J. Gordon, gen. ed. Aidan Kelly ed. Cults and New Religions: Neo-Pagan Witchcraft I. New York: Garland, 1990.

Michalos, Alex. Improving Your Reasoning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

Miller, David L. The New Polytheism: Rebirth of the Gods and Goddesses. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1974.

Nash, Ronald H. The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow From Pagan Thought? Richardson, TX: Probe Books, 1992.

_____. Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Netland, Harold A. Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Prabhavananda, and Christopher Isherwood, trans. Bhagavad-Gita: The Song of God. New York: Mentor Books, 1944, 1951.

Rhodes, Ron. New Age Movement. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Roberts, Susan. Witches, U.S.A. New York: Dell, 1971.

Russell, Jeffrey B. A History of Witchcraft: Sorcerers, Heretics and Pagans. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1982.

Serith, Ceisiwr. The Pagan Family: Handing the Old Ways Down. St. Paul: Llewellyn, 1994.

Shepard, Leslie, ed. Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. 2d ed. 3 vols. Detroit: Gale Research Co., 1984.

Starhawk [Miriam Simos]. Dreaming the Dark: Magic, Sex and Politics. New ed. Boston: Beacon Press, 1988.

_____. The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Great Goddess. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979.

_____. Truth or Dare: Encounters with Power, Authority, and Magic. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987.

Truzzi, Marcello. “Towards a Sociology of the Occult: Notes on Modern Witchcraft.” In Religious Movements in Contemporary America. Eds. Irving Zaretsky and Mark Leone. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974, 628-645.

Valiente, Doreen. An ABC of Witchcraft: Past and Present. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973.

_____. Natural Magic. Reprint. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975. Custer, Wash.: Phoenix Publishing, 1991.

_____. Witchcraft for Tomorrow. London, England: Robert Hale, 1978. Reprint. Custer, Wash.: Phoenix Publishing, 1987.

Weinstein, Marion. Positive Magic: Occult Self-Help. Rev. ed. Custer, Wash.: Phoenix Publishing, 1981.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

  

  

 

  

 

  

 

 

  

  

  

 

    

 

19. Ibid., 99.

20. Ibid., 103.

21. Ibid., 110.

22. This paragraph was adapted from a draft copy of a paragraph that appears on page 171 of my book, Witchcraft.

23. See, e.g., Raymond Buckland, Buckland’s Complete Book of Witchcraft (St. Paul: Llewellyn Publications, 1988), 17-18; Leek, Complete, 146-147; Leek, Reincarnation, 45-50; Roberts, Witches, 147-149; Marion Weinstein, Positive Magic: Occult Self-Help (Custer, Wash.: Phoenix Publishing, 1981), 98-114.

24. Buckland, Complete Book of Witchcraft, 17.

25. See, e.g., Leek, Complete, 146-147; Leek, Reincarnation, 46-50.

26. Complete, 147.

27. This paragraph is adapted from page 169 of my book Witchcraft.

28. Buckland, Complete Book of Witchcraft, 17, 18.

29. The following two sections are adapted from my book Witchcraft, 171-74.

30. Leek, Reincarnation, 45.

31. Ibid., 50.

32. Weinstein, Positive Magic, 250.

33. See e.g., Buckland, Complete Book of Witchcraft, 17-18; Laurie Cabot and Tom Cowan, Power of the Witch (New York: Dell, 1989), 202, 221, 280-82; Leek, Complete, 32, 47, 146-47; Leek, Reincarnation, 41, 45-50; Roberts, Witches, 147-50; Starhawk (Miriam Simos), Dreaming the Dark: Magic, Sex and Politics, new ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988), 27-30, 99; and Weinstein, Positive Magic, 98-114 and 249-250, for the horrific results of this type of belief. For further critiques of reincarnation, consult Albrecht, Reincarnation, 51-111, 127-130; Geisler and Amano, The Reincarnation Sensation, 57-86, 99-102, 107-109, 112.

34. See, e.g., Peter A. Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1981), s.v., “naturalistic fallacy (ethics)”; Alex C. Michalos, Improving Your Reasoning (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970), s.v., “Is-ought.”

35. See, e.g., note 31.

36. Space does not permit a thorough discussion of these points. However, they are discussed at length by Geisler and Watkins in Worlds Apart, 75-146, 239-53, 250-52, 255-69; and Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 173-213.

37. For sound and more through critiques of pantheism see Beckwith and Parrish, See the Gods Fall, 208-16; Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 185-192; Norman Geisler and David K. Clark, Apologetics in the New Age: A Christian Critique of Pantheism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 155-158, 159-202, 203-221; Worlds Apart, 101-105. For solid and lengthier critiques of panentheism see Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 208-213; Worlds Apart, 140-145.

38. Albrecht, 106-109.

39. See Jeffrey B. Russell, A History of Witchcraft: Sorcerers, Heretics and Pagans (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1982), 33, 160.

40. See Albrecht 106-109.

41. For a full discussion of this issue, see Norman Geisler, The Roots of Evil (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979); Norman L. Geisler and Winfried Corduan, Philosophy of Religion (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), Part Four (”God and Evil”), 293-385. The reader can also consult these works for handling the problem of evil in the context of an orthodox Christian perspective. We would argue that only the personal infinite triune God who has revealed Himself in the Bible wants to, can, and will banish evil from the universe!

 

 THE ESSENTIALS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

1. Prologue: Why is this issue important?
   1. Because God Says So!
   2. 1 Timothy 4:11, 13, 15-16!
   3. Also see Deuteronomy 6:1-9; 8:3; 11:18-21!
   4. “Do I have to believe?” Do I have to believe in the right–as Opposed to the
      wrong or false–Jesus or Gospel? Does it really matter?
      1. Yes! See, for example, Matthew 7:21-23; John 8:24.
      2. You believe in Jesus? “No Creed but Christ!” Which One (see, e.g., 2 Cor.
         11:3-4)?
      1. Just want to “love Jesus”?
         1. Which One?
   5. How can you if you don’t really know or even care who He is or what others think or say
      about Him?
      1. Example: Your Spouse, Boyfriend or Girlfriend….
      2. Would it matter? You bet!
   6. It is a false dilemma
      1. pitting a person vs. truths about them or in this instance doctrines. It is not
         either/or….
   7. You believe in the Gospel? Which One (see, e.g., Gal 1:6-9)?
   8. “Creed” is from the Latin verb credo: “I believe.” Thus,
      “no creed but Christ” is itself a creed!
   9. Sound doctrine is essential (1 Tim 4:11, 13, 16; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:1-2; 4:1-5; Titus 1:9;
      2:1)! It is not optional (unless you want to directly disobey God?)!
2. The Foundation
   1. We need a standard!
      1. 1 Corinthians 3:9-17; Ephesians 2:19-22; 2 Timothy 3:16-4:5; Jude 3!
      2. We must have a standard, a measuring device, a rule or canon to measure and judge.
      3. For Example
         1. to Build a Building.
         2. To build on shaky ground is foolish (Matthew 7:26).
         3. One needs a standard or measuring method; otherwise, one will make a mess. It is the
            same with Christianity!
   2. The Standard is Scripture–The Canon (Rule)!
      1. See Matthew 5:17-18; 1Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Timothy 4:6, 11, 13, 15-16; 2
         Timothy 2:1-2!
3. The Gospel
   1. The Euangelion
      1. It is the good news, the Gospel (Evangel), the message of salvation, eternal
         life, and all that it entails.
      2. John 3:16
   2. Levels of Doctrines
      1. There are at least two (Essentials and nonessentials: see 1 Cor. 15:3)
      2. –we believe four–levels of, or priority levels of doctrine within the Gospel (Christianity):
         Essentials, Cardinals, Tertiaries, and Peripherals.
   3. Five (Minimally) Essential Doctrines
      1. There are at least five Essential doctrines of the Gospel. To be an
         Essential doctrine or teaching, it must be explicitly (clearly) taught in a verse or
         passage of Scripture–and stated as such–and/or be entailed or inferred directly
         from a verse, verses, passage, or passages of Scripture alone. They are not simply
         the opinion or view of a given Christian denomination, pastor, teacher, theologian, etc.
      2. All five must be held or believed in order to be a Christian. Some include the Virgin
         Birth, and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as Essentials as well. While we certainly
         believe in the Virgin Birth and  Christ’s Second Coming–they are both clearly taught
         in Scripture– we are not convinced from Scripture, the Bible God’s Word, alone that
         they are Essential doctrines. By “Essential” doctrines we mean that if a person
         denies one or more of them he or she is not saved (born-again).
      3. Essential doctrines are such that if one or more of them is not believed, then a person
         is not–cannot be–a Christian (i.e., born-again, go to heaven, or be saved)! The question
         to keep in mind is whether one can deny the teachings in question and still be saved?
      4. Nonessential doctrines (e.g., Cardinals, Tertiaries) are such, that while they are (or
         may be) clearly taught in Scripture, and should be believed by those who want to be
         faithful to Scripture, and there are serious consequences–in this life and the
         next–for not believing, teaching, and living our lives in light of these doctrines (see,
         e.g., Matt. 5:19), nonetheless, people who deny or are confused on them can be born-again,
         a Christian, go to heaven, saved…. They are saved despite their being confused or
         outright denial of these doctrines.
   4. Warning!Please do not misunderstand! While people who are confused on or deny nonessential
      doctrines can be saved, they themselves and those influenced by them (e.g., their
      families, friends, congregations, those they teach, and so forth) will suffer the effects
      or reap the onsequences, in this life and the next, for their false teachings.  
      Moreover, and most importantly, it is our view that they will have to give an account of
      their incorrect (false) teaching(s) to the LORD, and will suffer the loss of eternal
      rewards (see, e.g., Matt. 5:19; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; James 3:1)! No one dare add, change,
      distort, ignore, subtract, tamper, twist, or otherwise pervert God’s holy word! To do so
      is to one’s own peril (Deut. 4:2; 8:3; Prov. 30:5-6; Matt. 5:17-19; 2 Pet. 3:16; Rev.
      22:18-19)!
   5. Essential Doctrines:
      1. Salvation by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone
      2. Christ’s Vicarious Atonement (The Penal Substitutionary View)
      3. The Bodily Resurrection of Christ Jesus from the Dead
      4. The Unique Deity (and Humanity) of Jesus ChristChrist is fully divine and fully human. He has two complete natures.
      5. The TrinityWithin the nature of the one eternal God there are three persons (Gk. prosopon, L. persona):
         the Father, the Son, and the HolySpirit. They are coequal and coeternal. Moreover, they
         are of thesame substance or essence (i.e., their nature being divine), and share the same
         glory.
   6. Cardinal Doctrines (Examples of):
      1. The Inerrancy of Scripture
      2. The Second Coming of Christ
      3. The Virgin Birth of Christ
      4. The Church
      5. Sin
      6. The Material World
   7. Tertiaries–Third Level–Doctrines (Examples of):
      1. Church Government
      2. Eschatology
      3. Hell
   8. Peripheral Doctrines (Examples of)
      1. Pastoral Robes
      2. Sports Program
      3. Choirs
4. The Essentials of the Gospel
   1. Salvation by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone
      1. John 6:28-29; Romans 1:17; 3:27-28; 4:1-6-12, 16, 23-25 [cf. Rom. 2:28-29; Gal.
         3:15-16]; 5:1-11; 6:23; 9:30-32; 11:6; Galatians 2:15-16, 21; 3:6-12; 23-29; 5:4;
         Ephesians 2:4-5, 8-10; 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 3:5; James 2:10-11; 1 John 3:23
      2. 1. Counter: James 2:14-22
      3. Counter-Counter: James 2:23 (Context!). James 2:21, 23–Genesis 15:6–22:1-19 (Some
         Thirty Years Later)–Romans 4:3; Rom. 4:1-11, 16, 23-25; Gal. 2:15-16, 3:6-12; 5:4
      4. Genesis 15:6 (in the LXX); Romans 4:3-11, 23-24; Galatians 3:6:
      5. The Greek verb logizomai, means to account, credit, reckon, impute.
      6. John Owens: “True Vs. False Faith”
      7. Martin Luther: “Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone.”
         Separate grace and works as far as heaven is from hell until one can distinguish the
         difference. Remember Ephesians 2:8-9-10!
      8. Grace/faith produces good works. But good works are not the cause or condition(s) of
         salvation, but the consequence(s).
      9. The Three Uses of The Law:
         1. Civil
         2. Pedagogical: Romans 3:19-20; 5:20; 7:7, 13; Galatians 3:19-25
         3. Sanctification: (Luther/Calvin)
         4. The Three Functions of the Law:
            1. Civil
            2. Ceremonial
            3. Moral
   2. The Vicarious Atonement (The Penal Substitutionary View)
      1. John 1:29, 36; 3:16; Acts 2:38; 16:31; Romans 3:22-26; 4:24-25; 2 Corinthians
         5:21; 1 Timothy 4:10; Hebrews 9:26-28; 10:10, 12, 14; 1 John 2:2; 4:10
      2. Justification, Justified (Past Tense): External, Alien, Forensic, Declaratory, Given to
         You, Imputed
      3. vb. dikaioo; n., dikaiosis; adj., dikaios; adv., dikaios
      4. You are declared righteous by the Supreme Court of the universe: the Father, Son, and
         Holy Spirit
      5. We are not only declared not guilty, not just merely innocent, but  righteous!
      6. Positionally, God views us as if we had completely or perfectly obeyed Him–as Jesus
         did!
      7. Romans 5:1-2,*9,*11, 16, 18; Titus 3:7*: Aorist* (Past Tense) Passive Participle
      8. Luther: The Great Exchange (Phil. 3:9)!
   3. The Bodily Resurrection
      1. Luke 24:37-39; John 2:19-21; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 12-19, 32; Philippians
         3:20-21; 1 John 4:2 (Perfect Participle); 2 John 7
      2. (Present Participle) Romans 10:9
   4. The Deity of Christ
      1. John 1:1; 5:18; 23; 8:24 (cf. Ex. 3:14); 8:58; 20:28; Romans 9:5-6; 10:9
         “Jesus is LORD (Gk. kyrios)”; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 2:9; Titus
         2:13; 2 Peter 2:1-2
      2. Note: 1 John 2:21-23; 4:15; 5:10-12
      3. Note: 2 Corinthians 11:3-4
      4. Point: one must believe in the right Jesus!
         1. See Matthew 7:21-23; John 8:24; Galatians 1:7-9; 1 John 2:21-23; 4:15; 5:1, 5, 9-13; 2
            John 9
   5. The Trinity
      1. Isaiah 48:16-17; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14
      2. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all called God: the Father  (Eph. 1:3); the
         Son (John 20:28); the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4)
      3. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4; Mk. 12:29-30).
      4. Therefore, the three: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one true God.
      5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (1 Th. 1:10; John 2:19-21;
         Rom. 8:11; 1 Pet. 3:18).
      6. God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24, 32; 4:10; 17:30-31).
         1. Therefore, the three are the one God.
      7. While the Holy Spirit glorifies the Father and the Son, and bears witness to the Son’s
         claims, the Holy Spirit is nonetheless not confused about their, nor his own identity!
      8. It brings no glory or honor to God (the Father and the Son) if the Holy Spirit messes up
         their identity.
         1. For example, what if you or someone else misrepresents or misconceives the
            identity of your family members? Would that be honoring to them? No!
      9. The Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17; 1 John 4:6).
      10. The Holy Spirit is the believer’s teacher of truth (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-15; 1 John
          2:20, 26-27).
      11. The Holy Spirit indwells believers (Rom. 5:5; 8:9, 14-16; 1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 1:13-14; 1
          John 4:13).
      12. The Holy Spirit guides believers (all people for that matter) into truth–only
          truth–never falsehood (see 5).
      13. How can a genuine believer, who is indwelled by the Holy Spirit, cling to false
          doctrine? It is an oxymoron.
          1. This is like those that say they are Christians, but live in sin
          2. (Titus 1:16; 1 John 3:6-10).
          3. This is like those who claim to be Christians and claim they have not sinned or never
             sin now (1 John 1:8, 10).
          4. This is like the person who claims to be saved but does not obey Jesus (1 John 2:3-6).
          5. This is like the person who claims to be saved but hates people (1 John 2:9-11; 3:11;
             14-15; 4:20-21).
          6. This is like it being light and dark, or wet and dry, etc., in the  same sense, at
             the same time, and at the same place.
          7. Impossible! These situations do not exist.
      14. So it is with those who claim to be saved yet deny the deity of the Father, the Son, or
          the Holy Spirit!
5. The Gospel
   1. Implications
      1. If anyone denies one or more of the previous five truths, we are talking about
         who is not a Christian (or born-again or saved).
      2. These truths are the Essentials–the heart and soul (essence) of the Gospel itself!
      3. Augustine’s Maximum: “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things
         charity.”
   2. The Gospel entails right belief–orthodoxy–or content.
      1. See J.I. Packer’s article, “Faith,” in Elwell’s  Evangelical
         Dictionary of Theology.
      2. There are people who are sincere, but sincerely wrong (Prov. 14:12).
      3. For Example, the Illustration of Taking Medicine to Save One’s Life
      4. That Is Not in Fact Helpful
      5. Even though the person sincerely believed…they died!
   3. Confusion Versus Straight-Out-Denial or Denunciation
      1. A Sincere Believer Versus a William Branham
      2. The Theology 101 test at the Pearly Gates Story
      3. Quality Vs. Quantity: a Five Year Old Vs. a Ninety-Five Year Old Spiritual
         “Einstein”
      4. It is nonetheless the same Faith.
      5. Parent Illustration: Your Child’s Knowledge of You Vs. Your spouse, Peers, Employee(s),
         Employer, Etc.
6. Heresy, Heretic, Heretical
   1. Heresy (Gk. Hairesis)
      1. Hairesis is a choice or opinion contrary to and in spite of the truth,
         which leads to false teaching(s), divisions, ruin.
      2. Heretic, Heretical (Gk. Hairetikos)
      3. Hairetikos: a heretic, heretical. There are two types:
      4. One type of heretic is a person who denies one or more of the Essentials. This type is a
         non-Christian (see, e.g., 2 Pet 2:1).
      5. The second type is a person who confuses and/or denies one or more Cardinal and/or
         Tertiary doctrines.
      6. This type is heterodox (as opposed to orthodox), but still a Christian (see, e.g., Gal.
         5:20).
   2. Either Way or Type of Heresy or Heretic
      1. The biblical counsel is the same: Romans 16:17; 1 Timothy 1:3-4, 7; Titus 1:10;
         3:10.
7. Know What You Believe and Why!
   1. The Stakes
      1. The stakes are this life and eternity for you and everyone else:
         1. everyone you have known, know, or will know, have seen, see, or will  see
            (1 Tim. 3:16)!
      2. John 10:10 or…?
      3. Do you care? Think/pray about it (James 2:22-25)! Timothy 4:16; 2 Peter 3:18; Jude 3!

Copyright ©1999 Craig S. Hawkins. All Rights Reserved.

  

• Wright, J. Stafford. Interpreting the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977. 34 page booklet.

• Stott, John R. Culture and the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979. 48 page booklet.

• Sproul, R.C. Knowing Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979. 125 pages.

• Carson, D.A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Co., 1984. 153 pages.

• Kuhatschek, Jack. Taking the Guesswork Out of Applying the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990. 163 pages.

• Sire, James W. Scripture Twisting. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980. 180 pages.

• Carson, D.A. and John D. Woodbridge, ed. Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. 468 pages.

• Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. “Legitimate Hermeneutics.” Norman Geisler, ed. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979. 32 page essay. 516 page book.

• Osborne, Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992. 499 pages.

• Terry, Milton S. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d. 782 pages.

Revision Date: 05/30/00
Copyright ©2000 Craig S. Hawkins. All Rights Reserved.

* McRay, John. Archaeology & the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991.

* Thompson, J.A. The Bible and Archaeology. Rev. 3d ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.
o Luke, the Historian. Melbourne: The Australian Institute of Archaeology, 1954.

* Wilson, Clifford A. Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977.

* Yamauchi, Edwin. The Stones and the Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

THE HISTORICITY OF CHRIST:

* Bruce, F.F. Jesus & Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974.

* Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

* McDowell, Josh, and Bill Wilson. He Walked Among Us. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, 1988.

THE HISTORICITY OF THE BIBLE

* Archer, Gleason. Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1974.

* Barnett, Paul. Is the Testament Reliable? A Look at the Historical Evidence. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

* Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987.

* Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: are They Reliable?. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.

* Geisler, Norman, and William Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and exp. ed. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1986.

* Harrison, Roland Kenneth. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969.

* McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Arrowhead Springs, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972.

* Montgomery, John. History and Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1965.
o Where is History Going? Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1972.

* Sherwin-White, A.N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978.

Revision Date: 8/27/97

* Arndt, William. Eds. Robert Hoerber and Walter R. Roehrs. Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions. Rev. ed. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1987.

* Brauch, Manfred T. Hard Sayings of Paul. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

* Bruce, F.F. The Hard Sayings of Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983.

* Cheney, Johnston M. The Life of Christ in Stereo: The Four Gospels Speak in Harmony. Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1969.

* Geisler, Norman and Thomas Howe. When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992.

* Haley, John W. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977.

* Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

* Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. Hard Sayings of the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

* More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

* Newsome, James D. Jr. A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1986.

* Richards, Larry. Bible Difficulties Solved. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1993.

* Robertson, A.T. Bible Difficulties Solved A Harmony of the Gospels. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1922.

* Stein, Robert H. Difficult Passages in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990.

* Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Number of the Hebrew Kings. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983.