An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 11 – Unbeliever’s suppression of the truth.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 11 – Unbeliever’s suppression of the truth.

By C.L. Bolt

It follows from what has been said especially in the last part of this introduction concerning Romans 1 that something rather strange is going on with those who in some form or fashion deny the existence of God. First, those who deny the existence of God in any way do so even though they know God to the extent that they have no excuse for doing so. Given that if God exists, He is known by everyone, then anyone who rejects that he or she knows God must take a “hard” atheistic stance against God. That is, there is no such thing as being agnostic with respect to the God described in Scripture. An agnostic in this respect is someone who says that God is unknowable, or God at any rate is not known by the individual in question. According to the Bible, God is known and there is no excuse for denying His existence. Someone who denies any of this must at the initial point of his or her thought completely reject that such a God does exist, since if such a God does exist then He is not only knowable but known. This is what is meant by the need to take a hard atheistic stance toward God if one does not accept His existence. Second, it is not merely the agnostic or the atheist who must deny the existence of God in this manner, but anyone of any religious persuasion who may accept the existence of other deities such as some general concept of a higher power or a group of attributes offered as a concept of god for the sake of philosophical discourse or Allah or any number of other gods. These people also know that God exists, the Christian God, the God of Scripture who makes Himself plainly known through His creation to His creatures. They are, again, without excuse. Third, this is not to say that there actually are people who wholeheartedly reject the existence of God in a hard atheistic stance toward Him. They must do so to be philosophically consistent, and they carry the burden of proof because of this as well, but the passage makes it clear that even the most consistent atheist knows that God exists.

The proper response to knowing God is to honor Him as God and to give thanks to Him. None of the aforementioned groups of people do so. In this they sin, and in sinning they set themselves in opposition to God. The passage goes on to explain that even though people know God, they do not honor Him as God nor do they give thanks to Him. Instead, their thinking becomes futile, which is to say it is vain thinking and worthless. Their hearts are called foolish, for it is the fool who knows God and nevertheless says to himself that there is no God. Again this description refers to more than just the atheist. It refers to the non-Christian theist of any sort just as much as it does the atheist. The foolish hearts of these people are darkened in addition to their thinking becoming futile. Rather than admitting these things to be the case, they actually proclaim themselves to be wise! Instead, they have become fools in the biblical sense of that term. It is certainly not a good thing to be called a fool even in the biblical sense, but the term carries a much fuller meaning than the use of the word as an insult in our modern context. The fool is described a great deal throughout the book of Proverbs.

Rather than worshipping God, the non-Christian worships images that resemble humans and animals. Empirical confirmation of this phenomenon is easy to find. The glory of the immortal God is exchanged for images resembling men, birds, animals, and other creatures. The truth about God, which they know, is exchanged for a lie. Instead of worshipping and serving their Creator, they worship and serve the creature, whether it be the self or another. God reveals His wrath even against this ungodliness and unrighteousness. People know God and yet suppress the truth. Even though they know the truth they hold it down in their unrighteousness, and this is a wicked response to their Creator. Note well that this describes the believer as well except for the grace of God.

If we are to be consistent Christians we simply must accept the testimony of God concerning these matters over against those of the non-Christian. It disturbs some that we should say so much about the inner workings of another individual’s mind. This is especially true in the case of those who so adamantly deny that they know God. Yet our all-knowing Creator God is in a better position to know us than we ourselves are in, and we trust the Word of God over the words of any man. To spell things out philosophically, the non-Christian believes that God exists, and at another level of thought looks back upon that belief and convinces himself that he does not believe that God exists. A belief about his belief in God is formed. The unbeliever brings himself to believe that he does not believe in God, even though he does truly believe in God. He is self-deceived. Sin is the motivating factor in the creation of the second belief about the belief in God. It is this false second belief that comes out as a denial of the existence of God. The belief in God at a deeper level is the true belief. So then we have a philosophical account of the constitution of the unbeliever’s thought in suppressing the truth through unrighteousness. Everyone knows God, however everyone does not know God in a saving way. People actively suppress their knowledge of God, and this often comes out in the form of the sort of objections we hear to the Christian faith. We must then strive to show that the unbeliever does know God, and that were it not for this he could not even open his mouth in order to raise his objections. In this we will effectively shut the mouth of the unbeliever and demonstrate that his objections are without merit. The unbeliever has no excuse, no defense, no apologetic. The primary problem of the unbeliever is not intellectual, and it is not even primarily moral, but at the root is spiritual, and the three go togethe

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 10 – Unbeliever’s knowledge of God.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 10 – Unbeliever’s knowledge of God.

By C.L. Bolt

The God of the Bible is knowable. Throughout all of Scripture God never presumes Himself to be unknown or unknowable but rather known. The Bible contains no proofs in the strictest sense for the existence of God. The Bible starts out with a declaration that God exists and assumes His existence throughout. The Bible teaches throughout that people can and do know God. The Bible never offers anything like the traditional proofs considered earlier in this introduction. God is assumed at the beginning of the Bible and makes Himself known throughout the remainder of its pages. There is a strong inductive case that can be made here for the knowability of God and the actual knowledge of God by His creatures. There are also arguments deduced directly from particular passages of Scripture to this effect. The glory of God is revealed in everything, and humans are created in His image. To even observe creation around us shows us that God exists, as does knowing oneself since it is in Him that we live and move and have our being. We are, again, created in the image of God.

A popular passage that teaches that we all know God is found in Romans 1. Here it is made plain that God actively reveals Himself from heaven through His wrath toward all of the ungodliness and unrighteousness people are engaged in. The passage emphasizes that God is known. What can be known about God is not just known to everyone, but is actually plain to everyone, and the reason for this is that God has shown it to them. A being as powerful as God is certainly capable of showing Himself to exist, especially to His creation.

Though God is invisible, His attributes including His eternal power and His divine nature – summing up all that God is – have been revealed by God to His creatures. God is perceived through the things that He has made. The perception is even said to be clear. He is the Creator, and His stamp is upon His creation, including those of us created in His image.

The invisible attributes, eternal power, and divine nature are particular to the Christian God. There is no identity crisis on God’s part with respect to how He reveals Himself, and there is no incompetency either. God makes His existence, not the existence of some other God, plain to His creatures. This much is entailed even by the Bible’s use of “God”. The Bible is speaking of YHWH, not some general theistic or deistic entity. There is no other entity in view.

It has been this way since the world was created. It is in the things that have been created that God is clearly perceived. This perception is, again, so clear, that people have no excuse. Not only do all of us believe in God, but we know God. This knowing God is not to be mistaken for a salvific knowledge; it does not follow from the truth that everyone knows God that everyone knows God in a saving way, and in fact everyone does not. A saving knowledge of God comes only through the Gospel and not through creation alone, and not everyone has the Gospel.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 7 – Moral and intellectual objections of the unbeliever.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 7 – Moral and intellectual objections of the unbeliever.

By C.L. Bolt

Objections to the evidence and traditional proofs for the existence of God or truth of Christianity or whatever other Christian tenet is in question are rejected or at any rate called into question by the unbeliever because of their fatalities and weaknesses in terms of the arguments themselves. Some are rejected simply due to persuasion; they are not persuasive to unbelievers. There is, after all, a difference between proof and persuasion. One can offer a perfectly sound proof and yet still have people who are not persuaded by it. The unbeliever has generally valid complaints with respect to the proof aspect of traditional arguments, and has generally valid objections to the way that evidence is presented most of the time. Additionally, many of the proofs or evidences are simply rejected because they fail to persuade the unbeliever.

We have seen, however, that both the effectiveness of the evidence or arguments and their persuasiveness rely upon having a proper understanding of them in terms of the Christian worldview. It is only through presupposing the Christian worldview or through offering such proofs and evidences within the context of the Christian worldview already rejected by the unbeliever that the proofs and evidences make sense and work. By work here I do not mean anything like “convert” or even “persuade,” but work argumentatively, although the former senses are certainly often tied the latter.

The unbeliever will not, however, presuppose the Christian worldview in order to accept it. The unbeliever’s point is to press home the fact that the Christian is stuck. Setting aside whether or not Christianity is either true or justified, or even assuming that it is true or justified, the unbeliever explains that she does not know how to get over to the Christian worldview. The route home is certainly not by way of the proofs or evidences offered, which proofs and evidences make sense and work only within the context of the Christian worldview, which worldview is the point of contention. The unbeliever may have some valid complaints and critiques here taken in terms of the arguments and evidences offered especially depending upon the objective manner in which they are offered.

A reason that the unbeliever ultimately refuses to accept these arguments and evidences is that she has a set of faulty presuppositions, presuppositions which skew the unbelieving understanding of the evidence as it truly is. These faulty presuppositions are both intellectual and moral in nature. In truth, the intellectual and the moral are never really separated one from the other. Everything intellectual is moral. Not only is the unbeliever really and truly opposed to Christianity in an intellectual sense, but in a moral sense as well. Rather than starting from where God would have someone to start, the unbeliever chooses to start from where he or she wants to start. The revelation of God is rejected as such and an alternative scheme is attempted through which the evidence and arguments discussed above will be interpreted. In this sense the unbeliever is stuck; enslaved to his or her faulty and immoral presuppositions. The unbeliever, in setting herself up as judge over God, has turned herself against God and will not receive anything as being of God. This plays a strong role in the discussion of the presuppositional nature of the disagreement over evidence. The unbeliever is willingly enslaved to sinful presuppositions. It is worth noting here that the believer sometimes behaves in a similar fashion. The believer who hears the Word and does not do it is self-deceived. Further, repentance and faith are necessary for the change in presuppositions and both are gifts granted by God. Thus the believer has no reason to look down upon the unbeliever in any meritorious sense by virtue of his posture.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 6 – Arguments that Christianity is true refuted.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 6 – Arguments that Christianity is true refuted.

By C.L. Bolt

Believers often take traditional proofs for the existence of God and other evidences as proving much more than they were intended or take them to function apologetically when the proofs may have never been originally intended to function that way. We believe in any given Christian tenet because that is what the Word of God says, and not upon the basis of any piece of reasoning or natural theology alone. Natural theology here just means some piece of reasoning or argument that is based off of observations of the world around us or some other a priori thought. Not only do these proofs not work when divorced from their Christian context, but unbelievers generally find them to be wholly unpersuasive in addition to being problematic in terms of argumentation.

So for example, it is doubtful that a person can provide much by way of support for the premise that everything which begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. Here we have a universal statement that cannot be proven by appeal to any inductive generalizations. Appeals to intuition are problematic since this is a rational argument allegedly providing rational argumentation for accepting this principle. One might just as easily say that intuition is often wrong. Perhaps it is generally the case that everything which begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being, but that such a generalization does not allow exceptions is dubitable and definitionally false. Here one might appeal to particular events in quantum mechanics as well. Many can and have doubted this premise as being true, but that is really beside the point in view here. What is important is whether or not the person offering the argument can provide what is necessary to support the premise, and the ways that have been proposed for doing so fail to establish the universal principle that everything which begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. One might want to say that perhaps everything does have a cause for coming into being with the exception of the universe. There also appears to be a problem moving from the particular parts of the universe as it were to the whole of the universe needing a cause.

Next, many simply assert that the universe did not ever begin to exist. The mathematics used to attempt to establish the impossibility of transversing an infinite series or the impossibility of actual infinites are rather shaky and have been rejected even by many Christian apologists. While there is some intuitive appeal to the argument that an infinite number of moments could not have preceded the one we are experiencing now else we would not be experiencing this moment now, some have questioned where the argument actually is in this assertion. Scientific claims such as those regarding the Big Bang are not only not that well established, but are extremely difficult or impossible to square with biblical data. They are certainly inconsistent with the so-called “young-earth” creationist view.

Even assuming that the proof does work, there are many other steps that must be followed to attempt to demonstrate some things descriptively about the entity in question; this cause. Not only does the manner in which the proof operates shift at this point, but the arguments are extremely weak at best. There does not appear to be any reason to think that the cause, whatever it was, did not just cause the universe to come about and then cease to exist itself. Or, perhaps there are two causes. Appeals to Ockham’s Razor or parsimony are out of place here, as one might simply doubt the principles or even the basis upon which they should be believed. The cause is also taken to be outside of the realm of science where these principles are most if not exclusively at home. Again it is more than that the unbeliever remains unpersuaded; it is that the proof itself has nothing within itself to deal with these objections. It fails in terms of argument.

The only reason we assume that design requires a designer is that we have seen instances of design in our experience coupled with designers. But who has ever experienced the universe being designed? Not only are there problems with analogy as a form of argument in general and not only are there disanalogous elements in even the best argument from analogy, but there is no reason to think that any analogy should here be employed anyway. There are other problems besides these.

It is difficult to see what one might mean by a perfect being or, in the end, how such a perfect being would square with the Christian God. A perfect being that we conceive of is not likely to be the sort which is revealed to us from some other source such as that perfect being itself, and those of other religious persuasions might simply insert their concept of a perfect being, like Allah, into the argument. Some have questioned just what is so special about denying the existence and concept of this perfect being in question anyway. Some have questioned whether existence is something to be predicated of a concept as one of its attributes. The point here is that there are numerous philosophical problems that have been raised with respect to these proofs, and most likely there will continue to be such worries for them even by virtue of the way they work off of similar themes.

Theological problems with these proofs lurk as well including the implicit acceptance of rules of inference, empirical data, etc. being accepted as more sure than the existence of God to begin with. There are likewise the noetic effects of sin upon the unbeliever to whom the proofs come to, as well as their potential inability to grasp or understand the proofs. The conclusions of such arguments are often admittedly merely probable conclusions such that the non-existence of God becomes a real probability, no matter how small. The unbeliever then always has an excuse to not accept the existence of God. There are further problems with the incomprehensibility of God being reduced to the level of understanding through such rational proofs. Finding some argumentative bridges by which to connect the different arguments that are used inductively or cumulatively is impossible without appeal to a worldview structure that is presupposed and brought to bear upon the unbeliever. For example, proving the resurrection of Jesus is often cited as the route to show that the general god that exists per the traditional proofs is the Christian God, but there is no reason to accept the resurrection without proving the existence of God, and even if the existence of God could be proven in this manner, there is no real reason to suppose that this resurrection does have anything to do with say, a perfect being or a final cause or an infant deity designer. Most Christians, in fact, would not even say that they believe upon the basis of such arguments. They believe, instead, simply because they cannot imagine not believing, or some similar claim.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 5 – Arguments that Christianity is true.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 5 – Arguments that Christianity is true.

By C.L. Bolt

There are many arguments that Christian tenets are true. For example, we believe that everything that begins to exist has a reason for its coming into being. Intuitively we believe that something cannot come from nothing, and so everything that comes about must have a cause for its coming into being. If there were no conditions to be met through a cause before something could start existing, then it seems that things would pop into being right away and saturate the entire universe with entities of all shapes and sizes. We are impressed by performing arts magicians because they seem to make things come into existence all by themselves and seemingly without cause or at least without their usual causes. We would not be so mystified if it was part of our normal everyday experience to see things popping into being uncaused. The Bible even gives us an indication that things begin to exist because they are caused, as this is God’s world and is an orderly place that He wants us to know in order to come to know Him better.

The Bible also teaches that the universe began to exist. It seems strange to think of a universe that has existed an infinitely long time, since we might wonder how, if there were an infinite number of points in time prior to this point in time, we ever reached this point of time. How long would it take you to count to infinity? Could you do so before tomorrow? Of course not. How long would it take the universe to count to infinity? Could it do so before to tomorrow? So one wonders how we reached this point in time if an infinite number of such points in time came before now. Scientists also tell us that the universe is expanding. Eventually the gravity between entities will weaken so much that orbits will deteriorate and entities will begin moving at higher speeds. Eventually the universe will expand outward so quickly that it reaches a heat death. At least, this is what scientists, theorizing, tell us may happen. But, if there was an infinite amount of time before now in which this heat death could have happened, then it would have already. Yet it has not happened, and so the universe must have had a beginning. Of course, much of this is speculation, and probably not very good argument, but we know that insofar as these things are true and are based upon good argumentation, they support what the Bible teaches, for the Bible teaches that the universe began to exist.

Now if everything which begins to come into being has a cause for its coming into being, and the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause! We know from the Bible that this cause is God. God is the Creator. God created the universe, and He did so at a finite point in the past. The universe has not always existed; it was created by all-powerful God out of nothing. In the case of this particular argument then, we not only have the Bible to tell us the truth about the universe being caused by God, but we have an argument that confirms our belief.

The same is true about design. When we look out around us in the world we see amazing examples of design in our world. The universe is so finely tuned that it permits life, like us, to not only exist, but flourish! The human body is fearfully and wonderfully made, as medical doctors are finding more and more to be the case all the time. There are numerous other instances of incredible design in the natural world; instances of design that indicate someone designed them. There are parts that tiny living things use to propel themselves that look like what humans have built to propel boats. There are parts in creatures like eyes which are completely useless if they are not formed in one fell swoop much like a mousetrap is useless if all of its parts are not together at the same time. However, when there is design that means that there must be a designer, and again we know from the Bible that God not only created the world but designed what He created. So we know that the designer of the world is God, and we can know Him through the evidence of the argument from design in nature.

Even thinking of God leads us to believe that God exists. If God is the most perfect being as it appears that the Bible indicates, then there is nothing greater than God! But if we think of a god in this way who also exists when our God does not, then our God is no longer the greatest possible being or most perfect being, the other being is. Think through it again; it is greater for something to exist than not to exist. For example, a unicorn in our minds can be very nice, but the unicorn that only exists in our minds is not more real than the unicorn which actually exists. The unicorn which actually exists is greater than or more perfect than the unicorn that does not exist.

If we think of God as the most perfect being, He is only the most perfect being if He exists. If another perfect being is thought of but thought of as not existing, then there is a more perfect being, namely, the one that might exist. So then the perfect being, by definition, must exist. The unicorn does not exist because it is not a most perfect being. A unicorn can be the most perfect unicorn ever in our thoughts, but that is very different from thinking about a completely perfect being. So God exists.

Finally, we know that Jesus lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. We have historical testimonies outside of the Bible that tell us this. The Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman official Tacitus both tell us this, for example. We infer from the accounts of crucifixion in those days that Jesus was really and truly put to death. We know that He was then buried. He was buried in the tomb of a prominent figure whom people would have known about. Yet, the body of Jesus was found missing from the tomb. The Jewish authorities who were opposed to Jesus wanted people to go around and say that the body of Jesus had been stolen. But the only reason for them to make this story up is if they needed to try and explain why there was no body there! We know that there was no body in the tomb of Jesus, because the Jews were making up stories to cover up the fact that the body of Jesus was not there in the tomb. The body and tomb would have been right there in Jerusalem for anyone to go check out to see whether or not the body was really still there or was really gone, but no one ever turned up information that the body was still in the tomb. There is also a testimony concerning three women who were some of the first to find the empty tomb. Women in that society were much less trusted as witnesses by society. The authors of the Gospels would not have included this testimony of the empty tomb of Jesus had they of not actually told of their experience. Not only were there reports and evidence of a death and empty tomb, but there were appearances of the Lord Jesus to the disciples and many others as well. The Bible tells us plainly what happened; Jesus was crucified for our sins, buried, and raised again on the third day in accordance with the Word of God.

There are many more arguments like these for the truth of the Christian worldview, but we should not expect others to accept them, especially since they do not share our presuppositions which make these proofs so appealing and seemingly obviously sound.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 4 – Evidence that Christianity is true.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 4 – Evidence that Christianity is true.

By C.L. Bolt

Sometimes presuppositionalists place so much emphasis upon presuppositions that others think we must assume that evidence is just useless. While it is not useless, sometimes evidence simply will not convince people that their position is wrong. This is because their presuppositions prevent them from taking some evidence seriously. For example, Jesus told a story where a man was told that even if someone should rise from the dead, the man’s family would not believe. Instead, the man’s family had Moses and the prophets. Not even the evidence of the miracle of a person raised from the dead would bring these people to belief, but only the Word of God! In fact it is in most cases exactly like this, for our presuppositions are moral commitments just as much as they are intellectual presuppositions, and this is certainly the case when it comes to one’s acceptance or rejection of Christ Jesus and His message.

Evidence nevertheless can be helpful. It provides a persuasive element to our arguments. It certainly persuades Christians, because Christians are approaching the evidence with their Christian presuppositions in place. For example, a Christian will almost always consider the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be strong evidence that Christianity is true. However, a Hindu might accept the historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and just think that Jesus is another god to be added to list of thousands of other gods. There is nothing special about the evidence for a Hindu. The Hindu views that evidence through his or her presuppositions, and there is no change in worldview. Someone who believes that everything can be explained through science might just assume that either there will be some forthcoming explanation for the resurrection, or that it is just a fact that sometimes resurrections do occur. After all, there have been other accounts of resurrections. Maybe people really can be raised from the dead and it is perfectly natural for them to do so, though rare. They are certainly not supernatural events, whatever they are. So you can see how different people evaluate even evidence like the historical data around the resurrection of Christ Jesus in light of their ultimate presuppositions.

Only the Christian has evidence supporting his or her position. There is not one shred of evidence in the entire universe for the non-Christian worldview. It is all Christian evidence. The size of the universe, the fine tuning of the world we live in for human survival, the stars, the age of the earth, the vast oceans, the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus, etc. are all evidences of the existence and nature of God. Not one shred of evidence stands against us, because Christianity is true. We do not therefore have to fear that we will ever find anything that overturns our worldview. We can engage in science and history and other research without any fear that we will ever find some fact that proves the whole thing false. It is true, and we trust God that it is true! He not only made everything, He owns everything as well and knows how it all fits together.

Unbelievers will view evidences as disproving Christianity. This is because as mentioned before they are starting out with their non-Christian presuppositions and evaluating the evidence in favor of their own position. Of course the Christian does so as well, and should do so unashamedly. We have good evidence for our position. The heavens declare the glory of God. The existence and nature of God have been made plain to all even in the things which have been made. We have plenty of evidence; more than we could ever offer.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 1 – There are two worldviews.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 1 – There are two worldviews.

By C.L. Bolt

There are only two worldviews. Within these two worldviews, or at any rate within one of them, is a whole plethora of other entities usually referred to as wordviews. A worldview is a network of presuppositions, beliefs, concepts, ideas, etc. through which an individual or individuals view the world. Every person has a worldview; every person has a network of presuppositions and beliefs by which he or she views the world. By viewing the world here I mean thinking in terms of what is right and wrong, good and bad, logical and illogical, sensical and nonsensical, worthwhile and not worthwhile, etc. The list could go on and on as to what is filtered through a worldview. People also act in accordance with these worldviews. It follows from what has been said already concerning people viewing the world through worldviews that people also interact with the world per these conceptual structures.

Some examples of worldviews then might be the Islamic worldview, the Christian worldview, the atheist worldview, the materialist worldview, the scientific worldview, etc. Some of these refer to religious positions, some do not, some are tools, and some are specific stances regarding some topic. But all of these are what people typically refer to as worldviews.

As I’ve already noted however, there are only two worldviews. This could be rather confusing, granting what I’ve just stated. What I mean here is that while we typically refer to all of the above (and much more) as worldviews, there are nevertheless ultimately only two worldviews. The two worldviews in question are the Christian worldview and the non-Christian worldview. I have at least two reasons for saying this.

First, it is the consistent testimony of Scripture that there are, at bottom, only two worldviews. There are explicit references which would indicate as much. For example, Christ Jesus says that one is either for Him or against Him. There is no middle ground here. Even if one should disagree with Christ Jesus in His words it follows that the individual doing so would then be in disagreement with Christ Jesus. Thus that individual would be agreeing with the worldview of the non-Christian; it is certainly not of the Christian worldview to question the words of Christ.

There are other more nuanced and perhaps controversial theological positions that take the reality of these two worldviews or systems presented in Scripture quite seriously. There is, for example, the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent in Genesis which theme runs throughout the remainder of Scripture. There is the God YHWH versus all other pagan gods, there is the wise or righteous of the Psalms, Proverbs, and other wisdom literature and then there is the fool who stands in contrast to the wise or righteous. Each of these two adopts a different worldview; one is wise and the other is foolish. There is, further, an antithesis between the two positions. We will no doubt return to this concept of antithesis later. For now, it means that the two positions, or in our case worldviews, stand in stark contrast one to another. Paul speaks even more of these two worldviews underlying all others.

Secondly, for one to deny the Christian worldview is for one to possess a non-Christian worldview. So even though there are so many manifestations of the non-Christian worldview, they all have in common that they have rejected the Christian worldview. They are, in this sense, predicated upon the negation of the Christian worldview. Islam, atheism, materialism, etc. are all non-Christian worldviews. They stand in contrast to the truths of Christianity. While some may argue that it is in some sense unfair or improper to classify worldviews by that which they reject, it is nevertheless the biblical testimony concerning the subject. For example, the fool who says in his heart that there is no God denies the Christian God. The fool then need not be an atheist at all; he or she can be a Muslim or a Sikh. The Muslim and the Sikh have in common that they are both non-Christian; they have rejected the Christian worldview, and there is no in-between position.

We can speak of these worldviews that exhibit the property of being non-Christian; we can label them “manifestations” or “variations” of the non-Christian worldview.