God’s View of Sin (Part 2): The Evil of Sin Seen at the Cross — Charles Hodge

Charles Hodge,

It must be remembered that it is not against the chief of sinners that this dreadful punishment is denounced. It is against sin, one sin, any sin. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them. () Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. () As far as we know, the angels were punished for their first offence. Adam and his race fell by one transgression. Human governments act on the same principle. If a man commit murder, he suffers death for the one offence. If he is guilty of treason, he finds no defence in his freedom from other crimes. Sin is apostasy from God; it breaks our communion with him, and is the ruin of the soul.

The displeasure of God against sin and his fixed determination to punish it, are also manifested by the certain connexion which he has established between sin and suffering. It is the undeniable tendency of sin to produce misery; and although in this world the good are not always more happy than the wicked, this only shows that the present is a state of trial and not of retribution. It affords no evidence to contradict the proof of the purpose of God to punish sin, derived from the obvious and necessary tendency of sin to produce misery.

This tendency is as much a law of nature as any other law with which we are acquainted. Men flatter themselves that they will escape the evil consequences of their transgressions by appealing to the mercy of God, and obtaining a suspension of this law in their behalf. They might as reasonably expect the law of gravitation to be suspended for their convenience. He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption, as certainly as he who sows tares shall reap tares. The only link which binds together causes and effects in nature, is the will of God; and the same will, no less clearly revealed, connects suffering with sin. And this is a connexion absolutely indissoluble save by the mystery of redemption.

To suspend the operation of a law of nature, (as to stop the sun in his course,) is merely an exercise of power. But to save sinners from the curse of the law required that Christ should be made a curse for us; that he should bear our sins in his own body on the tree; that he should be made sin for us and die the just for the unjust. It would be a reflection on the wisdom of God to suppose that he would employ means to accomplish an end more costly than that end required. Could our redemption have been effected by corruptible things, as silver or gold, or could the blood of bulls or of goats have taken away sin, who can believe that Christ would have died? The apostle clearly teaches that it is to make the death of Christ vain, to affirm that our salvation could have been otherwise secured. ()

Since, then, in order to the pardon of sin, the death of Christ was necessary, it is evident that the evil of sin in the sight of God must be estimated by the dignity of him who died for our redemption. Here we approach the most mysterious and awful doctrine of the Bible. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory as the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth. (,3,14) God therefore was manifested in the flesh. He who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. () He then — who is declared to be the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of his person, upholding all things by the word of his power () whom all the angels are commanded to worship; of whom the Scriptures say, Thy throne O God is for ever and ever, Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; They shall perish, but thou remainest; they shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail () — even He, who is God over all and blessed forever, inasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, himself also took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the Devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. ()

It is the doctrine of the Bible that the infinite and eternal Son of God assumed our nature, that he might redeem us from the curse of the law by being made a curse for us. It is obvious that no severity of mere human suffering; no destroying deluge; no final conflagration, not hell itself can present such a manifestation of the evil of sin and of the justice of God as the cross of his incarnate Son. It declares in language which is heard by the whole intelligent universe, that sin deserves God’s wrath and curse, and that none who refuse submission to the appointed method of pardon, can escape its condemnation.

The penalty then which God has attached to the violation of his law, the certainty with which that penalty is inflicted, the doom of the fallen angels, the consequences of Adam’s sin, and above all the death of Christ, are manifestations of the evil of sin in the estimation of God, which it is the highest infatuation for us to disregard.

However obdurate our hearts maybe in reference to this subject, our reason is not so blind as not to see that our guilt must be exceedingly great. We cannot deny that all the circumstances which aggravate the heinousness of sin concur in our case.

— taken from: The Way of Life, Charles Hodge, 1841

“How Is A Person Justified In God’s Sight?” — J.C. Ryle

No man can be justified by his works before God in the slightest possible degree. Before man he may be justified—his works may evidence the reality of his Christianity. Before God he cannot be justified by anything that he can do—he will be always defective, always imperfect, always short-coming, always far below the mark, so long as he lives. It is not by works of his own that anyone ever has peace and is a justified man.

But how then is a true Christian justified? What is the secret of that peace and sense of pardon which he enjoys? How can we understand a Holy God dealing with a sinful man—as with one innocent, and reckoning him righteous notwithstanding his many sins?

The answer to all these questions is short and simple. The true Christian is counted righteous for the sake of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is justified because of the death and atonement of Christ. He has peace because “Christ died for his sins according to the Scriptures.” This is the key that unlocks the mighty mystery. Here the great problem is solved, how God can be just and yet justify the ungodly. The life and death of the Lord Jesus explain all. “He is our peace.” (1 Cor. 15:3; Eph. 2:14.)

Christ has stood in the place of the true Christian. He has become his Surety and his Substitute. He undertook to bear all that was to be borne, and to do all that was to be done—and what He undertook He performed. Hence the true Christian is a justified man. (Isaiah 53:6.)

Christ has suffered for sins, the “just for the unjust.” He has endured our punishment in His own body on the cross. He has allowed the wrath of God, which we deserved, to fall on His own head. Hence the true Christian is a justified man. (1 Pet. 3:1.8.)

Christ has paid the debt the Christian owed, by His own blood. He has reckoned for it, and discharged it to the uttermost farthing by His own death. God is a just God, and will not require his debts to be paid twice over. Hence the true Christian is a justified man. (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 1:18, 19.)

Christ has obeyed the law of God perfectly. The devil, the Prince of this world, could find no fault in Him. By so fulfilling it He brought in an everlasting righteousness, in which all His people are clothed in the sight of God. Hence the true Christian is a justified man. (Dan 9:24; Rom 10:4.)

Christ, in one word, has lived for the true Christian. Christ has died for him. Christ has gone to the grave for him. Christ has risen again for him. Christ has ascended up on high for him, and gone into heaven to intercede for his soul. Christ has done all, paid all, suffered all that was needful for his redemption. (Col. 2:3; 3:11) (excerpted from: JUSTIFICATION!, J.C. Ryle)

Gimme That Showtime Religion

Gimme That Showtime Religion

Hebrews 10:24-25, 1 Cor. 1:21, Matt. 5:16

John MacArthur

Can the church fight apathy and materialism by feeding people's appetite for entertainment? Evidently many in the church believe the answer is yes, as church after church jumps on the show-business bandwagon. It is a troubling trend that is luring many otherwise orthodox churches away from biblical priorities.

Church buildings are being constructed like theatres. Instead of a pulpit, the focus is a stage. Some feature massive platforms that revolve or raise and lower, with colored lights and huge sound boards. Shepherds are giving way to media specialists, programming consultants, stage directors, special effects experts, and choreographers.

The idea is to give the audience what they want. Tailor the church service to whatever will draw a crowd. As a result, pastors are more like politicians than shepherds, looking to appeal to the public rather than leading and building the flock God gave them. The congregation is served a slick, professional show, where drama, pop music, and maybe a soft-sell sermon constitute the worship service. But the emphasis isn't on worship, it's on entertainment.

Underlying this trend is the notion that the church must sell the gospel to unbelievers. Churches thus compete for the consumer on the same level as the latest TV reality show or a major motion picture. More and more churches are relying on marketing strategy to sell the church.

That philosophy is the result of bad theology. It assumes that if you package the gospel right, people will get saved. The whole approach is rooted in Arminian theology. It views conversion as fundamentally dependent on an act of the human will. Its goal is an instantaneous, superficial decision rather than a radical change of the heart.

Moreover, this whole Madison-Avenue corruption of Christianity presumes that church services are primarily for recruiting unbelievers. Many have abandoned worship as such. Others have relegated conventional preaching to some small-group setting on a weeknight. But that misses the point of Hebrews 10:24-25: "Let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together."

Acts 2:42 shows us the pattern the early church followed when they met: "They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." Note that the early church's priorities clearly were to worship God and to edify the brethren. The church came together for worship and edification; it scattered to evangelize the world.

Our Lord commissioned His disciples for evangelism in this way: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" (Matt. 28:19). Christ makes it clear that the church is not to wait for or invite the world to come to its meetings, but to GO to the world. That is a responsibility for every believer. I fear that an approach emphasizing a palatable gospel presentation within the walls of the church excuses the individual believer from his personal obligation to be a light in the world (Matt. 5:16).

We have a society filled with people who want what they want when they want it. They are into their own lifestyle, recreation, and entertainment. When churches appeal to those selfish desires, they only fuel that fire and hinder true godliness. Some of these churches are growing exponentially while others that don't entertain are struggling. Many church leaders want numerical growth in their churches, so they are buying into the entertainment-first philosophy.

Consider what this philosophy does to the gospel message itself. Some will maintain that if biblical principles are presented, the medium doesn't matter. That is nonsense. Why not have a real carnival? A tattooed knife thrower who juggles chain saws could do his thing while a barker shouts Bible verses. That would draw a crowd. It's a bizarre scenario, but one that illustrates how the medium can cheapen and corrupt the message.

And sadly, it's not terribly different from what is actually being done in some churches. Punk-rockers, ventriloquists' dummies, clowns, magicians, and show-business celebrities have taken the place of the preacher--and they are depreciating the gospel. I do believe we can be innovative and creative in how we present the gospel, but we have to be careful to harmonize our methods with the profound spiritual truth we are trying to convey. It is too easy to trivialize the sacred message.

Don't be quick to embrace the trends of the high-tech superchurches. And don't sneer at conventional worship and preaching. We don't need clever approaches to get people saved (1 Cor. 1:21). We simply need to get back to preaching the truth and planting the seed. If we're faithful in that, the soil God has prepared will bear fruit.

This article here originally appeared at Grace To You© 1969-2010. Grace to You. All rights reserved.

APOLOGIA: Radical Skepticism (Part 4)

APOLOGIA: Radical Skepticism (Part 4):

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, November 4, 2010)

Radical Skepticism, Part 4: Linguistic Skepticism

Linguistic skepticism is a version of radical skepticism which says that we can neither know nor communicate objective truth about the world because of the distorting effects of language.

Today I will set out linguistic skepticism, plus offer a critique.

According to linguistic skepticism (which lurks behind some postmodern philosophizing), we think only in language, and language refers only to other language, so language is a “prison” (of signifiers) that keeps us from knowing anything outside language. Because there is no reference to an extra-linguistic world, and because words continually refer to each other, there is a never-ending deferral of meaning. Or, if there is a reference to the extra-linguistic world, that reference is clouded by our language, because vocabularies differ from culture to culture as well as reflect the purposes and perspectives of those cultures. The semantics (word meanings) and syntax (grammatical structure) of languages are social constructions (cultural creations), so the way people understand reality is dependent upon culture, which varies.

Consequently:

• There is no objective truth that can be actually known and communicated; each community merely has its "story" or "narrative" or set of "language games."
• There is no objective element to rationality; we reason in language, which is wholly dependent on, and varies with, culture.
• There are no objectively true ethics; values and moral principles are also wholly relative to language and culture.
• Power rules; the dominating cultural group ultimately controls the language (wittingly or unwittingly), so it determines “truth,” rationality, and ethics.

Thus (or so the argument goes) we should be radically suspicious of alleged knowledge of the external world.

Should we be persuaded by linguistic skepticism? I think not, for seven reasons.

First, and most importantly, the linguistic skeptic’s basic view of language is false. To be sure, language often refers to other language (check any dictionary) and language sometimes clouds our references to the actual world (check the flyers in your newspaper). However, it is simply not the case that language is completely defined by other language. There is such a thing as ostensive definition, i.e., we define our words by physically pointing at the extra-linguistic thing/s to which we intend our words to refer, and we can communicate such definitions without insurmountable difficulty.

Think of snow. We are not limited by language in our descriptions of it. We can increase our vocabulary for describing snow to reflect snow's extra-linguistic properties (e.g., its powdery nature, granularity, slushiness, stickiness, etc.). We can point to such properties, and, if necessary, we can even invent words or combine linguistic qualifiers with our words for snow to reflect a reality/dimension about snow that other observers have missed (as Eskimos seem to have done because of their attentiveness to snow).

Language, then, isn't a "prison" that always keeps us from reality; there isn’t an endless deferral of meaning. We can know reality truly (albeit fallibly and non-exhaustively), and reality can inform our language (if we are careful in our investigations). And so we can communicate accurate descriptions about the extra-linguistic world (at least sometimes).

Second (and closely related to the first point), although the semantics (word meanings) and syntax (grammatical structure) of languages are not absolutely fixed (i.e., they are contingent social constructions), it does not follow that our understanding of reality depends wholly on language and so is wholly socially constructed. Yes, labels and how they are used are in fact dependent on the language system in use and are in a sense arbitrary. The word “dog” is in fact an arbitrary collection of letters (in France “chien” is used, in the Netherlands “hond”). Also, the semantics and grammar we use with the word are conventional (culturally dependent, not fixed absolutely).

Nevertheless, such labels can refer successfully to extra-linguistic entities. Think of the dog down the street. Clearly, the dog itself is not a mere social construction—as the torn pant leg will attest. In other words, relativity of term selection and use does not mean that language cannot clearly refer to external reality nor that external reality has no clear say (or bite).

Third, we can legitimately ask: Is there really no objective truth? To answer this question, it may be helpful to look to Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900). Famously, Nietzsche wrote the following: “What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms… Truths are illusions we have forgotten are illusions.”

We should think about Nietzsche's claim. When Nietzsche says truth is mere metaphor or illusion, then his claim, which purports to be true, is mere metaphor or illusion—in other words, not true. But if truth is not mere metaphor or illusion, then Nietzsche’s claim is false. Either way, Nietzsche’s denial of truth is guilty of a direct self-refutation charge, and so should be rejected.

The fact of the matter is that there is something called simple truth. Simple truth is the (correspondence) notion of truth expressed eloquently by Aristotle: “to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.” We are all aware of this notion of truth, and we all use it in everyday life and in science: e.g., it's true that my desk is made primarily of wood; it's true that water freezes at 0° Celsius (under normal atmospheric conditions); etc.

Fourth, it is doubtful that we think only in linguistic terms. Yes, we often do think with language. However, we have all had the experience of realizing that words sometimes don’t properly express our ideas—which suggests that at least some of our thoughts are pre-linguistic. Also, many of us have had the experience of thinking in terms of non-linguistic images or pictures, which we later express in language, using, if needed, new language or a new combination of old language. (My PhD work was an experience of this.)

Fifth, the claim that rationality is wholly relative to the community/tribe is false. Yes, different cultures have different worldviews or philosophical/religious assumptions that influence their interpretations of what is real. Nevertheless, there are core elements of rationality that are independent of culture and can be used (along with our knowledge of truth) to test our culture’s assumptions.

For example, the principle of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle of logic applicable to all. The principle of non-contradiction states that nothing can both be and not be, at the same time and in the same respect. Upon reflection, this principle can be seen to be necessarily true. Can anyone be taller and not taller than his/her neighbour, at the same time and in the same respect?

Moreover, there exist various argument forms that are deductively valid and thus applicable to all, too. Consider the valid argument form modus ponens as instantiated by the following argument: If Fido is a dog, then Fido is mortal; Fido is a dog; therefore Fido is mortal. The argument is deductively valid everywhere and always. ("Deductively valid" means that whenever the premises are true, the conclusion must be true too.)

Sixth, that moral relativism is true can be seriously challenged. Yes, some behavioural norms vary from culture to culture (think of family honour, rules of the road). But surely, (former Colonel) Russell Williams’ murder of two women is wrong, period. Surely, Josef Fritzl’s 24-year imprisonment and ongoing rapes of his daughter are wrong, period. Surely, poking pins into a baby’s eyes for fun is wrong for everyone, everywhere, always.

Seventh, the fact that language and power are often intertwined is grounds for caution, not radical skepticism. People who have power—e .g., politicians—might use words that carry persuasive emotional appeals rather than truth: e.g., “only non-progressive people vote for [the politician you like the least].”

But the claim that language is wholly a power play and thus not capable of communicating knowledge is false. The truth or falsity of sentences depends on the reality of the world, not power agendas. That’s why we are able to check up on power-mongering politicians to hold them accountable. That’s why we can also check the claims of scientists and historians.

Moreover, if (contrary to fact) language were wholly a power play, then we should be skeptical of the linguistic skeptic’s arguments—because he/she would be merely using language to exert power over us.

In sum, we should thank the linguistic skeptic for encouraging us to be careful with language, because, yes, sometimes our language is imprecise, unclear, ambiguous, emotionally loaded, false, misleading, misused for socio-political ends, etc. Nevertheless, the fact remains that language need not and does not always blind us to truths about the extra-textual world, nor does it keep us from communicating those truths with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Thus, because of its exaggeration of the problems associated with language, linguistic skepticism is deeply problematic and should be rejected.

It turns out that we can know and communicate much about the extra-linguistic world, albeit fallibly and non-exhaustively.

Significantly, this opens the door to the possibility of knowledge about God (or at least reasonable belief about God) and communication of this knowledge based on what God might happen to reveal via the external world, whether God's revelation is via the heavens declaring His glory or via Scripture's pages presenting information about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(For my Apologia columns on evidence for God revealed in the world generally and in Jesus specifically, look here.)

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada.)

APOLOGIA: Radical Skepticism (Part 3)

APOLOGIA: Radical Skepticism (Part 3):

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, October 14, 2010)

Radical Skepticism, Part 3: Kantian Skepticism
Radical skepticism concerning the external world is the philosophical view that we cannot have accurate knowledge about the physical reality that exists outside our minds. If radical skepticism were true, then we could not know the external world. Moreover, if God were to exist, we could not know the external world's revelation of God, whether God's revelation is via the heavens declaring His glory or via Scripture's pages presenting information about Jesus Christ.

There are at least four types of radical skepticism. Last times we looked at funky/pop skepticism and sensory skepticism, and we found them to be problematic. Today we will look at Kantian skepticism, and we will see that it too is problematic.

Kantian skepticism is inspired by the epistemology (theory of knowledge) of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

According to Kant, all our knowledge begins with sensory experience, but the human mind, via its conditioners of sense-experience and its categories of thought, makes a significant contribution to this knowledge. In fact, these conditioners and categories determine for us what we can experience, and they shape this experience. Using Kant’s terminology, all we can perceive is phenomena (what our mind has conditioned and categorized), not noumena (the things themselves).

In effect, our mental conditioners and categories are like rose-tinted glasses. The glasses project pink onto all we see. Similarly, our mental conditioners project space and time onto our experience. Also, via our mind’s category of, say, causality, we project causation onto the events we experience. We project cause onto, say, a pool cue hitting a pool ball, and thereby we “know” that the cue “causes” the ball’s movement. Also, via the mind’s category of substance, we project the notion of material stuff onto what appears to be, say, a brick. We do the same with various other mental categories, such as existence. (According to Kant, there are twelve such categories.)

Better yet, think of our mental conditioners and categories as a meat-grinder/sausage-making machine. The phenomena of experience would be constituted by the ground meat (meat which ultimately is noumenal); what we know—i.e., the phenomena, which are the products of the shaping of the conditioners and categories—would be the sausages; the noumena, what is real, would be (besides the meat that’s been shaped into sausages and is only known as sausages) the stuff that does not fit into the grinder (e.g., the table, meat cutting tools, the butcher, bicycles, suspension bridges, etc.). So, according to this Kantian view of knowledge, no matter how much we grind, we cannot know the external world.

Should we be persuaded by the Kantian version of radical skepticism? I think not, for four reasons.

First, if Kantian skepticism is true, then science’s search for causal connections/laws ultimately is a search for connections/laws not really in the world but in our heads—which is plainly false.

Second, as philosopher Jim Leffel astutely observes: “The success of scientific technology is a strong argument that our perceptions of the world are relatively accurate.” Think of sending rockets to the moon, genetic testing for cancer, laser eye surgery, and the like. Leffel adds: “We couldn’t do these things without an essentially reliable correspondence between our ideas of reality and reality itself.”

Third, for Kantian skeptics to perceive that the mind cannot perceive things as they are requires that the mind can. Apparently, the skeptic can stand outside the meat-grinder/sausage-making machine to tell us about it. But the skeptic should only see sausages, not a meat grinder, meat, etc. Surely, if the skeptic can have this “outside” view, then so can everyone. The view is self-defeating.

[The previous point can be argued more carefully as follows. The Kant-inspired skeptic holds to the thesis that the world is misperceived by humans via their coloured and distorted concepts of it (hereafter, this thesis will be referred to as the Kantian thesis). In other words, the Kantian thesis has to do with a particular aspect of the world: i.e., that humans in fact misperceive the world via their concepts. Significantly—to gain traction—Kantian skepticism must involve an admission that we can know, via our concepts, that the Kantian thesis is true. However, this means that the skeptic presupposes an alternative non-Kantian thesis, a thesis which holds that humans, via their concepts, actually do know the world in a non-coloured, non-distorting way. Now, because this alternative thesis is not self-contradictory (and thus not knocked out of the explanatory competition right at the start); and because the Kantian thesis requires that the alternative thesis is true (albeit with respect to a limited domain); and because there seems to be no overriding reason to limit the domain of the alternative thesis in the way the Kantian thesis does: we can conclude that the doubt cast by the Kantian thesis onto observation is seriously weakened. But this means that it is quite reasonable to accept as accurate the everyday evidence that our observations of the everyday/scientific sort very apparently and very often are accurate.]

Fourth, Kant’s theory of knowledge faces some other deep problems. The categories of the understanding are supposed to apply to phenomena, not noumena. However, the category of causation is applied to noumena (as the cause of the phenomena). Also, the category of existence is applied to noumena too (noumena is said to exist). And so on. In other words, Kant’s view is contradictory in some of its crucial tenets.

Thus, it’s reasonable not to succumb to radical Kant-inspired skepticism. We can know the external world, albeit fallibly and non-exhaustively. Significantly, this opens the door to knowledge of God based on the evidence that the world provides.

Next: Linguistic skepticism.

P.S. The above column is a slightly revised excerpt from my larger article, "Reasonable Skepticism about Radical Skepticism," Christian Research Journal, Volume 31, Number 5 (2008): 30-38.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, Ph.D., is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada.)

APOLOGIA: Radical Skepticism (Part 2)

APOLOGIA: Radical Skepticism (Part 2):

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, September 23, 2010)

Radical Skepticism, Part 2: Sensory Skepticism
Radical skepticism concerning the external world is the philosophical view that we cannot have accurate knowledge about the physical reality that exists outside our minds. If radical skepticism were true, then we could not know the external world. Moreover, we could not know the external world's revelation of God, whether God's revelation is via the heavens declaring His glory or via Scripture's pages presenting reports of empirical evidence about Jesus Christ.

Should we be persuaded by radical skepticism? I think not.

There are at least four types of radical skepticism. Last time we looked at funky/pop skepticism. Today we will look at sensory skepticism.

Sensory skepticism tells us that we cannot know the external world because our senses deceive us. (This species of skepticism, like the dream hypothesis discussed in my previous column, is inspired by the philosopher René Descartes [1596–1650].)

To understand the force of sensory skepticism, consider the following examples. While rowing my boat, I put an oar into the water, but then the oar appears bent. While walking in the countryside, I see a flat wall on a distant farm building, but as I get closer the wall turns out to be curved. While strolling along railroad tracks, I see that the metal rails look straight and parallel to each other, but then on the horizon they appear to meet. While driving my car on a hot summer day, I see water on the road ahead, but as I continue to drive I observe that the road is dry. While volunteering as a lab rat for a psychology researcher, I see a red six of hearts as the researcher flashes a playing card, but later the researcher reveals that it was a red six of spades.

Clearly, my senses do deceive me. Therefore (or so the argument goes), my senses should not be trusted.

There are three reasonable criticisms that can be set out against radical sensory skepticism.

First, always does not follow logically from sometimes. The fact that we are sometimes deceived by our senses does not mean that we are always deceived by them.

Second, to know that our senses sometimes deceive us requires that they sometimes or often do not. Indeed, for us to discern that I mistakenly think that the oar is bent, that the wall is flat, that the tracks do not remain parallel, that the road is wet, or that the card is a red six of hearts requires that we have clear and accurate sensory knowledge. It presupposes that we know—accurately—that the oar is in fact straight, that the wall is in fact curved, that the tracks are in fact parallel, that the road is in fact dry, that the card is in fact a red six of spades. The argument of the sensory skeptic, then, requires as legitimate and true what it purports to show is not legitimate and true. It self-refutes.

Third, because the argument for sensory skepticism very apparently fails, our senses’ prima facie veridicality—that is, their very apparent truthfulness—remains. In other words, the burden of proof belongs to those who deny the obvious, so the senses are innocent until proven guilty.

It is reasonable, therefore, to go with what our senses tell us about the world, as long as we have no overriding reason to doubt them, and as long as we are careful.

How does this relate to Christianity? Significantly, it turns out that the reports concerning Jesus' resurrection tell us that the witnesses carefully used their senses to ground their belief. According to the New Testament record, the witness testimony has do with that "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands" (). Also, this record tells us that the resurrected Jesus appeared to individuals and variously sized groups (), was seen to eat fish (), invited physical touch (), plus talked with the witnesses (), all over a period of several weeks (). The witnesses were so convinced by the proofs of the physical reality of what their senses perceived—proofs that Jesus was physically alive after His death—that they testified to the resurrected Jesus in spite of persecution and suffering.

If radical sensory skepticism were true, then the witnesses' suffering for the truth of what they heard, saw, and touched—so we could reasonably believe their reports—would be in vain. Happily, radical sensory skepticism is not true.

Next: Kantian skepticism.

P.S. The above column is a slightly revised excerpt from my larger article, "Reasonable Skepticism about Radical Skepticism," Christian Research Journal, Volume 31, Number 5 (2008): 30-38.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, located in Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada.)

Corneilus Van Til on epistemology

“If one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon the original self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man, then man will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final reference point. Then he will have to seek an exhaustive understanding of reality. He will have to hold that if he cannot attain to such an exhaustive understanding of reality he has no true knowledge of anything at all. Either man must then know everything or he knows nothing. This is the dilemma that confronts every form of non-Christian epistemology”

-Corneilus Van Til ,Survey Christian Epistemology

APOLOGIA: Radical Skepticism (Part 1)

APOLOGIA: Radical Skepticism (Part 1):

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, September 2, 2010)

Radical Skepticism, Part 1: Funky/Pop Skepticism
Radical skepticism concerning the external world is the philosophical view that we cannot have accurate knowledge about the physical reality that exists outside our minds. If radical scepticism were true, then we could not know the external world. (Moreover, we could not know the external world's revelation of God, whether God's revelation is via the heavens declaring His glory or via Scripture's pages presenting truth about Jesus Christ.)

Should we be persuaded by radical scepticism? I think not.

There are at least four types of radical scepticism. Today we will look at funky/pop skepticism (my label). Funky/pop scepticism is probably best explained by considering some examples. (The examples are a bit weird, hence funky. Also, contemporary popular culture promotes the notion, hence pop.)

Consider the movie The Matrix. In this story what we perceive to be real is merely a computer-generated illusion, but in actuality, each of us is floating in an amniotic-sac-like pod with our nervous systems and brains wired into a common virtual reality. Whatever we sense—that is, whatever we think we sense—is merely what a supercomputer programs for us to sense. Nothing we see, hear, smell, taste, or touch is real.

Prior to The Matrix, philosophers entertained the possibility that we are merely brains in vats, kept alive by a mad scientist who feeds us patterns of electrical impulses which mimic our sensory organs.

Consider also the possibility that you are at this very moment dreaming. This example originates with René Descartes (1596–1650) and has been recently revived in the movie Inception. Whatever you see, hear, smell, taste, touch—and read—is simply part of your dream.

How do you know that, right now, you are not in something like The Matrix? Or that you are not a brain in a vat? Or that you are not dreaming?

I might answer that I believe I am not in The Matrix because I haven’t yet met agent Smith. (Smith, according to The Matrix, is a representative of the supercomputer.) The skeptic responds that the supercomputer wants to keep me in the dark.

Or I might argue that I am not a brain in a vat because I can feel my skull with my hands. The skeptic answers that the mad scientist has wired me to perceive that I am touching my skull when in fact I’m not really touching anything.

Or let’s say that I argue that I’m pretty sure that I’m not dreaming because I heard my alarm go off this morning. The skeptic answers that it’s not at all unusual for one to hear one’s alarm go off in one’s dream.

Alarmingly (sorry), any evidence that I present against the skeptic can be subsumed under the Matrix hypothesis, or brain-in-a-vat hypothesis, or dream hypothesis.

Should I give up my knowledge of the external world?

Answer: No.

There is a reasonable way to answer the funky/pop skeptic. In fact, there are five ways, which together constitute a formidable cumulative case argument.

First, we can point out, following the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951), that to imagine a doubt is not really to doubt. I can imagine that I am in a computer-generated world, but that doesn’t mean I really believe it. Simply put: imagining isn’t doubting. To think otherwise is to confuse two distinct cognitive categories.

Second, we can point out that if one were to be convinced of any of the above skeptical hypotheses, then one would be confusing logical possibility with plausibility/probability. Yes, it’s logically possible that the moon is made of green cheese (i.e., there is no logical contradiction in this claim), but from this it doesn’t follow logically that the moon is actually made of green cheese. In other words, the mere logical possibility of X is not the same as an adequate justification for X; therefore, the mere possibility of doubt does not constitute sufficient grounds for doubt.

Third, we can point out that there is no compelling reason to accept any of the funky/pop hypotheses: after all, all we have is the skeptic's mere assertion (of a mere logical possibility).

Fourth, we can point out that belief in any of the funky/pop hypotheses requires a denial of many of our prior beliefs that are logically incompatible with those hypotheses. Furthermore, these prior beliefs are not without epistemic weight—they also count as contenders for knowledge.

Fifth, we can point out that if, for the sake of argument, we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as sufficient grounds for the truth of those assertions, then, to be consistent, we should believe all mere assertions of logical possibilities as truths. This, however, would mean that all logical possibilities are true, which is plainly absurd.

We would have to believe that The Matrix is true, and that the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis is true, and that the dream hypothesis is true, and that The Lord of the Rings is true, and that Batman is true, and that the moon is made of cheese, and that the moon isn’t made of cheese, and…you get the picture.

In other words, rational persons can weigh the pros and cons—in this case, one pro constituted by a mere assertion of funky/pop skepticism versus five cons or counter-considerations—to conclude that it is reasonable not to believe funky/pop skepticism.

We will examine some other forms of radical scepticism next time.

P.S. The above column is a slightly revised excerpt from my larger article, "Reasonable Skepticism about Radical Skepticism," Christian Research Journal, Volume 31, Number 5 (2008): 30-38.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, Ph.D., is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada.)

The High Cost of Following Christ — J.C. Ryle

“By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.” — Hebrews 11:24–26

“Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.’”
— Matthew 16:24

“Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” — James 4:4

J.C. Ryle,

If you would ever be saved, you must make the choice that Moses made—you must choose God before the world.

Mark well what I say. Do not overlook this, though all the rest be forgotten. I do not say that the statesman must throw up his office, and the rich man forsake his property. Let no one fancy that I mean this. But I say, if a man would be saved, whatever be his rank in life, he must be prepared for tribulation…There is a common worldly kind of Christianity in this day, which many have and think they have enough—a cheap Christianity which offends nobody and requires no sacrifice, which costs nothing, and is worth nothing.

The world in the nineteenth century is what it always was. The hearts of men are still the same. The offense of the cross is not ceased. God’s true people are still a despised little flock. True evangelical religion still brings with it reproach and scorn. A real servant of God will still be thought by many a weak enthusiast and a fool.

But the matter comes to this. Do you wish your soul to be saved? Then remember, you must choose whom you will serve. You cannot serve God and mammon. You cannot be on two sides at once. You cannot be a friend of Christ and a friend of the world at the same time. You must come out from the children of this world and be separate; you must put up with much ridicule, trouble and opposition, or you will be lost forever. You must be willing to think and do things which the world considers foolish and to hold opinions which are held by only a few. It will cost you something. The stream is strong, and you have to stem it. The way is narrow and steep, and it is no use saying it is not. But, depend on it, there can be no saving religion without sacrifices and self–denial.

Now are you making any sacrifices? Does your religion cost you anything? I put it to your conscience in all affection and tenderness. Are you, like Moses, preferring God to the world, or not? I beseech you not to take shelter under that dangerous word “we”—”we ought,” and “we hope,” and “we mean,” and the like. I ask you plainly, what are you doing yourself? Are you willing to give up anything which keeps you back from God; or are you clinging to the Egypt of the world and saying to yourself, “I must have it, I must have it: I cannot tear myself away”? Is there any cross in your Christianity? Are there any sharp corners in your religion, anything that ever jars and comes in collision with the earthly–mindedness around you? Or is all smooth and rounded off and comfortably fitted into custom and fashion? Do you know anything of the afflictions of the gospel? Is your faith and practice ever a subject of scorn and reproach? Are you thought a fool by anyone because of your soul? Have you left Pharaoh’s daughter and heartily joined the people of God? Are you venturing all on Christ? Search and see. (excerpted from Moses—An Example in Holiness by J.C. Ryle)

The Beauty of His Holiness – Stephen Charnock

Stephen Charnock,The holiness of God is his glory and crown. It is the blessedness of his nature. It renders him glorious in himself, and glorious to his creatures. “Holy” is more fixed as an epithet to his name than any other. This is his greatest title of honor. He is pure and unmixed light, free from all blemish in his essence, nature, and operations. He cannot be deformed by any evil. The notion of God cannot be entertained without separating from him whatever is impure and staining. Though he is majestic, eternal, almighty, wise, immutable, merciful, and whatsoever other prefections may dignify so sovereign a being, yet if we conceive him destitute of this excellent perfection, and imagine him possessed with the least contagion of evil, we make him but an infinite monster, and sully all those perfections we ascribed to him before.

It is a contradiction for him to be God and to have any darkness mixed with his light. To deny his purity, makes him no God. He that says God is not holy, speaks much worse than if he said there is no God at all. Where do we read of the angels crying out Eternal or Faithful Lord God of hosts? But we do hear them singing Holy, Holy, Holy. God swears by his holiness (Psa. 89:35). His holiness is a pledge for the assurance of his promises. Power is his hand, omniscience his eye, mercy his heart, eternity his duration, but holiness his beauty. It renders him lovely and gives beauty to all his attributes. Every action of his is free from all hints of evil. Holiness is the crown of all his attributes, the life of all his decrees, and the brightness of all his actions. Nothing is decreed by him and nothing is acted by him that is not consistent with the beauty of his holiness.

Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God. Quoted from Voices from the Past.

Gods great golden chain.

http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2006/04/gods-great-golden-chainour-unshakable.html

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified" -Romans 8:29-30.

This is one of the most profound and assuring promises in all of Scripture. It is commonly referred to as, "The Golden Chain of Salvation." It is a chain of five eternal links: God foreknew; God predestined; God called; God justified; and God glorified. Every aspect of our salvation is all and only of Him. No room for man's self-glory here; no room for a hint of human praise; no room for boasting in ourselves. This is the great work of the Lord alone in our salvation. Past, present and future hope secured for us in Christ Jesus. So therefore, we joyfully say with the apostle Paul, "if God be for us, who can be against us? For it is God who justifies..." (Rom. 8:31f).

1.) God foreknew: foreknowing (and/or foreknowledge) does not mean here to know about future events in advance--even though God does know all things. That is in keepting with Him being omniscient. He knows all things, in all times (past, present and future), concerning all His creatures and creation. Nothing is hidden from His sight and He, contrary to the heresy of The Open Theists, is not "presently learning" nor stunted in His knowing (Psalm 139).

Foreknew/foreknowledge, however, is never used in terms of knowing about future events, times or actions (omniscience). "Foreknowledge is a predetermined relationship in the knowledge of God. God brought the salvation relationship into existence by decreeing it into existence ahead of time" (MacArthur Study Bible, 1 Peter 1:2). God foreknew us by setting His electing love in pre-establishing an intimate relationship with those that He has sovereignly chosen in Christ before the foundations of the world (Eph. 1:4-6; 1 Peter 1:1-2). It is, I believe, only used in regards to God's electing love of His people and not, as some suggest, a "knowing ahead of time of events and actions." God knew us, had established relationship with us in times past eternal. He foreknew us. The antithesis of this is what the Lord said in Matthew 7:23, "depart from, I've never known you." Those are the most frightening words in Scripture, aren't they?

Foreknowledge was also used pertaining to Christ. Peter says, "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake" (1 Peter 1:20). Christ was foreknown in the eternal Trinitarian relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There was intimacy of relationship within the Trinity before anything that was made was made. The promise for us is that He foreknew us before the world was made... What God established in eternity, He brought about in time in our salvation through Christ our Lord.

John Murray says: "

Even if it were granted that `foreknew' means the foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; he foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith, which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates (cf. John 3:3-8; 6:44, 45, 65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 2 Peter 1:2). Hence his eternal foresight of faith is preconditioned by his decree to generate this faith in those whom he foresees as believing."

The late Dr. James M. Boice summarizes that:

"foreknowledge means that salvation has its origin in the mind or eternal counsels of God, not in man. It focuses our attention on the distinguishing love of God, according to which some persons are elected to be conformed to the character of Jesus Christ, which is what Paul has already been saying."

2.) God predestined: It means to determine a person's destiny beforehand. To be "pre" - before; "destined" - appointed. God in His sovereign electing love has predestined us, marked out beforehand, our eternal destiny. Again, what comfort this brings to the discouraged believer in the Lord in our daily sanctification in Christ. It tells us that, God, having fixed his distinguishing love upon us (foreknew), he next appointed us "to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." And what is that destiny for the people of God? To be made like Jesus Christ--"conformed to the image of His Son." That is why beloved, "we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."

3.) God called: James Boice in his excellent commentary on Romans says,

"The next step in this golden chain of five links is what theologians call effectual calling. It is important to use the adjective effectual at this point, because there are two different kinds of calling referred to in the Bible, and it is easy to get confused about them.

One kind of calling is external, general, and universal. It is an open invitation to all persons to repent of sin, turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, and be saved. It is what Jesus was speaking of when he said, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28). Or again, when he said, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink" (John 7:37). The problem with this type of call is that, left to themselves, no men or women ever respond positively. They hear the call, but they turn away, preferring their own ways to God. That is why Jesus also said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. .." (John 6:44).

The other kind of call is internal, specific, and effectual. That is, it not only issues the invitation, it also provides the ability or willingness to respond positively. It is God's drawing to himself or bringing to spiritual life the one who without that call would remain spiritually dead and far from him.

There is no greater illustration of this than Jesus' calling of Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha, who had died four days before. Lazarus in his grave is a picture of every human being in his or her natural state: dead in body and soul, bound with graveclothes, lying in a tomb, sealed with some great stone. Let's call to him, "Lazarus, Lazarus. Come forth, Lazarus. We want you back. We miss you. If you will just get up out of that tomb and return to us, you'll find that we are all anxious to have you back. No one here is going to put any obstructions in your way."

What? Won't Lazarus come? Doesn't he want to be with us?

The problem is that Lazarus does not have the ability to come back. The call is given, but he cannot come.

Ah, but let Jesus take his place before the tomb. Let Jesus call out, "Lazarus, come forth," and the case is quite different. The words are the same, but now the call is no mere invitation. It is an effectual calling. For the same God who originally called the creation out of nothing is now calling life out of death, and his call is heard. Lazarus, though he has been dead four days, hears Jesus and obeys his Master's voice.

That is how God calls those whom he has foreknown and predestined to salvation."

4.) God justified: Here is the great Reformation truth of the gospel, justified by faith alone. It means that the Sovereign Judge of the universe declares us “not guilty” by grace through faith through our Lord Jesus Christ (Roms. 5:1). We are no longer under the wrath of God, no longer the enemy of God. We have become His children and are now the objects of His love and mercy and no longer estranged by His enmity. But being justified is not just a declaration; but also a reality for the Christian. We have been clothed with the perfect righteousness of Christ. As Dr. MacArthur so wonderfully says, "Christ was treated on the cross as if He lived your life, so that we might treated as if we lived His life." He was clothed with our sin, though sinless; and we are clothed with His perfect righteousness, though sinful. Our sin imputed to Him; His righteousness imputed to us (Roms. 5:21). This is the great doctrine of imputation in our justification.

"Those whom, God effectually calls he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God" – WCF Ch 11

“Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner” (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 513).

"The phrase in ipso (in him) I have preferred to retain, rather than render it per ipsum (by him,) because it has in my opinion more expressiveness and force. For we are enriched in Christ, inasmuch as we are members of his body, and are engrafted into him: nay more, being made one with him, he makes us share with him in every thing that he has received from the Father." (John Calvin Commentary on 1 Cor 1:5

"This calling is an act of the grace of God in Christ by which he calls men dead in sin and lost in Adam through the preaching of the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit, to union with Christ and to salvation obtained in him." - Francis Turretin

5.) God glorified: Notice that Paul says this in the past tense. Our future glorification is already secured and perfected in Christ in eternity future. He knew us, determined our destiny to be like Christ, called us, justified us, and now the fifth link in the chain of our salvation... He glorified us. What hope, what promise of eternal life in and with Christ! Paul wrote in Philippians, "I always pray with joy ... being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 1:4, 6). God began the "good work" by foreknowledge, predestination, calling, and justification. And we can know that He will carry it on until the day we will be like Jesus Christ, being glorified.

No wonder Jude proclaims with absolute confidence: "Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, 25to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 24-25).

What a fitting doxology for us today. Here it is beloved: have you gone through a time of trial and brokenness lately? Has your world been shaken--turned upside down by tragedy? Have you been through a divorce, death of a family member or suffered the loss of a child? Maybe you've lost a job or been fired for living honorable for the Lord? Who can bear the weight of such overwhelming pain on their own? But friend in Christ... here is our hope. The golden chain holds you fast. "Cast all your cares on Him for He cares for you;" "He will never leave nor forsake you;" and that "nothing can separate you from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Rejoice in the Lord and find your hope, security, significance, rest, worth, and purpose only in Him. He is everything we need!

John Owen – “Sin,” says he, “is Crucified.”

As a man nailed to the cross he first struggles and strives and cries out with great strength and might, but, as his blood and spirits waste, his strivings are faint and seldom, his cries low and hoarse, scarce to be heard; when a man first sets on a lust or distemper, to deal with it, it struggles with great violence to break loose; it cries with earnestness and impatience to be satisfied and relieved; but when by mortification the blood and spirits of it are let out, it moves seldom and faintly, cries sparingly, and is scarce heard in the heart; it may have sometimes a dying pang, that makes an appearance of great vigor and strength, but it is quickly over, especially if it be kept from considerable success. This the apostle describes, as in the whole chapter, so especially .

“Sin,” says he, “is crucified; it is fastened to the cross.” To what end? “That the body of death may be destroyed,” the power of sin weakened and abolished by little and little, that “henceforth we should not serve sin,” that is, that sin might not incline, impel us with such efficacy as to make us servants to it, as it has done heretofore.

~John Owen~Overcoming Sin & Temptation – On The Mortification of Sin in Believers

God’s View of Sin (Part 1) — Charles Hodge

Charles Hodge,

The Bible not only teaches that all men are sinners, and that the evil is deeply seated in their hearts, but moreover that their sinfulness is very great. The clearest intimation which a lawgiver can give of his estimate of the evil of transgression is the penalty which he attaches to the violation of his laws. If he is wise and good, the penalty will be a true index of the real demerit of transgression; and in the case of God, who is infinitely wise and good, the punishment which he denounces against sin, must be an exact criterion of its ill-desert. If we are unable to see that sin really deserves what God has declared to be its proper punishment, it only shows that our judgment differs from his; and that it should thus differ is no matter of surprise. We cannot know all the reasons which indicate the righteousness of the divine threatenings. We can have no adequate conception of the greatness, goodness and wisdom of the Being against whom we sin; nor of the evil which sin is suited to produce; nor of the perfect excellence of the law which we transgress. That sin therefore appears to us a less evil than God declares it to be, is no evidence that it is really undeserving of his wrath and curse.

There is a still more operative cause of our low estimate of the evil of sin. The more depraved a man is, the less capable is he of estimating the heinousness of his transgressions. And the man who in one part of his career, looked upon certain crimes with abhorrence, comes at last to regard them with indifference. That we are sinners therefore, is a sufficient explanation of the fact, that we look upon sin in a very different light from that in which it is presented in the word of God. Nothing then can be more reasonable than that we should bow before the judgment of God, and acknowledge that sin really deserves the punishment which he has declared to be its due. That punishment is so awful, that nothing but a profound reverence for God, and some adequate conception of the evil of sin, can produce a sincere acquiescence in its justice. Yet nothing can be more certain than that this punishment is the proper measure of the ill-desert of sin.

The term commonly employed to designate this punishment is death; death not merely of the body, but of the soul; not merely temporal but eternal. It is a comprehensive term therefore to express all the evils in this world and the world to come, which are the penal consequences of sin. In this sense it is to be understood in the threatening made to our first parents; in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; () and when the prophet says, The soul that sinneth it shall die; () and when the Apostle says, The wages of sin is death. () The same general idea is expressed by the word curse, As many as are of the law are under the curse; for it is written, cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them. () and also by the word wrath, We were by nature the children of wrath, () The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. ()

These and similar passages teach that sinners are the objects of the divine displeasure, and that this displeasure will certainly be manifested. As God is infinitely good and the fountain of all blessedness, his displeasure must be the greatest of all evils. The Scriptures, however, in order to impress this truth more deeply upon our minds, employ the strongest terms human language affords, to set forth the dreadful import of God’s displeasure. Those who obey not the gospel, it is said, shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power. () Our Saviour says, The wicked shall be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. () At the last great day, he tells us, the judge shall say to those upon his left hand, Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. () The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. () In the last day, all that are in their graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation; () or as it is expressed in Daniel, () If to shame and everlasting contempt.

Whatever explanation may be given of the terms employed in these and many similar passages, there can be no doubt that they are intended to convey the idea of endless and hopeless misery. Whence this misery shall arise, or wherein it shall consist, are questions of minor importance. It is sufficient that the Scriptures teach that, the sufferings here spoken of, are in degree inconceivably great and in duration endless. The most fearful exhibition given of the future state of the impenitent, is that which presents them as reprobates, as abandoned to the unrestrained dominion of evil. The repressing influence of conscience, of a probationary state, of a regard to character, of good example, and above all of the Holy Spirit, will be withdrawn, and un-mingled malignity, impurity and violence constitute the character and condition of those who finally perish. The wicked are represented as constantly blaspheming God, while they gnaw their tongues with pain. () The God who pronounces this doom upon sinners, is he who said, As I live I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked. () The most fearful of these passages fell from the lips of the Lamb of God, who came to die that we might not perish, but have eternal life. ()

— taken from: The Way of Life, Charles Hodge, 1841

Real Christian Philosophy: A Brief Summary of Christian Epistemology

By jaminhubner

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It asks how we can know things, what it means to know things, and what knowledge is. A few features of a Christian epistemology (which is the only true epistemology) includes:

1. God is our foundation and starting point for not only our knowledge, but all knowledge. While most philosophies put man at the center, God says “apply your mind to my knowledge” (Proverbs 22:17-21). Indeed, “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7).

2. All human persons have knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18-22).

a. This knowledge is more basic than any other kind of knowledge because it is intrinsic to God’s images; persons know God just by virtue of being made in God’s image and being created to know God and reflect His glory both in structure and function (Calvin’s divinitatis sensum). More than 2+2=4, more than “murder is wrong,” and more than “I exist,” all persons know in their heart of hearts, the Christian God. This is “knowledge” at its base; all other definitions of knowledge (i.e. justified true belief) must first conform to the understanding of knowledge as described and defined in Scripture.

b. This knowledge is immediate, which means it is not gained by way of inference. It’s not as if a person arrives at Christian theism or an accurate knowledge of God by reasoning with the revelation of nature or applying syllogistic logic. They already have an accurate knowledge of God within them (“clearly perceived”), but due to sin, it is “suppressed in unrighteousness.”

c. Persons know God not because they are good knowers, but because God is a Good Revealer (“because He has shown it to them.”) God reveals Himself through virtually everything, hence, "they are without excuse." Yet, the human mind is incapable of interpreting natural revelation rightly to build an accurate natural theology (so as to be saved). Special revelation is needed and is central to the proclamation of the gospel and Christian apologetics.

3. Human knowledge is derivative of God’s knowledge. “Our very knowledge of ourselves, says Calvin, involves our knowledge of God as our original, whatever is found in man, as God’s image bearer, with the exception of that which results from sin, has its original in God.”[1] Since God is self-defining, self-knowing, and possesses exhaustive knowledge of everything, “whatever man is to know can only be based upon a reception of what God has originally and ultimately known.”^[2] Hence, only in God’s “light shall we see light” (Ps. 36:9), and Hannah sang, “Boast no more so very proudly, Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge” (I Samuel 2:2) and Paul asked “What do you have that you have not received?” (I Cor. 4:7).

4. Human knowledge is analogical. “Christians believe in two levels of existence, the level of God’s existence as self-contained and the level of man’s existence as derived from the level of God’s existence. For this reason, Christians must also believe on the two levels of knowledge, the level of God’s knowledge, which is absolutely comprehensive and self-contained, and the level of man’s knowledge, which is not comprehensive but is derivative and reinterpretive.”[3] Thus, “Sinners, until saved by grace, do not reason analogically. They reason univocally.”[4]

5. Although human knowledge is not perfect and exhaustive like God’s knowledge is, it is still true. “We are created in God’s image, and therefore our knowledge cannot be exhaustive; we are created in God’s image, and therefore our knowledge is true.”[5]

6. God is the source of all truth.

a. Truth is Revealed. Truth is not constructed or created by us. God, the one true Creator (Deut. 6:4), is the ultimate source of all truth and knowledge – which is revealed in His Word (Hebrews 4:12). “Jehovah is the one who teaches man knowledge” (Ps. 94:10). So whatever we have, even the knowledge which we have about the world, has been given to us from God. ‘What do you have that you have not received?’ (I. Cor. 4:7)”[6] Language, thus, is a vehicle to convey truth (since Scripture is God’s Word).

b. Truth is Objective and Absolute. Truth transcends cultures; truth judges all cultures equally. Truth is not based on preference alone; God is true (Rom. 3:4). We are entitled to our own opinions, yes, but not to our own truths. Truth is absolute; it is nonnegotiable and invariant (John 14:1-6).

c. Truth is Universal and Eternal. Truth crosses cultural barriers, and is not situational (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 4:12). Truth, because of the nature of its Source, is eternal and unchanging (Is. 40:8; Malachi 3:6).

---

[1] Cornelius Van Til. Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2007), 72.

[2] Greg Bahnsen. Always Ready (Nacogdoches, Texas: Covenant Media Press, 1996), p. 19.

[3] Van Til, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 33.

[4] Ibid., 178.

[5] Ibid., 62.

[6] Greg Bahnsen. Always Ready (Covenant Media Press, 1996), 20.

Thomas Watson – God’s Call Rides Forth

When God calls a man by His grace, he cannot but come. You may resist the minister’s call, but you cannot the Spirit’s call. The finger of the blessed Spirit can write upon a heart of stone, as once He wrote His laws upon tables of stone. God’s words are creating words; when He said “Let there be light, there was light”; and when He says, “Let there be faith”, it shall be so. When God called Paul, he answered to the call. “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” (Acts xxvi. 19). God rides forth conquering in the chariot of His gospel; He makes the blind eyes see, and the stony heart bleed. If God will call a man, nothing shall lie in the way to hinder; difficulties shall be untied, the powers of hell shall disband. “Who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. ix. 19). God bends the iron sinew, and cuts asunder the gates of brass (Psalm cvii. 16). When the Lord touches a man’s heart by His Spirit, all proud imaginations are brought down, and the fort royal of the will yields to God.

~Thomas Watson~All Things for Good

D.A. Carson: The Intolerance of Tolerance

The intolerance of tolerance… And it’s important to understand that the notion of tolerance within this framework has a certain intellectual heritage that has been transmuted by postmodernism.

Under the modernist paradigm, tolerance looked something like this: I may disagree with you, but I insist on your right to articulate your opinion, however stupid and ignorant I think it is.

That’s tolerance.

In other words, this means there is tolerance for the individual to say things with which I disagree. The tolerance is directed toward individuals. But, there is robust debate at the level of content and substance.

So, I may disagree profoundly with Marxist historiography; but, if I’m a tolerant person under a modernist regime, I insist on the right of the Marxist historiographer to articulate their views. But, likewise, under the Western vision of tolerance and under a modernist camp, I insist on the right of Capitalists to articulate their views, or Theists to articulate their views, or whatever—however right or wrong I think they are. So that unless there is something deeply, deeply damaging to public well-being, as for someone coming along and vociferously advocating pedophilia… then the notion of tolerance allows you to defend almost anybody teaching almost anything.

Because you see, under the modernist paradigm, the assumption is that in the marketplace of disputed ideas, the truth will come out.

There is a truth to be searched out. There is a truth to be pursued.

Truth, ultimately, is desirable and attainable.

So in other words, this view of tolerance is itself tied to a certain kind of vision of truth. A certain kind of epistemology.

But once you change that epistemology, and lose that vision of truth—tolerance itself is redefined.

Now, tolerance means that you must not say anybody is wrong. That’s the one wrong thing to say. But, now notice, under this view of tolerance, you are tolerant, not of individuals, you are tolerant of all positions. The tolerance is now directed toward all views that are articulated because you are not in a position to say that any view is wrong.

The one thing that is not tolerated is the view that this view of tolerance is wrong.

And thus you have the intolerance of tolerance.

Worse, if somebody comes along and says this view of tolerance is wrong, under this view of tolerance that person is not tolerant and therefore should not be tolerated.

That person is a bigot.

And because there is no understanding of tolerance directed toward the individual, but only toward all views—except that view that says this view of tolerance is wrong—the university campus can become a very scary place toward anybody who says that there may be an absolute right and wrong afterall. Or there may be an absolute truth.

I would argue that this new view of tolerance is in fact, logically incoherent. I don’t simply mean that it is inconsistent; that is, it proves intolerant. I don’t mean that. It is inconsistent, but I mean something worse than that. I think that it is incoherent. Because the very notion of tolerance, under whatever regime, presupposes that you have to disagree with someone or something before you tolerate it. You see, if I say, “On my university campus I will tolerate those who propagate Islam, or Marxism, or whatever… ” It doesn’t matter. I have to disagree with them before I can use the word tolerate.

But if I say, “Well, y’know, you’re no more right or wrong than I am. I may agree with you. I tolerate you…”

It’s incoherent. That doesn’t even make sense. To be able to tolerate something, you’ve got to disagree with it in the first place. But if, in fact, you’re not in a position to say that any position is wrong, how can you speak of tolerating it?

Thus, I would argue that the new definition of tolerance is not only inconsistent, but incoherent. And it proves, in fact, to be less tolerant than the brand of tolerance that was around under modernism. Because at the very point where it comes up with that which disagrees with it most, it has to dismiss all opponents as intolerant and bigoted, and therefore becomes, in fact, totalitarian.