Comments

1. Glenn says on Dec 21, 2009 @ 01:35 PM:

   I think that Evangelicalism is not conducive to forming intellectuals to the extent that human beings can develop their minds. The reason why I slightly disagree with Craig is that you would have to presuppose that Evangelicalism is true in order to boldly affirm that it is possible for Evangelical theology to form people, intellectually speaking. Because I do not hold that Evangelical theology contains the best expression of the teachings of Christ, I inevitably have to disagree with him. False teachings do not help people.

   I think you would be hard pressed to disagree that the Catholic Church has produced some of the finest minds that the world has ever seen. Where, for instance, is the St. Thomas Aquinas of Protestantism? Or the St. Augustine of Protestantism? The renaissance we're experiencing in Evangelical philosophy is, so far as I can tell, an indirect result of Pope Leo XIII's call to a renewal of Catholic philosophy toward the tail end of the nineteenth century. This renewal made itself felt in many universities all over the world, especially in schools where Protestants could attend (such as Yale). For more on this see the articles and books by Gerald McCool, S.J.

2. humphreys says on Dec 21, 2009 @ 01:49 PM:

   Surely the question of worldview is not properly considered an issue when it comes to the forming of intellectuals. The reality is, all you need to become an 'intellectual' is the right amount of brain power, coupled with the motivation and drive to succeed and the right opportunities. Your personal beliefs are not really at issue.

   What is going on here is a 'Dawkinsian' assumption that if you hold to a certain set of beliefs or values, you cannot really be an intellectual, because someone who had the right amount of brainpower would have left these beliefs behind them. They therefore must be either stupid or intellectually dishonest.

   The truth is, as I've said before on these boards, neither Christians nor atheists nor evangelicals nor catholics nor any other can claim 'reason' as their sole guide to truth.

   If we all followed the worldview with the greatest thinkers, would we not all be Greek pagans?

3. Jorge says on Dec 22, 2009 @ 08:14 AM:

   Glenn,

   I don't have an answer or response to your post in general but it's interesting that you apparently think that Aquinas and Augustine are the sole property of Catholicism.

   That's something of a typical Catholic attitude but it's certainly reinforced by evangelicals who have failed to cultivate any serious historical understanding in their own circles.

   In any case, as an evangelical, I see both Augustine and Aquinas as important contributors to the history of Christian thought from which evangelicalism has emerged. Our view, remember, is that we are reforming the church by returning to the basic ideas of Christianity and the gospel and away from certain abuses of the medieval church.

   In returning to those basic ideas the reformers consciously drew directly from Augustine. He continues to be a major figure in evangelical thought. Aquinas's theology is probably less relevant to evangelical thought but much of his thought was simply adopted by the reformation without being too conscious about it (e.g., all Christians in the west have tended to assume a Latin/Thomistic view of the Trinity).

4. Jorge says on Dec 22, 2009 @ 08:17 AM:

   Also, I am aware that the obvious response is that "yeah, but Augustine and Aquinas were not evangelicals."

   That's true. However, they weren't contemporary Catholics either. Modern Catholicism is largely colored by the counter-reformation and modernist eras, which postdate both those guys.

   So that sort of claim can go both ways.

5. Glenn says on Dec 23, 2009 @ 08:12 AM:

   Hello guys,
   Humphreys,
   I think you are mistaken in your comment in response to me. Broadly stated, grace heals and perfects nature. No Christian that I am aware of would dispute that. Why would this simple theological tenet not apply to forming people's minds? The more that we personally know God (and part of knowing God would include the doctrine that we hold to) the greater that our minds should be renewed too. Through it all, are you really trying to tell me that evangelicalism has a comparable intellectual tradition to that of Catholicism? I would be willling to argue that even ousiders (i.e., non-Christians) could answer that question with ease.

   
   Jorge: your comment is a reasonable one, but you seem to be asuming that St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine were not Catholics. I do not deny that evangelicals draw from their insights, but can evangelicals draw from most of their insights, especially when it comes to the same doctrines and practices that they held? Hardly. Of course, the easy response on your side of things is to say that not even Catholics can draw from all of their insights, but the operative word that I used is "most." My main concern is to say that these men were not Proestants, but their thought can be found in a lineage of continuous Catholic thinking that developed in a healthy and necessary way. And as such, Catholics can use them as examples to make the arguments that they do in response to Craig's blog. Prostestants can use them too, but only in a parasitical way.

   Second, when you speak of evangelicals reforming the church and getting back to the "basic ideas of Christianity and the gospel and away from certain abuses of the medieval church" this begs the quesiotn with respect to the true Chruch. Post conciliar Catholic theologians would have no problem with a "semper reformanda" principle as the Reformers described it. Its part of Vatican II. The real question for you to consider is whether God failed in his providence in overseeing the Christian Church over the centuries, starting from the apostles onward. Again, this line of thinking would not mean that the Church didn't make small mistakes along the way (or that the Catholic Church doesn't try to reform Herself). There's a difference between reforming oneself, and stripping oneself so where one begins to believe things that Providence did not want.

6. Thomas Davis says on Dec 23, 2009 @ 10:04 AM:

   Glen,
   First I want to state that I count both Cotholics and Protestants as Christians. I think that you are missing a point when looking at the intellectual tradition of evengelicalism. First, the reformation was led by intellectuals. John Calvin, Martin Luther, and William Tendale, just to name a few, were highly educated. Second, These men drew on the idea that the Bible alone was athoritative. This involved many early Christains that believed the same thing. A formal history allows a history that is only about four hundred years old. This tradition also draws heavilly on Augustine, not so much on Thomas Aquinas(I have great respect for him though). Evangelicals also draw their tradition from the early Chrch fathers such who studied under the Apostles. I think that the bigges difference in the Protestant and Catholic traditions is that protistants have more freedome to critisize the traditions from a Biblical standpoint. I think that both traditions have mor in common than we want to admit.

7. Glenn says on Dec 23, 2009 @ 11:39 AM:

   Thanks for the reponse, Thomas! Yes, I agree with you that Evangelicalism has had a good share of Christian intellectuals. My point in this comment was to say that, all things being equal, you would expect the one true faith (in my case, I have argued that it is Catholic Christianity) to produce the greatest number of saints. Part of being a saint would include the development of one's mind. You'll see that I wrote at the beginning that
   "I think that Evangelicalism is not conducive to forming intellectuals to the extent that human beings can develop their minds." The operative words in my sentence were "to the extent that human beings are capable." This would not mean that I think intellectualism is completely impossible for Evangelical Christians, but only that the false teahcings within Evangelicalism serve as an impediment because they are shortsighted. Evangelicals, to be fair, should at least think the same about me as a Catholic (namely, that my Catholic beliefs are an impediment to my intellectual growth to some degree).

   For the record, I agree that Evangelicals are Christians to the extent that they are ignorant of what is objectively true (so, yes, I think the objective truth is that God is preserving the Catholic Church). To go against conscience would place Evagenlicals in a non-Christian camp altogether. This means that if they believe that Catholic Christianity is true, and if they go against their conscience in the process, then they would indeed be rejecting God's grace.

8. KStet says on Dec 23, 2009 @ 04:56 PM:

   I think there are a few different issues involved in Dr. Craig's monolog.
   1. There is a stereotype that Christians are stupid. I don't think the televangelists has done the church any favors in this depart. Unfortunately, they are the examples of Christianity most people are familiar with, either by seeing them on TV or when one of them is involved in some kind of scandal.
   2. The cultural elite who were involved in this discussion, think not only are Christians dumb but they stand in the way of their political agenda.What they are saying is Christianity and intellectualism are incapatible.Therefore, Christianity must change.Thier goal is to secularize Christianity so it won't get in their way.
   3. The last issue would be the direction of the church. Most churches as Dr. Craig pointed out, are feelings or experienced based. There are two components to Christianity. The mental and the spiritual. If you are strictly involved in a feelings based movement and not involved in apologetics, you can run into trouble if you have to debate or answer a question. Christian children run into trouble when they go to college and have not had any experience in apologetics and get sandbagged by atheist professors. On the other hand, a person can have all the answers on the intellectual side and lack the experiential side of Christianity. Clearly the church needs both sides.

9. humphreys says on Dec 24, 2009 @ 06:50 AM:

   Glenn,

   I don't believe that I mentioned anything to do with whether or not Catholics or Protestants have the best thinkers. Not because I either agree or disagree with you, but for the following reasons: a) it strikes me as a totally pointless debate and b) I am not an expert on Church history so it would seem a bit silly for me to wade in and display my ignorance on the matter.

   If your point is, as I fear, as follows: Catholics have got the greatest thinkers, so they must be right, then my challenge is this: don't the Greek Pagans have greater thinkers? Where is the Aristotle of Catholicism? Where is the Plato, the Socrates? This is a reducto ad absurdum response to your argument.

   You stated that 'Grace perfects and heals nature', and this would apply to one's mind. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that, once a person receives Salvific Grace from God, they will automatically become a cleverer person. This seems a bit daft to me, but I will do you the compliment of treating it seriously. My challenges are as follows: a) why cannot this aspect of "perfecting and healing nature" be a function of Common Grace as opposed to Saving Grace? b) If this principle applies to your cognitive faculties, why does it not apply to other faculties as well? For example, why would a Christian not automatically become a better musician, or a better athlete? c) Most importantly, is not the work of the Holy Spirit in someone's life not primarily one of love and holiness, rather than cleverness?

   Indeed, it would seem to me that intelligence is what you Catholics would call a Charism - i.e. a particular spiritual gift given in a particular way to a particular person for a particular purpose. In which case I would refer you to 1 Corinthians 12:7-11.

10. Thomas Davis says on Dec 25, 2009 @ 08:51 AM:

    Glenn,
    Your complaint about the false teachings about evangelicalism is the same complaint I have about Catholicism. I do think that there are errors in all denominations. I think this is because we are all fallen creatures. I also think that all denominations, with a few exceptions, fall under the one true faith. I think that you are searching for objective truth just as much as I am. I believe that both of us are not reaching our full intellectual potential and will not untill we are made perfect in heaven.
    Church, the True Church, which consists of all of those people who have realized that they have sinned agains God and have put their faith and trust in Jesus. I believe that this is what God's Church is.

11. Jorge says on Dec 28, 2009 @ 06:59 PM:

    Glen,

    "Your comment is a reasonable one, but you seem to be asuming that St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine were not Catholics."

    That's right, not in the sense that you understand "Catholic." With regard to Augustine, he's no more Catholic than he is Protestant. In many ways, Protestants are far more Augustinian than Catholics and he did not belong to the Catholic church as it is today. That church simply did not exist until some time after him.

    "I do not deny that evangelicals draw from their insights, but can evangelicals draw from most of their insights, especially when it comes to the same doctrines and practices that they held?"

    Sure... why not?

    "The real question for you to consider is whether God failed in his providence in overseeing the Christian Church over the centuries, starting from the apostles onward."

    No, of course he did not. But you assume that the Catholic, episcopal structure is what God had ordained to be his one true church. I can't think of any good reason to believe that. The church is far freer than that and it actively headed by the Holy Spirit.

    The the Roman church has never really been a monolith and has never had a monopoly on Christianity. In the early church Rome had nowhere near the authority that places like Antioch and Alexandria had and certain power moves by Rome directly contributed to the divide between east and west.

    If you are unwilling to admit the thousands upon thousands of Eastern Orthodox who have never been under the authority of Rome belong to a real church then I suppose there's simply no reasoning with Catholics on the matter.

12. Cris says on Dec 28, 2009 @ 09:07 PM:

    Glen,

    Catholicism is a cult like Mormonism.

    "You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" (Mt 7:16)

    
    The atheist Popes, the editing of the 10 commandments to accommodate idolatry, the adoption of so many pagan practices that an exhaustive list would be impossible, the selling of chicken bones as magical "relics", selling written indulgences for future sin (what happened to the cross?) ,belief in purgatory, the contemporary practice of buying ones relatives out of purgatory through the purchase of Mass cards, the practice of the Mass to remove sin thus devaluing the sacrifice of the cross and the inquisitions mass torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of Christians for crimes like reading the Bible is the legacy of your so called "one true faith". It's pagan.

    Catholicism is not Christian, but there are certainly Christians in the Catholic church albeit misled.

13. Robaylesbuy says on Dec 29, 2009 @ 04:16 AM:

    And let us not forget Catholicism's uncanny ability to produce an elite army of child abusers amongs it's ranks, coupled with it's equally impressive ability to cover their tracks.

    As Christopher Hitchen's so deftly remarks, "No child's behind left"

    And let us not neglect to remind ourselves that it is not an accident that St. Thomas Aquinas thought heretics should be killed and that St. Augustine thought they should be tortured.

    Still think those two are the pinnacle of Catholicism?

    It's enough to make a cat laugh. The basic teachings of Jesus can be seen as quite beautiful, and I speak as a skeptic. But as for what organised religion has done, and continues to do to destroy his message . . .

    Some of most sincere and beautiful people I know are Christians. They exude a Christ-likeness. Genuine, honest, compassionate, an eternity (literally?) from the ugly rumbling behemoth that organised religion has become.

14. robaylesbury says on Dec 31, 2009 @ 03:54 AM:

    A sobering article pasted from the Washington Post.

    Two avenging angels in Ireland

    Q: What was the most important religion story of 2009?
    2009 was the year in which - finally - thousands of Irish victims of child abuse on an unimaginable scale had the extent of their suffering acknowledged in the form of two reports, issued under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Sean Ryan and Judge Yvonne Murphy, respectively.
    The Ryan Report, published in May, shocked a normally phlegmatic world with its catalogue of physical, sexual and emotional abuse perpetrated on generations of Irish children, mostly at the hands of Roman Catholic monks, nuns and priests. More shocking still was its conclusion that this savage abuse, far from being the random acts of a few out-of-control mavericks, was both endemic and systemic and, furthermore, was actively covered up by the Church, whose only concern was the preservation of its own reputation.
    The Murphy Report, which was published just a month ago, focused on the way allegations of sexual abuse were dealt with in the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, by both church and state authorities. This report found that:
    The Dublin Archdiocese's pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.
    One would have to spend a considerable amount of time, as I have, reading these two reports to grasp the sheer enormity of the crimes that were perpetrated on children over many decades at the hands of the Church, and the hideousness of the suffering they endured. Unbelievably, children suffering from physical or mental impairments were even more likely to be victims of the severest forms of abuse, though in many of the institutions investigated, no child could hope to escape unscathed: the religious orders running them depended on the fear that came from the arbitrary infliction of brutal punishments to maintain the atmosphere of disciplined order they were seeking.
    These reports qualify as the most significant religion story of 2009 for a number of reasons.
    Most importantly, they represent a welcome step towards justice for the Church's victims. At last the world knows how they suffered. True justice still eludes them, however: Many religious orders made it a condition of their participation in the investigation that their priests would be guaranteed anonymity, and the Murphy Report is littered with pseudonyms and blanks where the names of the perpetrators should be. Consequently, no prosecutions will be possible in these cases, and those perpetrators still alive remain free and unpunished - and in many cases, free to abuse again. Whilst some of the bishops involved in the decades of cover-ups have resigned within the last few days, their claims that they have done so in the hope that it will bring peace to the victims might ring less hollow had they taken this step before the publication of the extent of their complicity left them with precious little choice in the matter. And in further twists of the knife, a number of Irish Congregations have consistently refused to apologize to their victims, others have apologized in terms which were, according to the Ryan Report, not conducive to the healing of the people concerned, and yet others have apologized but have refused to accept responsibility for their behavior.
    Nevertheless, the victims' suffering is now known and acknowledged and believed, and this is a comfort that was denied them by the Church for far too long.
    The second reason is that these reports have shined a spotlight on the rottenness at the core of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church's response has, if anything, made that light more revealing still. Yes, now, finally, when there is no room for maneuver left, there have been a few resignations at a senior level, but this was preceded by years of cover-up and denial, and months (since the Ryan Report) of wriggling and obfuscation and excuse-making. The extent of the sadistic cruelty inflicted on those children was shocking enough; the extensive Church cover-up - now known to have reached as high as the Vatican itself - more shocking still; but then came yet more vileness, as Catholic after Catholic attempted to wave the allegations away as examples of anti-Catholic prejudice, or as no worse than anyone else was doing at the time. Bloggers on one Catholic website blamed the abuse variously on Vatican II, homosexuals and secularism, then denied that it had happened to the extent reported, and then claimed that the whole thing was really just an exercise in Catholic-bashing and the kind of persecution Christ had led his followers to expect.
    This was how Catholics waved away the reports; but the Ryan Report also showed how Catholic practices had actively led to the abuse and the cover-ups in the first place. It highlights the way the vow of chastity, for example, was understood in the Christian Brothers (the order behind the worst of the abuse) to demand totally impersonal relationships with others, with anything gentler being considered unspiritual. The vow of obedience, which included the requirement to serve the interests of the Congregation above all else, was frequently cited as the reason why Brothers who were concerned at the treatment of children in their care did not dare to raise the issue, for fear of being accused of criticizing their superiors and therefore breaking their vow. Indeed, it is not difficult to see how the withdrawal from all things connected with 'the world', the absence of women and the emphasis on silence, all created an atmosphere that was clearly going to create significant emotional and psychological turmoil: humans are, after all, social animals. We thrive on human warmth and friendship and companionship. Remove those and we remove the source of much of our health and wellbeing. Perhaps we should not be surprised if some people subject to such an abnormal and unhealthy way of life were frequently overcome with uncontrollable surges of anger, hatred, violence or lust. The Roman Catholic church is a huge institution and will, of course, include amongst its number its fair share of violent and abusive individuals; but it seems likely that the very nature of the unnatural and unwholesome life imposed on its religious seriously added to the problem.
    The final reason these reports are significant is just as sobering, and one which should give all of us, religious or non-religious, pause for thought. Secular bodies such as the Garda (Irish police) were aware of the abuse that was going on - and for many years did nothing about it. How could this possibly have happened? It happened because they did not feel entitled to tackle the Church. Indeed, the Murphy Report concluded that
    A number of very senior members of the Gardaí, including the Commissioner in 1960, clearly regarded priests as being outside their remit.
    This is the perfect example of how tragically misplaced society's automatic respect for religion is, and what devastating consequences it can have. Because of an automatic, knee-jerk, unconsidered respect for all things religious, the assumption that religion is good and benign and necessary for stability and morality, the taboo on publicly criticizing it, the unspoken assumption that it must be shielded, protected and privileged at all costs - because of these things, thousands of children had their formative years turned into seemingly endless nightmares, in which they were brutally flogged, punched, hurled around classrooms, humiliated, semi-starved, mocked, degraded and raped. Anything rather than bring the Church into disrepute.
    In the words of the Murphy Report,
    Institutions and individuals, no matter how august, should never be considered to be immune from criticism or from external oversight of their actions [...] The State authorities facilitated the cover up by not fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure that the law was applied equally to all and allowing the Church institutions to be beyond the reach of the normal law enforcement processes [...] It is the responsibility of the State to ensure that no similar institutional immunity is ever allowed to occur again.
    Powerful words. Words that apply to us as individual citizens just as much as to the organs of State. Ryan and Murphy have shown us beyond any shadow of doubt that it is time to kick religion off its pedestal - it never deserved to be up there anyway - and to start treating it exactly the same as every other human institution. If these two reports mean that we all, finally, come to realize that, then this will have been a very important news story indeed.

15. blackhead says on Jan 1, 2010 @ 02:52 AM:

    Sir Isaac Newton was a protestant!

16. John says on Jan 1, 2010 @ 09:34 AM:

    My understanding is that Sir Isaac Newton was an Arian in his beliefs and denied the Trinity; Arian doctrine is considered heretical by both Protestant and R.C. standards.

17. humphreys says on Jan 3, 2010 @ 03:08 PM:

    Dear Everyone,

    Why does it matter which particular brand of theology Sir Isaac Newton belongs to? What does it matter whether Augustine was a Protestant or a Catholic? What does it matter what Einstein meant by the word "God" when he said things like "God does not play dice with the universe"? The worldview which wins the souls of the most clever thinkers in history does not automatically win the debate.

18. Fred says on Jan 24, 2010 @ 04:27 PM:

    As I read the comments of Jorge and Glen regarding Catholocism and Prodestantism, I am thinking that the comment:
    "Church, the True Church, which consists of all of those people who have realized that they have sinned against God and have put their faith and trust in Jesus. I believe that this is what God's Church is."
    is more to the point. The "True Church" is actually the catholic (universal)church. What is called the Catholic Church is actually the Roman denomination of the catholic (the universal) church which includes all believers.

19. Valentin says on Jan 26, 2010 @ 10:34 AM:

    And how about the greek orthodox Christians. For many of them both protestants and catholics are stupid because they don't realise the true mystical nature of Christianity. This controversy is sterile!

20. Anonymous says on Mar 4, 2010 @ 12:08 PM:

    Taken from "Toward A Recovery of Christian Belief" by Carl F. H. Henry, noted author and theologian, the founding editor of "Christianity Today" and chairman of the World Congress on Evangelism in Berlin in 1966. He has written over 35 books, and has taught and lectured at major universities around the world.

    Evangelical presuppositionalists-as evangelical empiricists or evidentialists now often pejoratively label them--disavow the official Roman Catholic view formulated by Thomas Aquinas and approved by the Council of Trent. The Thomastic view maintains that the existence of God and the existence and immortality of the soul are to be established by empirical evidence and unaided reason, not by the primacy of revelation or faith. In opposing presuppositionalism, evangelical empiricists lean heavily on Thomas's "five-fold proof" (Protestants usually identify them as the cosmological, teleological, and anthropological arguments). They quite ignore the fact that Thomas himself adopts a presuppositional or deductive approach in regard to such admittedly revealed doctrines as the Trinity and bodily resurrection. Even empirical scientists postulate conceptual models in their efforts to account for the cosmos. Generally all science is operational, since scientific conclusions and affirmations about the physical world are but tentative and revisable.

    If presuppositionalism implies that anyone who thinks has presuppositions, than I am unapologetically an evangelical presuppositionalist. In fact, even an empiricist or evidentilist who professes to be wholly free of presuppositions harbours them, however covertly or unwittingly. Fideism (the view that everything that can be known with certainty about God or divine things is known only or primarily by faith and never by reason) is no more inviting or consoling than empiricism. Evangelical Christianity has little to gain from a theory that--disavowing public reason and logical criteria (including the law of contradiction) simply takes God for granted, as it does from a view that presumes to derive God from non-God (whatever aspects of the finite world it proposes to invoke).

    Those who disparage the primacy of faith do evangelical theology no special service. To affirm the priority of faith need not mean, as evidentialists routinely charge, that all presuppositionalists adhere to faith alone apart from, instead of, or contrary to reason. To maintain that faith precedes speculative reasoning in establishing certain basic truths does not all all require a dismissal of reason and evidence as irrelevant to authentic faith.

    To begin the presentation of one's views with aprioric affirmations and an appeal to faith; therefore, is no more irrational or intellectually disreputable in theology than it is in philosophy or in natural science. An intellectual is wholly within the bounds of philosophical and theological legitimacy if he believes God exists and affirms His existence in the absence of empirical proof. No rational basis exists for limiting credible presuppositions to only those that involve evidence of the kind that specially impresses physicists or anthropologists. The epistemic propriety of belief in God does not depend on supportive empirical or evidential considerations (that, of course, does not mean there is no evidence for such a belief).

    The basic axioms of the Christian faith are two: the basic ontological axiom is the living God; the basic epistemological axiom is divine revelation. Without the living God, there would be no divine revelation. Without intelligible self-disclosure we would not know that God exists. The Christian faith offers not mathematical or speculative certainty, but rather spiritual assurance. Such assurance is grounded not in empirical probabilities but in a supernatural witness of the Holy Spirit that individually enlivens objectively inspired scripture. The Spirit uses truth as an instrument of persuasion, truth attested by scripture and testable for logical consistency.

    As revelationally grounded and intelligible faith, Christianity sets out from the ontological priority of the living God and the epistemological priority of divine revelation. From these basic postulates it derives and expounds all the core doctrines of the Christian religion. Among these is the divine gift of saving faith that enlists the entire self in love, worship and obedient service of the infinite Creator and Judge of mankind and the nations. Deductive theology invites the attention of nonbelievers to logical consistency as a negative test of truth and to Scriptural verification. The claims of deductive theology are intelligible to any person who heeds logic, whether or not he is personally a believer. But as one of its doctrines, Christianity affirms the Spirit of Truth as the dynamic reality whereby the living God sovereignly initiates and nurtures saving faith in the life of the penitent. The Christian can hold both head and heart high if on his own ground--and quite independently of Plato, or Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle or Hume or Hegel--he affirms with the same certainty and assurance of Paul: "I know whom I have believed, and am convinced..." (2 Timothy 1:12).

21. Anonymous says on Mar 4, 2010 @ 06:53 PM:

    Just a few more thoughts from Dr. Carl Henry's book "Towards A Recovery of Christian Belief" (The Rutherford Lectures).

    Christianity does not differ from other belief systems in that it has distinctive assumptions;all belief systems do. A belief system without presuppositions is like a sprawling edifice without with neither an architectural plan nor secure foundations.

    Much confusion exists among those who eagerly point to experience in order to validate their beliefs. Only the least disciplined in philosophy would, to be sure, claim that the Christian faith is empirically or experientially derived. The God of the Bible is not perceptible to the senses, and a strickly empirical method has no competency to decide the reality of the supernatural. Some would insist that the Christian faith is empirically verifiable, either directly through the experience of the new birth or at least partially through an experiential confirmation of biblical claims. But subjective experience cannot deal decisively with what transcends experience, and its conclusions in any event are tentative and revisable.

    Moreover, one's private personal experience, no matter how intense, cannot be made the ground of another person's religious affirmation, else we would face a host of competing claims unserviceable for distinguishing between true and false religion. If we profess to be Christian, neither our own experience nor anyone else's can be the basis of our religious affirmations.

    All truth is ultimately God's truth. The human mind is not veiled divinity. Transcendent divine revelation, not human reasoning, is the source of truth, and the human mind is a divinely gifted instrument for recognizing it. Indeed, Scripture affirms that God is Himself truth and the source and ground of reason and truth, and that the divine image (imago Dei)in which He created humanity includes rational and moral capacities, though limited by the Fall.

    The laws of logic are not a speculative prejudice imposed at a given moment of history as a transcendent philosophical development. Neither do they involve a "Western way of thinking," even if Aristotle may have stated them in an orderly way. The laws of valid inference are universal; they are elements of the divine image (imago Dei). In the Bible, reason has ontological significance. God is Himself truth and the source and ground of reason and truth. Biblical Christianity honours the Logos of God as the source of all meaning and considers the laws of thought an aspect of the imago.

    Not even humanity's fall into sin has annulled the law of contradiction. The noetic effect of sin is serious, for it hinders man's disposition to meditate on the proper content of human thinking. But it does not deform or destroy the components of logic and reason. Propositions that were universally true before the Fall and belong to God's propositional revelation remain so ongoingly despite the Fall.

    The pluralistic approach to world religions now often champions the need to recast the gospel in other than "Western thought forms" and in "non-western logics", as if logic were an Aristotelian invention. Such emphases often relativize the Christian theology and replace it with non-Biblical philosophy under the guise of Christian mission.

    The Christian belief system is more comprehensive than are alternatives that shrink and distort ultimate reality. But that is not the only important thing to be said about Christianity. No logically inconsistent claims can be valid. Since Christianity stands the test of rational consistency, its control beliefs are not disqualified by the negative test of cognitive inconsistency. Moreover, Christianity has already passed through the scientific revolution; non-Biblical faiths must yet do so.

    Christian faith, however, is not without evidential confirmation. Evidentialists point hurriedly to the world and man as evidence for God. But rational presuppositionalism points instead to scripture. Evidentialists may point to order or harmony in nature as incontrovertible evidence or "proof" that God exists. But surely the disorder of nature--and not only its order--might also be compatible with God's existence. The fact is that the reality or existence of nature is not at all decisive for the existence of God.

    While evidentialists seek to erect a case for the infinite based on the finite and profess to derive God as a conclusion from nature, rational presuppositionalists derive the cosmos instead from God, as did the writer (Moses) of the Genesis creation account. So did the apostle Paul when he addressed the professional philosophers gathered on Mars Hill (Acts 17:24ff.).Even in that great passage of Romans 1:18, where Paul emphasizes that God's universal and ongoing revelation of His eternal power and Godhead through nature penetrates mankind's deepest selfhood, the apostle puts the affirmation in the context of divine initiative, "God has made it plain to them" (1:19) is His governing premise.

    The mind of man is created in the image of God with rational and moral capabilities and the Holy Spirit uses truth as a means of persuasion. But Christian faith involves more than intellectual assent; it is in fact a comprehensive body-soul commitment. Faith is God's gift. The Holy Spirit links the validity of Christian claims to regenerating power.

    Naturalism can provide no conclusive reason why radical self-interest should not be the high alter on which all principles can be advantageously sacrificed.Indeed, naturalism can give no reason for taking reason or itself seriously.
    Pagan though they were, even the classic ancient Greek philosophers still warn us through their extant writings that no stable society can be built apart from durable truth and good and that any eclipse of these realities robs human survival of meaning and worth. Their writings are not the last word, however. Echoing from Creation to Calvary to Consummation, God's eternal Word invites a parched humanity to the Well that never runs dry, to the Water of Life that alone truly and fully quenches the thirst of stricken pilgrims (for which Jesus speaking in scripture, which always interprets scripture, explains that He alone is the Well, to which all who drink receive eternal life: "He that believeth on me. as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7:38)