04.02. ULTIMATE QUESTIONS
Ultimate Questions 2. ULTIMATE QUESTIONS
PHILOSOPHY
While preparing for the publication of his book, Fred Heeren had arranged to meet with several marketing executives who were experts in the area of religious publishing. He relates his experience as follows:
"People don’t care about life’s ultimate questions," said one seasoned old marketer. "People care about money. They care about their personal appearance. They care about getting more leisure time, more physical comforts. . ."
. . .Another executive told me he personally wasn’t interested in the content. "I don’t think about life’s ultimate questions," he said. . ."Your book’s got no appeal to me. No one’s going to buy your books unless you appeal to some universal self-interest, some basic want. And what do people want?"
"Truth?" I ventured, just to be perverse.
"No, no - people want to dominate others. They want to emulate the admired, to be admired. They want more power, more popularity, more self-confidence," and he continued with another list, concluding: "You need to tell people how this will make them richer, happier, more fulfilled, how it will give them a spiritual high."
These were not words to be taken lightly. The men before me had successfully packaged many books for some of the largest religious publishers. One executive boasted that his company routinely packaged books even before they were written, relegating the content to a mere afterthought.1
After recovering from the nausea, not so much caused by the business practice described, but by the truth of what the executives said about the reading audience, we realize that here we have the formula for popular contemporary preaching. That is, people want to hear a message that "appeal to some universal self-interest." Truth is unimportant as long as we "give them a spiritual high." Such a false gospel has generated an entire niche of spiritual readership consisting of those who consider themselves Christians but are not, and it is to these false converts that the businesses market their attractively packaged products.
However, our subject is not the astounding number of false believers in our midst; rather, we must consider the observation, "People don’t care about life’s ultimate questions." By ultimate questions, we refer to issues regarding the controlling premises and assumptions in every area of thought and life. Going beyond the superficial, we are focusing on the fundamental ideas from which we derive our worldview. For example, in the area of science, instead of performing scientific experiments to test a particular hypothesis, we are interested in theories that prescribe the place and limitations of science.
Some people say that they will contemplate the ultimate questions when they become older, when they get rich, or when they retire. This intent may make them slightly better than those who decide never to consider any issue deeper than the basest animalistic needs, but the effect is not any better. To delay obtaining answers to the ultimate questions, one must make the dangerous assumption that he does not require these answers in the meantime. Determining to achieve financial success first already assumes a given purpose to life, and a set of priorities. To wait until retirement assumes that answers to ultimate questions are irrelevant for daily living. However, if the answers to the ultimate questions govern all subsidiary propositions within a person’s worldview, then on what principles do these people operate until they are ready to think about them? One may plan to think about God, sin, and salvation later, probably after retirement, but if there is a God who holds men accountable, and punishes adultery and theft, this person should stop cheating on his wife and embezzling funds now and not later. No one can live a day without presupposing answers to the ultimate questions. For people to delay a serious contemplation of these issues is equivalent to deciding that even if their presuppositions are false, they will still abide by them for most of their lives, and then they will consider if these presuppositions need to be changed. But until then, on what basis do they suppose that life is even worth living? Christians have an answer to this, but a naturalistic worldview has no defense against an invitation to commit suicide. Why is life worth living on the basis of evolutionary principles? To propagate the species? But why must the human species continue to exist? On account of humanistic theories, humanity would eventually become extinct. Even if this will not happen for many years, on their principles each individual lives for only so long, and afterward ceases to exist. Why should he concern himself with what happens to humanity? But Genesis 1:28 says, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Christianity teaches us about an afterlife and a final judgment.
Then, some people say that one should suspend judgment over the ultimate questions, since one cannot determine the answers to them in this life. However, if they believe that there is no afterlife, which is already an assumption concerning an ultimate issue, they will have only this life to answer those questions. On the other hand, if they believe the opposite and affirm that there is an afterlife, then the next question is whether or not they need to prepare for it, and if so, how they should prepare for it. Those who claim to be agnostic about ultimate issues nevertheless assume very definite answers about them, thus contradicting their agnosticism.
Another example comes from ethics. When we face a situation in which we must decide whether to tell a lie, how do we decide? If we decide that the expected positive effect justifies the lie, then we have assumed a teleological ethical principle that says the end justifies the means. But by what principle do we determine that the projected effect is positive in the first place? If teleological ethics is untenable, then we need some other authority or principle to justify lying. But perhaps lying is never justified. How do we know? In any case, we must know, because our ultimate presuppositions about ethics determine our decisions everyday. But once we wonder how we can know something, then we are already talking about our ultimate presuppositions about knowledge, or epistemology. And since knowledge has to do with what there is to know, what can be known, and how we know, then we are already talking about our ultimate presuppositions about reality, or metaphysics. In fact, if we think deeply enough, we will realize that every single proposition we speak or action we perform presupposes a set of interrelated ultimate principles by which we perceive and respond to reality. This is our worldview.
Ultimate questions are unavoidable, and those people who have never deliberately and seriously considered them nevertheless necessarily make numerous assumptions about them, and then derive their positions about various subsidiary issues based on their assumptions about the ultimate questions. To operate by false or unjustified ultimate assumptions for most or all of one’s life is to risk living it in vain. Therefore, not only must everyone settle these questions in his mind, but he should make it his top priority and immediately begin thinking about them. He must not postpone this until he has lived out his life and carried out many futile plans founded upon unjustified presuppositions.
Among other things, the ultimate issues include metaphysics, epistemology, theology, anthropology, and ethics.2 In what follows, we will discuss all of these topics from a Christian perspective, mainly through a partial exposition of the prologue of John’s Gospel. The study of these ultimate questions will amount to an introduction on philosophy. They are appropriately called ultimate questions since they are basic to any system of thought, and our answers to them affect our view of every issue in life. Whereas a looser conception of "ultimate" may include discussions about the broader principles of politics and education, we cannot divorce politics from ethics, or divorce education from anthropology. When it comes to science, any position that we take assumes something about metaphysics and epistemology.
LOGOS
We will begin with John 1:1 : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This verse is a source of controversies, but the controversies are there not so much because the verse is especially difficult, but mostly because some people just do not want to affirm what it means. John 1:1-18 tell us the identity of "the Word." For example, John 1:17 identifies it with "Jesus Christ." Thus the prologue of John gives us much information for a biblical christology. The "Word" in Greek is logos, and we must not pass by John 1:1 without some mention of the logos doctrine. In one of my other books,3 I complain that modern preaching tends to hide the minister’s theological education from his congregation. His homiletic theory demands that he separates into two distinct categories the class lecture he attended and the sermons he preaches. In opposition to one who does not hide his theological training when he preaches, The Elements of Preaching says:
Fresh out of school, he is so enamored of his notes that he tries to transform them into sermon outlines, and his congregation is subjected to terms such as logos, hypostatic union, parousia, and so on. We know of one church, located near a seminary, which always knew what the new student pastor would preach about in his first sermon - the logos doctrine in John 1:1-51. Why? Because that was one of the first lectures given in the Greek class each year.4
Anyone interested enough to read this book is probably also interested in knowing about the doctrines of the "hypostatic union" and the "parousia." Of course, even those Christians not in the ministry should talk about the return of Christ, but many people suggest that we should avoid using technical terms when addressing the general audience. Indeed it may not be absolutely necessary to use the word parousia to talk about the return of Christ, but if the theologians find it helpful to use a technical term, then it will probably be helpful for other believers also - at least they should know the term well enough to understand the relevant theological literature.
Technical terms are useful in summarizing concepts that may otherwise take several sentences or even paragraphs to express, and therefore I favor the use of technical terms. However, I would add that these terms should be carefully defined, whether we are addressing professional theologians or the general audience. In any case, it is most irresponsible to "protect" the general audience from being exposed to technical terms. Even the word "Trinity" is a technical term, but it has been so much discussed and used that most believers know something about it. But Christians need to know about the hypostatic union as well as the Trinity. Therefore, instead of hiding our theological education from other believers, we should share it with them by teaching them what we have learned. The same chapter in The Elements of Preaching ends with the admonition, "Digest your material first, then prepare messages that meet human needs and glorify Jesus Christ." In other words, seminary lectures do not meet human needs and do not glorify Jesus Christ. Are these Christian seminaries? With this attitude toward seminary lectures, it is no wonder why Christians have a poor grasp of even the fundamentals of the biblical system of thought - it is because ministers hide theological information from them.
Contrary to such anti-intellectual recommendations, the church should teach academic theology to all believers, including the technical terms that make it convenient to express theological concepts. Paul did not hesitate "to preach anything that would be helpful" (Acts 20:20) to his hearers. Of course, the minister should begin by teaching his hearers biblical doctrines on a basic level before proceeding to the advanced materials, but to deliberately hide theological knowledge from Christians - allegedly for their own good - robs and insults them, and should disqualify a person from the ministry altogether.
Now, Heraclitus of Ephesus (530-470 BC) argued that nature is constantly changing. His famous illustration contends that a man cannot step into the same river twice, since the water and the bed of the river are constantly moving and changing. In addition, the man himself is also constantly changing, so that when he steps into the river the second time, he is already different from the man that he was when he stepped into the river the first time. But if everything constantly changes, then nothing really "exists." Imagine if a sculptor works a piece of clay into the appearance of a dog, but before you can say its name or even decide what it is in your mind, the object changes into a car, then a building, and then a pot. In fact, the appearance of the object constantly changes so that it is never one definite and recognizable thing at any point in time. If this is true, then you can at least still call it clay; however, what if the substance of the object also constantly changes? The clay changes into bronze, then to iron, then to ice, and then to gold. It constantly changes so that it is not one definite substance at any point in time. That is, the object is not any one "thing" at any point in time. But if something is not anything, then it is nothing, and if it is nothing, then it cannot be known. Therefore, knowledge depends on immutability. Thus Heraclitus said that there is a logos, a law or principle, that does not change. It is "a rational and good agent whose activity appears as the order of Nature."5 Without it all would be chaos, and nature would be unintelligible.
Later, the logos is taken over by Stoicism, a school of thought founded by Zeno of Citium (about 300 BC). The Stoics were more ideologically diverse than their contemporary Epicureans, and Paul confronted both groups when he was in Athens (Acts 17:18). In any case, Stoicism regarded logos as a principle of divine reason, and the logoi spermatikoi, like seeds and sparks of divine fire, govern the development of every object in nature.
Philo (20 BC - AD 40) was a contemporary of Christ. This Jewish Hellenistic philosopher from Alexandria had a rather developed logos doctrine that appeared to make the Word "nothing else than the faculty of reason in God."6 However, several points of inconsistency makes it difficult to specify the exact nature of Philo’s logos. Although it is variously represented in his writings, interpreters understand that its primary purpose is to "bridge the gulf between the transcendent deity and the lower world and to serve as the unifying law of the universe, the ground of its order and rationality."7 By the time the apostle John wrote his Gospel, the word logos had been invested with much philosophical background and meaning. Although there are some similarities between John and the Greek philosophers in how they used the term, to suggest that John’s logos has "any connection amounting to doctrinal dependence"8 on the philosophers would betray a misunderstanding of both the apostle and the philosophers. For example, Heraclitus was like the Milesian philosophers in many ways, and the Stoics held to a materialistic physics; their views of the logos fit into their own systems, which are incompatible with the biblical worldview.
Philo’s logos is also incompatible with John’s christology. When John refers to the Word, or logos, he is thinking of a personal divine being who defines and exhibits rationality, and not a non-personal metaphysical principle that defines and exhibits rationality. On the other hand, when Philo refers to his logos in personal terms, he does so in a metaphorical sense. The Greek philosophers never conceived of this principle of rationality as having taken upon himself human attributes, as the biblical doctrine of incarnation affirms: "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). An epistemological and soteriological mediator who is both fully God and fully man (1 Timothy 2:5) was far from their thinking. Therefore, Kittel concludes that, "From the very first the New Testament logos is alien to Greek thought."9
Nevertheless, John chooses a word that his readers could recognize, and his intended meaning does have some resemblance to non-biblical usage. Indeed, the biblical logos has much to do with logic, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The biblical logos doctrine addresses these and other ultimate questions, but in contrast with non-biblical views of the logos, the biblical doctrine is based on divine revelation and not human speculation. John’s teaching on the divine logos supplies the structure and content of a complete biblical worldview.
Again, John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Although word is one acceptable translation for logos, proposition, sentence, speech, argument, discourse, logic, and several other words are also satisfactory. However, if we take into account the theological and philosophical background of logos, the best translations may be a capitalized Word, Wisdom, or Reason.
Attributing such a high place to "Word" or "Reason" is repugnant to anti-intellectualistic thinking. The German romanticist Goethe writes in Faust:
’Tis writ, "In the beginning was the Word."
I pause, to wonder what is here inferred. The Word I cannot set supremely high: A new translation I will try.
I read, if by the spirit I am taught, This sense: "In the beginning was the Thought." This opening I need to weigh again, Or sense may suffer from a hasty pen. Does Thought create, and work, and rule the hour?
’Twere best: "In the beginning was the Power."
Yet, while the pen is urged with willing fingers, A sense of doubt and hesitancy lingers. The spirit comes to guide me in my need, I write, "In the beginning was the Deed."10
Without tracing the philosophical influences implicit in the passage, we may note that it is not really a translation of the biblical verse, but an expression of prejudice against the Christian view of the universe. Goethe has little concern as to what the verse actually says, but he seeks to oppose John’s intellectualism. If in the beginning there was the Word or the Thought, as the most straightforward translations would indicate, then it is this divine and personal principle of reason that created and even now governs the universe, and theology must be thoroughly intellectual and rational As mentioned, "Reason," "Wisdom," and "Word" are all acceptable translations for logos. However, whereas the first two are self-explanatory, the third demands an explanation. The main point is that "Word" implies the self-expression of a person, especially intellectual self-expression. This fits well with the christology of the New Testament, which says that Christ "is the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), and that, "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being" (Hebrews 1:3). If we keep in mind that this "Word" is a person, then this translation preserves the personification of the logos, as well as the meaning of reason and wisdom inherent in it. The expression, "In the beginning," is reminiscent of Genesis 1:1, indicating that the Word had a role in creation. We will see what this role is in Genesis 1:3. Then, the expression, "The Word was with God," conveys an important piece of information that, together with the next phrase in verse 1, begins to reveal a picture of the Trinity. The word translated "with" is pros. That the Word, or Christ, is with God indicates that he is distinguishable from God. Some examples of pros include the following: "Aren’t his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3); "Every day I was with you" (Mark 14:49); "I would have liked to keep him with me" (Philemon 1:13); "We proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us" (1 John 1:2). The final example refers to Christ and again implies that he is not identical with the Father, but at the same time has a definite relationship with the Father. With some exceptions, the word "God" (or theos in Greek) refers to the Father in the New Testament, and therefore Christ is not identical to "God" the Father. However, that Christ is not identical to the Father does not mean that Christ is not deity. John writes, "He was with God in the beginning" (John 1:2), which already implies his deity. But more explicit is the third clause in verse 1, which says, "the Word was God." This clause in John 1:1 has been the source of much dispute and controversy. It is a phrase that "ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). Wishing to deny the deity of Christ or the Trinity, some people have observed that the theos in theos en ho logos lacks the definite article (as in "the" God), and thus merely indicates that Christ has the quality of being divine, and not that he is deity. That is, they say that Christ is like God, but he is not God himself. But this is a misinterpretation.
Since the article (Greek: ho) precedes logos, it makes the "Word" the subject. That "theos" immediately follows after the conjunction "and" (kai) shows that it receives the emphasis. Had an article preceded both theos and logos, the phrase would have completely identified the "Word" with "God" (theos), which is inconsistent with the doctrine of the Trinity that John and other New Testament writers affirmed. That is, if John is here affirming the doctrine of the Trinity, then to have an article before theos would make John say something that he does not wish to say. The grammatical structure of the clause demands the translation, "The Word was God." The REB accurately translates its meaning, saying, "What God was, the Word was." Therefore, the clause as it is written affirms the deity of Christ, and at the same time preserves the doctrine of the Trinity. The expression, "In the beginning was the Word," teaches the pre-existence of Christ. Then, the expression, "The Word was with God," implies an intimate relationship between Christ and God, without identifying the two. After that, the expression, "The Word was God," shows us that although Christ is not identical to "God" (the Father), he is equal to the Father, and this is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, anti-Trinitarian cults and heretics may not use this verse to argue against the biblical doctrines of the Trinity and Christ’s deity, since the verse is precisely as it should be if John affirms both of these doctrines.
METAPHYSICS
We are interested in understanding how the prologue of John’s Gospel answers the ultimate questions. John 1:1 tells us that there is at the beginning a principle of reason and order, but unlike that of the philosophers, this logos is a divine person. In one set of translations, John 1:3 continues, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." The NASB is preferable: "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." In a second set of translations, John 1:3-4 are punctuated in a different way, so that John 1:3 reads as follows: "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being" (NRSV); "Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him" (NJB); "Everything came about through him, and without him not one thing came about" (Lattimore).11 Some commentators find it difficult to make sense of John 1:4 when the passage is punctuated in this second way, for then John 1:4 would say, "What has come into being in him was life…" (NRSV). Nevertheless, the symmetry of John 1:3 has become more evident. D. A. Carson suggests an alternate translation of John 1:3 that says, "All things were made by him, and what was made was in no way made without him."12 My primary concern is to prevent the words, "without him nothing was made that has been made," from being misunderstood to imply that some things were not created. The biblical view is that only God is eternal, so that it opposes any concept of creation in which God merely rearranges pre-existing chaotic matter into definite form. That is, Christianity teaches creation ex nihilo - out of nothing. There was no pre-existing matter or material for God to work with or rearrange at creation. God created both the matter and the form or arrangement of the universe. The second version of John 1:3 eliminates the potential misunderstanding: "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being." But if this rendering is impossible because of various considerations, then Carson’s translation is perhaps helpful in avoiding the problem. In any case, the first half of the verse in itself makes the biblical view of creation clear in any translation: "All things came into being through him." Acknowledging this part of the verse prevents the possibility of misunderstanding the second half of the verse. Both portions of the verse say the same thing - the first half affirms that all things were made by the Word, and the second half denies that anything exists apart from his creative power. There was no matter at all before creation - by agency of the Word, God made everything.
Here is the foundation of Christian metaphysics. John 1:1 tells us about the Creator, and John 1:3 tells us about the creation. Contrary to some of the other systems of thought, John denies that creation was merely an act of rearrangement of pre-existing matter; rather, there was no matter at all before God created it. Creation was by divine fiat. Since "Reason" (Word, Wisdom, Logic) is eternal and preceded creation, the laws of logic were not created. They are true not only for human beings, and they operate not only by cultural convention. Instead, they are necessary laws of thought that had eternally existed in the mind of God - logic is the way God thinks.
Therefore, contrary to contemporary Christian irrationalism, what is a genuine contradiction to man is also a contradiction to God, and what is non-contradictory to God is never a genuine contradiction to man. However, because of sin’s effects on the mind (the noetic effects of sin), man often makes mistakes in his reasoning, so that what appears to him as a contradiction may not be a genuine contradiction. Nevertheless, the point remains that the laws of logic are the same with God as they are with man. This implies that when a man thinks with perfect rationality, his mind finitely mirrors God’s mind, and his thinking is valid. However, because of sin’s effects on the mind, man is often irrational - he does not always think with logical validity. Now, the laws of logic are rules of valid reasoning, so that given the correct information and premises, a valid reasoning process enables a person to draw true inferences and conclusions. However, if man cannot discover any knowledge or information by himself, and if he cannot overcome sin’s effects on the mind by himself, then he requires God’s verbal revelation in Scripture to overcome the human mind’s failure to grasp truth and gain knowledge. That is, man needs Scripture to give him the necessary premises to truly know and to correctly reason about God and reality. The foundation of Christian sanctification consists of knowing the propositions in the Bible, and reasoning correctly with them.
Many Christians have been hindered in their spiritual progress by an erroneous understanding and outrageous application of Isaiah 55:8-9. These verses say, "’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ’As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’" Some people teach that this means man can never think or understand God’s thoughts. But if this is true, then no one can understand Isaiah 55:8-9 itself! It is precisely because our thoughts do not correspond to God’s thoughts that we need to renew our thinking to match his thinking. Since our thoughts are not his thoughts, we must read the Scripture to know about God’s thoughts, so that we may change our minds to conform to them.
Colossians 1:16 says, "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." The thrust here is that "by him all things were created"; the rest of the verse emphasizes that nothing at all has been made apart from him. So far this repeats what we have read from John. The next verse continues to say that, not only did he create all that exists, but even now he sustains the creation by his power: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17). Hebrews 1:1-14 echoes this teaching, and says that by agency of the Son, God "made the universe" (Hebrews 1:2), and that he is "sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Hebrews 1:3).
Therefore, the biblical view of metaphysics is as follows. The metaphysical starting point is God the Trinity. By agency of the Son - that is, the logos, Reason, Wisdom, or Word - the Godhead created the universe, which includes both the "visible and invisible" (Colossians 1:16), the spiritual and the material realms. God made everything that exists; nothing exists that he has not created. God is the only uncreated being.
God continues to exercise his power after creation, since even now he sustains and facilitates all the operations of the universe. In addition to sustaining the continual existence of creation, he is also the cause of all that occurs. He may often use secondary causes or means to cause something to occur, but he is also the cause of these secondary causes or means. Therefore, it is correct to say that he alone is the cause of all things; his hand is seen in every event. Just as nothing could have come into being apart from him, nothing can happen in creation apart from his will and power: "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father" (Matthew 10:29). This biblical view of metaphysics is pivotal to Christian epistemology, ethics, and soteriology. In theological terms, having a biblical conception of the sovereign God is necessary for a sound Christian theology. A compromise in theology proper (the doctrine of God) creates a rippling effect that destroys the integrity of all other biblical doctrines. Once we accept a false view of God, the rest of the system cannot be Christian. For example, a sovereign God precludes the humanistic doctrine of free will when it comes to salvation. Divine sovereignty eliminates human autonomy - Scripture denies that man has free will. Likewise, one who insists on Arminianism - that man accepts Christ by his own free will rather than by God’s sovereign choice - cannot at the same time affirm a sovereign God.
Some theologians perceive this dilemma, and so they choose to believe that God is limited in power and knowledge. Rather than admitting their own limitations, they prefer to imagine that God is the limited one. But then they can no longer claim to worship the God of the Bible, so that the logical consequence of Arminianism is paganism. The Christian system requires an affirmation of God’s absolute sovereignty. This view of metaphysics solves the mind-body problem, which philosophers consider very difficult. This is the question of how an immaterial mind can manipulate a physical body. How can the incorporeal contact the physical? Our answer is that since God facilitates all mental and physical operations, his omnipotence makes this possible. In other words, without the absolutely sovereign God to facilitate the relationship between the mind and the body, it would be impossible for a person to even roll his eyeballs at this doctrine. God causes our thoughts by his sovereign will, and at the moment the thought occurs, he also causes the corresponding physical motion. Man has no power of existence or causation within himself.
EPISTEMOLOGY This view of metaphysics produces a necessary implication for epistemology. If God alone controls and facilitates all operations in the universe, it necessarily follows that he alone controls and facilitates all operations relating to thought and knowledge. If the continual existence and operation of the universe depend on God, and man is not autonomous or independent in this respect, then all knowledge acquisitions and intellectual activities also depend on God (since these are only specific items within the broader category), and man is also not autonomous or independent in this area.
Just as man cannot exist or function without God, man can know nothing without him. God not only sustains and facilitates all things, but he sovereignly sustains and facilitates all things. That is, he can bring to life or put to death, cause to move or cause to stop, and create or destroy, all at his will and pleasure. The mind of man is then just one aspect of God’s total control over the universe; therefore, God also sovereignly controls all aspects of human knowledge. Christian epistemology is consistent with and necessarily follows from Christian metaphysics. When we reject empiricism because of its own fatal flaws and also as a necessary consequence of biblical teaching, and when we affirm a revelational epistemology founded on the infallibility of Scripture, empiricists often challenge, "But don’t you have to read your Bible?" Of course, the empiricists defend the reliability of sensation, and those who are more extreme claim that knowledge comes only from the senses. In contrast, I insist that no knowledge at all comes from sensation. In any case, their challenge is futile. If they cannot answer the arguments against empiricism, then their challenge by itself does not rescue empiricism, whether or not we are able to answer the challenge. That is, even if they are able to refute our non-empirical epistemology, this does not automatically prove their empirical epistemology. All the anti-empirical arguments remain in force until they refute them.
Nevertheless, we are indeed able to answer their challenge using what we have already stated about biblical metaphysics and epistemology. Consistent with Christian metaphysics, Christian epistemology affirms that all knowledge must be immediately - that is, without mediation - granted and conveyed to the human mind by God. Thus on the occasion that you look at the words of the Bible, God directly communicates what is written to your mind, without going through the senses themselves. That is, your sensations provide the occasions upon which God directly conveys information to your mind apart from the sensations themselves. Therefore, although we do read the Bible, knowledge never comes from sensation. This again solves the mind-body problem, but this time illustrated in the reverse direction. Whereas in metaphysics, God facilitates physical motions in correspondence to the thoughts of the mind, in epistemology, God grants knowledge to the mind on the occasions of the sensations, but apart from the sensations themselves. Therefore, sensations do nothing more than to stimulate intellectual intuition, providing the occasions upon which the mind obtains knowledge from the divine logos.
Otherwise, the empiricist must explain how physical sensations convey knowledge to the incorporeal mind. Of course, some non-Christian empiricists do not believe in an incorporeal mind, but they believe that knowledge reside only in a physical brain. Although we can easily defeat them on this point, even if we do not, they still need to prove by valid and sound arguments how physical sensations can convey any information to the physical brain. No one can do this.
Even if we ignore the mind-body problem for now, empiricists mistakenly think that they can make inferences from the many sensations presented to the mind at any given moment to produce knowledge. However, I challenge any empiricist to write out the process in syllogistic form to show the logical validity of such inferences. Even if he can do this, he will see that all inferences from sensations are unavoidably fallacious; no inference from sensation can achieve formal syllogistic validity. For example, if you are looking at a red car, by what valid process of syllogistic reasoning can you infer from this sensation the conclusion or the thought that you are looking at a red car? It is utterly impossible. However, if every inference from sensation is fallacious, then this means that every inference is an unnecessary or even arbitrary conclusion from premises that are doubtful in the first place. But an empirical worldview is precisely one that constructs some, most, or even all of the propositions within that worldview on these fallacious inferences. Needless to say, such a worldview is completely worthless, but this is the kind of worldview embraced by many people, from students to scientists. On the basis of empiricism, if you were to see an apple on a table, it would be impossible for you to tell that there are two objects - an apple and a table. Based on sensation alone, you would be unable to tell where one object ends and the other one begins. At any given moment, you are bombarded by many sensations, and if you were to know the objects you are seeing by an empirical epistemology, then this means that your mind must organize and combine these sensations to group together the ones that belong to their corresponding objects.13
However, this requires your mind to know the attributes and appearances of these objects before you observe them,14 but empiricism teaches that you learn their attributes and appearances precisely by observing them. If you must know them before you observe them, and if you can know them only by observing them, then this means that you can never know anything that you do not already know. And if you follow some empiricists in affirming that man is born with a blank mind, then on the basis of empiricism, your mind will remain blank forever. Knowledge acquisition is impossible on the basis of empiricism. When it comes to language acquisition, which really falls within the broader category of knowledge acquisition, it is impossible for a person to learn the meaning of a word by sensation. A father may try to teach his child what the word "car" means by pointing at a car. In the first place, on the basis of empiricism, the child cannot even see or know the father, the car, and the act of pointing, but we will ignore this for now. The child must still make an inference from the father’s act of pointing. If the father tries to teach his child the meaning of the word "car" by pointing at a car, then to the child, the word "car" may mean the act of pointing, the finger used to do the pointing, the color of the car, any part of the car, the car together with the road and the background, any large object, the meaning of "go away" or "leave," and an infinite number of other possible meanings. The point is that the act of pointing at a car does not produce the necessary inference that "car" means what we mean by the word. If one attempts to overcome the problem by pointing to many cars, then the meaning of the word may at best becomes "transportation," which may be an elephant or camel in some parts of the world. But even the concept of transportation is not a necessary inference from the act of pointing at many cars.
Besides, to teach someone the meaning of a word by repeatedly pointing to its corresponding object together with the mention of the word is a method that depends on a limited instances of pointing with the intention to produce a definition of a universal (such as "car") in the mind of another person. But induction is always a formal fallacy. Even if we greatly limit the possible false inferences from observing the repeated acts of pointing, how does the observer know what type of cars is meant by the person who does the pointing - only those cars made within the past two or three decades? If the person wants to include older cars, then he must find them, and point to them as well. It is an invalid inference to think that the word "car" can refer to any car in history just because someone has pointed to several cars. In addition, the one who does the pointing must shake his hand or his head at every object that the word cannot designate, including items that have not yet been made; otherwise, nothing prevents the observer from inferring that "car" can refer to objects that are really excluded by the word. Therefore, to validly define a word by mere pointing, the person must point at every past, present, and future object meant by the word, and shake his hand or head at every past, present, and future object excluded by it. But in the first place, how does the observer know what the pointing and the shaking mean? If he does not already know, then how can we teach him? If we try to teach him the meaning of these gestures by an empirical epistemology, then we face all of the above problems all over again, and many others that I have not mentioned.
If one person asks another person what "walking" means, the second person may stand up and begin walking in the attempt to show the first person what walking means. But then, the first person must make inferences from what he observes, and as we have mentioned, all such inferences are unavoidably fallacious. From this example, one may infer that "walking" means standing, leaving, standing and leaving, standing and walking, and a large number of other things. In the first place, how does the observer know that this person is trying to answer his question by showing him what "walking" means? If the second person tells the first person that he is about to show him what "walking" means by actually walking, then we can ask how they learned the words to communicate this in the first place. As we have shown, they could not have learned the words by empirical means. If the two people are already walking together, the one being asked the question may walk faster to emphasize the act of walking, but then how can the observer distinguish between walking, hurrying, jogging, or running? Even more perplexing is how a person can learn the words "God," "faith," "is," and "justice" on the basis of empiricism.
If a person tries to answer the question of what "walking" means by giving a verbal definition, then he must use words. But how did this person learn the words that he is about to use? Also, to understand the definition, the hearer must also know the words that make up the definition, but how is this possible on the basis of empiricism? Moreover, even if both of them think that they understand the words in the definition, how can they know that their understanding of the words are the same? If they try to make sure that they have the same definitions for the words used in the definition of the word in question by discussing what they think the words mean, then they need to use words again, so that all the previous problems occur again.
Even if we assume that the senses can perceive the sounds of the words, the above shows that the mind must already know the meanings of the words before it can understand the sounds conveyed to the mind by the person’s hearing or sensation. But we have also shown that the mind can never learn the meanings of the words by sensation. Therefore, knowledge cannot come from the outside, but if it is possible at all, it must come within. In Christian epistemology, some of this knowledge is innate, so that "Christ enlightens every man ever born by having created him with an intellectual and moral endowment…This knowledge is a part of the image of God in which God created Adam."15
Although we will not here summarize the detailed arguments of Augustine’s De Magistro, we will reproduce his conclusion: By means of words, therefore, we learn only words or rather the sound and vibration of words. For if those things which are not signs cannot be words, even though I have heard a word, I do not know that it is a word until I know what it signifies. So when things are known the cognition of the words is also accomplished, but by means of hearing words they are not learned. For we do not learn the words which we know, nor can we say that we learn those which we do not know unless their signification has been perceived; and this happens not by means of hearing words which are pronounced, but by means of a cognition of the things which are signified. For it is the truest reasoning and most correctly said that when words are uttered we either know already what they signify or we do not know. If we know, then we remember rather than learn, but if we do not know, then we do not even remember . . .
But, referring now to all things which we understand, we consult, not the speaker who utters words, but the guardian truth within the mind itself, because we have perhaps been reminded by words to do so. Moreover, he who is consulted teaches; for he who is said to reside in the interior man is Christ, that is, the unchangeable excellence of God and his everlasting wisdom, which every rational soul does indeed consult. But there is revealed to each one as much as he can apprehend through his will according as it is more perfect or less perfect. And if sometimes one is deceived, this is not due to a defect of external light, for the eyes of the body are often deceived. . .16
Truth is necessarily propositional, since only a proposition can be described as true or false. But by means of sensations, it is impossible to communicate any proposition from one human mind to another; rather, only the logos can facilitate such communication. Therefore, Christian epistemology, even when it relates to sensations, does not depend on sensations, so that it is not plagued by the insuperable difficulties of empiricism. The only role of sensations in Christian epistemology is to provide the occasions for intellectual intuition; that is, sensations provide the occasions upon which the logos communicates information to the human mind, apart from the sensations themselves. Zero knowledge is acquired from the sensations themselves. Of course we "read" the Bible, but even this activity does not depend on sensation, but on God’s sovereign will and power. Man depends on God for his continual existence and intellectual operations; he is not autonomous or independent in any sphere of life. By God’s sovereign power and absolute control, unbelievers refuse to acknowledge him and to give thanks for his goodness, and thus he turns them over to a depraved mind, to the end that they would store up divine wrath for their future condemnation. In contrast, Christians are those who have repented of their sinful thinking because of God’s sovereign grace, and they worship and thank God for his sustenance.
Some people agree that the prologue of John’s Gospel at least hints at the above epistemology. As Ronald Nash writes:
After John describes Jesus as the cosmological Logos, he presents Him as the epistemological Logos. John declares that Christ was "the true light that enlightens every man" (John 1:9). In other words, the epistemological Logos is not only the mediator of divine special revelation (John 1:14), He is also the ground of all human knowledge.17
Several of the early church fathers also taught this view: "On the basis of John 1:9, Justin Martyr argued that every apprehension of truth (whether by believer or unbeliever) is made possible because men are related to the Logos."18 Everyone depends on Christ to know anything. Believers admit it; unbelievers do not.
Although I affirm this understanding of the prologue, even if you disagree on this particular point, it does not undermine the epistemology that I presented. First, nothing in the prologue contradicts the epistemology that I presented. Second, the epistemology that I presented is a necessary consequence of the biblical metaphysics that I introduced earlier. The Bible certainly asserts that God created and controls all things, and all things must necessarily include all human intellectual activities. Third, more than several biblical verses teach that God is the one who sovereignly grants understanding and knowledge. To summarize, God acts directly on the mind and conveys information directly to it on the occasions when one is experiencing physical sensations, but God acts on the mind and conveys this information always apart from the sensations themselves. Even the act of reading the Scripture depends on Christ the divine logos, and not our senses. This tells us what happens when we experience sensations, but because of the inherent fatal flaws of empiricism, it is still impossible to construct a true and coherent worldview on the basis of sensations or to gain any knowledge from sensations. Rather, Scripture is the first principle of the Christian worldview, so that true knowledge consists of only what is directly stated in Scripture and what is validly deducible from Scripture; all other propositions amount to unjustified opinion at best. This biblical epistemology necessarily follows from biblical metaphysics. Any other epistemology is indefensible, and unavoidably collapses into self-contradictory skepticism.
ETHICS
Just as biblical epistemology necessarily follows from biblical metaphysics, biblical soteriology necessarily follows from biblical metaphysics and epistemology. But since biblical soteriology presupposes biblical hamartiology, and biblical hamartiology presupposes biblical ethics, we should first discuss biblical ethics.
Since God controls all of reality, and all of reality depends on God, and since man is part of God’s creation and part of this reality, this means that biblical anthropology must address the relationship between God and man. Since God is sovereign over all of his creation, including man, then God is also the one who defines the proper relationship between God and man. This is the foundation of biblical ethics.
John 1:10-11 of John’s prologue say, "He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him." F. F. Bruce translates John 1:11, "He came to his own place, and his own people did not receive him."19 John 1:10 refers to a more general rejection of Christ, and John 1:11 deals with the historical situation in Israel; for our purpose, in what follows we will ignore John 1:11.
Saying that "the world was made through him" (John 1:10) reinforces the doctrine of creation, which is one aspect of biblical metaphysics, as introduced by John 1:1-3. The Word became a historical person "in the world," but the world "did not recognize him." Instead of receiving the worship he deserved as the creator, he was ignored and rejected, and finally crucified by those whom he had made. Such is the nature of sin, and that of sinful men, that although they owed obedience to their maker, they instead scorned his commandments and persecuted those who would follow him. If the creator dared invade their territory in the form of a man, then they were determined to kill him. The Christian view of metaphysics demands obedience to the creator’s commands in the area of ethics. John 1:10 implies that the world ought to have known Christ because "the world was made through him." He was their creator, and he was in the world, but he did not receive the welcome he deserved. If they were aware that "the world was made through him," they surely did not act like it - the sinful mind is blind, ungrateful, and irrational. In any case, the verse shows that man’s relation to God has been damaged through sin.
Through the influence of secular philosophy and psychology, many people have a distorted concept of sin, and some people have told me that they had never sinned at all. However, this must be false because 1 John 1:8 says, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." Even before we give the biblical definition of sin, on the basis of this verse alone we must affirm that everyone has sinned. Nevertheless, we will proceed to give the biblical definition. Scripture defines sin as a transgression of God’s law, and it is God’s law that defines right and wrong. Romans 3:20 says, "Through the law we become conscious of sin," and John writes, "In fact, sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). To break God’s command is to do wrong, that is, to sin.
Some people think that the gospel has abolished the moral law, but this is a gross misunderstanding of the message of the gospel and the work of Jesus Christ. Paul writes, "Where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). If the moral law has been abolished in the sense that there is no longer a moral law, then there can be no sin. However, even after Christ has accomplished his redemptive work, the New Testament continues to teach that everyone has sinned, and that even the Christian sins at times. But since there must be law for there to be sin, this means that the moral law is still in force.
Another doctrinal perversion asserts that the command to love has replaced the moral law, such as the Ten Commandments. However, Romans 13:9 says, "The commandments, ’Do not commit adultery,’ ’Do not murder,’ ’Do not steal,’ ’Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ’Love your neighbor as yourself.’" The command to love is a summary of God’s moral commands; it is not a replacement. In fact, love remains undefined until God’s specific moral commands give it meaning. Murder and theft are still sins, and to love my neighbor means not to murder him or steal from him, because this is how God’s moral commands define love.
Rather than relaxing the definition of sin, Jesus reinforces the strictness of God’s moral commands, and dispels the human traditions that excuse the people from obeying them (Mark 7:13). Again the unscriptural religious traditions of his day, he brings to light the full meaning of God’s commands, and insists that a person violates the moral law even by thinking evil thoughts, and not only by overt actions. He says:
You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "Raca," is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, "You fool!" will be in danger of the fire of hell….You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery." But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:27-28)
Some people mistakenly think that Jesus is here revising the commandments, but he is in fact expounding on their original and intended meaning in opposition to the interpretations and distortions of human traditions. God has always counted evil thoughts as sinful: The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. (Genesis 6:5)
Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. (Isaiah 55:7) Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are evil thoughts; ruin and destruction mark their ways. (Isaiah 59:7) O Jerusalem, wash the evil from your heart and be saved. How long will you harbor wicked thoughts? (Jeremiah 4:14)
One must obey God in his motives, thoughts, and actions. It is sinful even to worry about food and clothing, since Jesus says that this is to commit the sins of unbelief and idolatry (Matthew 6:24-25; Matthew 6:30). Thus except Jesus Christ, nobody is sinless (Hebrews 4:15). In addition, James writes, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, ’Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ’Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker" (James 2:10-11). If you obey God on one point but disobey him on another point, you are still a lawbreaker. The point is not only that you have committed murder, adultery, or whatever the sin may be, but that by committing the sin, you have defied the one who issued the commandments. The Westminster Larger Catechism offers an excellent definition of sin. Question 24 - "What is sin?" - invokes the reply, "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature." Any transgression or deviation from the moral law by a rational creature is sin. Now, God’s law does not only prohibit evil, but it often demands positive good from us: "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" (1 John 3:17); "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins" (James 4:17). Add Matthew 5:48 to all of this, and the high moral standard required by God becomes evident: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
SOTERIOLOGY
There seems to be a big problem. The moral standard described is more than very high - it appears to be impossible and unattainable. It is no light matter to defy and offend a holy and omnipotent God - one evil thought or action is sufficient to damn a person forever. Therefore, because it is impossible to satisfy its demands, the law of God drives us to despair: "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ’Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law’" (Galatians 3:10).
Since it is impossible to be justified before God by the law, this means that for anyone to be justified before God, he must be justified apart from the law (Romans 3:28). Galatians 3:24 says, "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith." The law sets an impossible standard that renders all men guilty, thus driving those to Christ who have despaired of their own efforts. With this background, we should be able to understand Romans 3:21-24 : But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. No one is guiltless, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." As Psalms 130:3 says, "If you, O LORD, kept a record of sins, O Lord, who could stand?" However, the psalm continues, "But with you there is forgiveness" (Psalms 130:4). We are "justified by his grace," and so we have "the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:7). We are not saved by our own goodness, because we have none, but we are saved by God’s sovereign mercy. To understand the nature of God’s work in salvation, we must first understand the extent of the damage of sin in man. That is, understanding the problem will help us understand the solution that corresponds to the problem. So what is the effect of sin in man? Can man contribute or cooperate in his salvation? Without determinative divine influence, can man decide to accept God’s gift?20 Using metaphorical language, is man spiritually sick or blind, or is he something worse?
Jesus says, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:31-32). The sinner is as one who is sick when it comes to spiritual things. This metaphor suggests that he is at least crippled in his ability to deal with spiritual things. The sinner is also blind: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn - and I would heal them" (John 12:40). This metaphor gives us another specific piece of information about the sinner. The verse implies that the blindness of his eyes is like the deadness of his heart, and both mean that the sinner cannot grasp spiritual things. Spiritual blindness is not different from intellectual blindness; rather, spiritual blindness is a subset of intellectual blindness, only that we are referring to an intellectual inaptitude about spiritual topics. Paul says that the unbelievers are "darkened in their understanding" (Ephesians 4:18). The sinner is spiritually sick and blind, but more than that, he is also spiritually dead. Writing to the Christians at Ephesus, Paul says, "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient" (Ephesians 2:1-2). Paul uses this metaphor not as a casual rhetorical device, but he intends it to be theologically decisive, so that he assumes its truth as he continues, "But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:4-5). To the Christians, Paul says that God has "raised us up with Christ" (Ephesians 2:6). This brings us from the problem to the solution, from hamartiology to soteriology, and back to the prologue of John’s Gospel.
Having established the sinful condition of man implied by John 1:10-11, we now proceed to John 1:12-13 : "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God." Although all human beings are creatures of God, not all are his children; non-Christians are children of the devil (John 8:44). In the writings of John the believer becomes a "child" (teknon) of God, and only Jesus is the "son" (huios) of God, and with Paul both Christ and the believers are said to be sons, but the latter only by adoption. Thus both apostles make a distinction between the sonship of Christ and the sonship of a Christian, so that one never becomes the son of God in the same sense that Christ is the son of God.
We have seen two metaphors for conversion - resurrection and the new birth. To repeat Ephesians, Paul writes to the elect that God has "made us alive with Christ," and that he has "raised us up with Christ." Here in the prologue, those who believe in Christ goes through the new birth to become the children of God. As Jesus says in John 3:3, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." Ezekiel 36:25-27 gives an excellent summary of what happens at conversion:
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
Whereas it is impossible to obey God’s moral laws before conversion, when God converts a person, he enables this person to obey them by the Holy Spirit.
There is now enough information to produce a statement on soteriology, and to relate it to biblical metaphysics and epistemology. The sinner is spiritually dead in sin. He is in a condition such that conversion requires a radical21 reconstruction in intellect and personality amounting to a spiritual resurrection. Now, one who is merely sick and blind may perhaps do something to help himself, or at least receive a gift that is offered to him. However, one who is dead can do or decide nothing for himself; therefore, before this radical reconstruction or spiritual resurrection, a man cannot contribute to or cooperate in his own salvation, nor is he willing to do so. Romans 8:7 says, "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so."
Therefore, it depends solely on God to decide and carry out a person’s spiritual regeneration. Romans 8:12 of the prologue says, "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God," and so faith in Christ is indeed the means by which God effects a person’s justification and adoption. However, whether a person has faith in Christ does not depend on the person, since if it does, then the person will never have faith, being dead in sin. Rather, whether a person has faith in Christ depends only on God’s decision, since faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8). A spiritually dead person cannot produce or exercise faith, and God must first regenerate him, but God regenerates only those whom he has chosen. Therefore, the biblical order of what happens when God saves a person is regeneration, faith, justification, and adoption.
Paul writes, "What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: ’God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day’" (Romans 11:7-8). The false gospel of Arminianism says that it is man who chooses whether he will accept Christ, but Jesus says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit - fruit that will last" (John 15:16). Deceived by the false gospel of "free will," many people have been persuaded to go through the motions of receiving Christ; however, unless they have been chosen by God to be saved, their choice is false and futile. They have not been saved, and they will not bear true and lasting spiritual fruit.
Faith in Christ is the mind’s true assent to the gospel of Christ, and this means that soteriology presupposes epistemology. That is, salvation presupposes knowledge. Thus the question becomes how one comes to know, understand, and accept the gospel? When Peter says to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus replies, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven" (Matthew 16:16-17). Peter did not observe the particular words and works of Christ, and then by a process of induction infer that he must be the Christ. Instead, God sovereignly illuminated his mind to know the truth about Christ. Again, this shows that a person cannot just decide to be saved, since he cannot even know or understand the gospel unless God sovereignly decides to reveal it to him.
Nicodemus said to Jesus, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him" (John 3:2). However, his observation failed to produce the knowledge necessary for salvation. By observing the same works of Christ, the Pharisees inferred, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons" (Matthew 9:34). Knowledge can never come by the empirical method, since any inference from sensation is bound to be an unnecessary inference, and thus invalid. This is also true when it comes to the knowledge necessary for salvation; that is, biblical soteriology cannot rest on a non-biblical epistemology, but it rests on a biblical epistemology that emphasizes the sovereign God and the infallible Scripture. The knowledge necessary for salvation comes by the immediate operation of the logos on the mind by means of the Scripture or the preaching of the gospel. Therefore, "faith comes from hearing the message" (Romans 10:17), but at the same time it is a sovereign gift from God (Ephesians 2:8), so that not all who hear the gospel receive faith, but only those to whom God sovereignly grants assent to the gospel.
Another important passage is 2 Corinthians 4:4-6 : The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. The preaching of the gospel in itself does not save, because for the light of the gospel to penetrate, it is necessary for God to directly act on the human mind to produce faith. It is God who "made his light shine in our hearts," so that "neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow" (1 Corinthians 3:7). This is consistent with the biblical epistemology explained earlier, that sensation - in this case, the hearing of the gospel - at most provides an occasion for the mind to intuit the truth from the mind of God. But if God does not grant it, then the man cannot understand (in a manner or extent necessary for salvation) or believe the gospel. We may add that knowledge often comes even apart from the stimulation of sensation, since God can convey to the mind any thought that he wishes, so that sensation is never necessary in obtaining any kind of knowledge.
Just as biblical epistemology depends on biblical metaphysics - that is, knowledge is made possible only by the power of God - since biblical metaphysics covers the whole of reality, biblical soteriology also depends on biblical metaphysics. That is, since God controls every detail of the whole of reality, this means that he also controls every detail of each person’s salvation. "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (Romans 9:18), so that God alone dispenses his salvation to whomever he wishes. To those whom he has chosen, he issues an irresistible summon to accept Christ; to those whom he has rejected, he hardens their hearts against the gospel. As Psalms 65:4 says, "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple" (KJV).
Thus we have arrived at the core of the Christian worldview - we depend on God for existence, for knowledge, and for salvation. As Paul writes, "You were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:4-6). Whereas non-Christian religions and philosophies fail at every point in answering the ultimate questions, the biblical system provides true and coherent answers to all of them. From logic to metaphysics, from metaphysics to epistemology, from epistemology to ethics, from ethics to soteriology, the one and only sovereign God reasons, creates, sustains, reveals, commands, judges, and saves.
Endnotes:
1. Fred Heeren, Show Me God; Wheeling, Illinois: Day Star Productions, Inc., 2000; p. xx-xxi.
2. Ronald H. Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999.
3. Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word, Chapters 2 and 3.
4. Warren Wiersbe and David Wiersbe, The Elements of Preaching; Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986; p. 85.
5. Gordon H. Clark, Ancient Philosophy; The Trinity Foundation, 1997 (original: 1941); p. 37.
6. Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey; The Trinity Foundation, 2000 (original 1957); p. 165.
7. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999; "Philo Judaeus."
8. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theologica, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. V; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1981 (original: 1867-1887); p. 492.
9. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. IV; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999 (original: 1967); p. 91.
10. Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 45; Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1996; p. 12.
11. Richmond Lattimore, The New Testament; North Point Press, 1996; p. 195.
12. D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991; p. 118.
13. As Gordon Clark writes, one may "on one occasion combine the ruddy color and the juicy taste to make an apple, if he wishes; but may he not on another occasion combine that color with the smell of hydrogen sulfide and the sound of B-flat to make a boogum?" Thales to Dewy; The Trinity Foundation, 2000 (original: 1957); p. 307-308.
14. Otherwise, you would not know how to organize and combine the sensations. In addition, on the basis of empiricism, it is impossible for you to tell the distance between two objects. Space itself is not observable to the senses; no one has ever seen or touched "space."
15. Gordon H. Clark, The Johannine Logos; The Trinity Foundation, 1989 (original: 1972); p. 27.
16. Augustine, De Magistro; Prentice-Hall Publishing Company, 1938. Here we have come upon the subject of linguistics and its relationship to epistemology and metaphysics, but we will not spend time developing it here.
17. Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man; Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1982; p. 67.
18. Ibid., p. 67.
19. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983; p. 37.
20. Another question is whether God extends his grace for salvation to every person in the first place. Scripture denies that God extends his grace to every person, but teaches that God chooses whom he will save: "For he says to Moses, ’I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion’" (Romans 9:15).
21. By that I mean "fundamental" or "at the root."