An Epistemology of Grace

            “Now therefore, if I have found favor in your sight, please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.” Ex. 33:13

The Background

• The people of Israel have been delivered miraculously from Egyptian bondage by the mighty hand of God.
• They have passed through the red sea and have come to the base of Mt. Sinai.
• Moses has recieved and delivered the Covenant with its commandments and the people of Israel have affirmed their covenant with God.
• Moses has returned to the top of the mountain and received additional instructions from God to the people.
• But while Moses is on the mountain, the people get restless, and, as we tend to do, they grew obstinate and returned to their sinful ways.
• This includes the egregious sin of idolatry, which the people committed by creating a golden calf and worshipping it.
• There are a number of theories as to the identity of the calf. The two most likely theories are that the calf was associated with Ba'al or perhaps it had ties to the mood god Sı̂n. It is thought that the latter theory had slightly more evidence than the former.
• After Israel commits her idolatry, Moses intercedes on her behalf.
• It is during this back and forth with God that Moses utters the text that serves as the basis for this post.

Moses begins his petition with a plea for grace that leads to revelation. In other words, divine revelation on God’s part is an act of divine grace. We do not deserve divine revelation. God would have been well within his right to leave human beings to their own devices, wallowing in immorality and epistemic blindness. Moses points up to grace and asks God to show him his ways, literally, “that I may know your ways.” Moses depends on God’s kindness for knowledge of God’s ways. So here we have our first premise: Human knowledge is utterly dependent on God. If it involves humans, and if it involves knowledge, it necessarily involves God. I always want to point out that the construction here in the Hebrew, weʿǎt·tā(h), is drawing a conclusion from a previous statement. That previous statement is located in v. 12: Moses reminds God that God had said to him, “I know you by name.” In other words, LORD, you know me by name, therefore, give me grace that I may know your ways. But it gets better.

The Hebrew word ḥēn appears 69x in the OT. The ESV translates it favor 53x, and grace 10x. Of the 69 occurrences, 43x it appears in the phrase "to find favor in the eyes of." According to Flack the verb describes “an action from a superior to an inferior who has no real claim for gracious treatment. [Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.] It is used when Noah is said to have found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8)

Moses knew that if he was going to know God’s ways, God would have to graciously show them to him. He knew that there was no amount of evidence, arguments, or autonomous human reason that he could call upon in order to know God’s ways. He was epistemically helpless.

The Hebrew construction is very interesting: hōwdiʿēnî is a Hif'il imperative of ydʿ. The Hif'il stem represents the subject as causing an object to participate indirectly as a second subject in the notion expressed by the verbal root. [Waltke] Not only is this verb in the Hif'il stem, it is in the imperative conjugation. This means that Moses is expressing a strong desire for God to cause him to know God's ways. Moses is pleading with God to cause him to know God’s ways. What about this word “ways?” According to the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, it ranges from, way, path, road, passage, 2. journey, 3. venture, mission, errand. 4. manner, 5. course of life, conduct, morality, 6a. commandments of Y., 6b. activity of Y., 7. hill, mountain, pasture. This word appears 680x in the BHS biblical text and it is translated way/ways 516 in the ESV. In Gen. 6:12 it is used in an ethical sense: “for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.” In Psalm 1:1 we are told that the man who does not stand in the way of sinners is blessed. Moses wants to know God’s ways. So, he pleads to God to cause him to know them.

The next construction wĕʾēdāʿăkā connects knowledge of God’s ways with knowledge of God. Literally, “and know you.” In other words, to know God one must know God’s ways. To grow in one’s knowledge of God, one must grow in his or her knowledge of God’s ways. The idea that knowledge of God can be separated from knowledge of God’s ways is patently false. The Bible paints just the opposite picture. So here we stand. We need grace in order to know God’s ways. And we need to know God’s ways if we are going to know God. Therefore, we need grace in order to know God in the manner described by Moses. Apart from divine grace then, knowledge of God as described by Moses is impossible.

Finally, Moses tells God that his purpose for wanting to know Him is so that he may find favor in his eyes. In other words, Moses’ real petition is that he would please God. Moses wants to live a life that pleases God. But in order to live a life that pleases God, Moses knows that he has to know God. And in order to know God, Moses knows that he has to know God’s ways. And Moses knows that in order to know God’s ways, God has to act graciously upon Moses to cause him to know God’s ways. This means that the only way we can live a life that is pleasing to God is if God Himself takes the initiative to dispense his divine favor, his amazing grace, upon us.

What are the implications of this passage for Christian theology and apologetics? First, it means that men cannot truly know God unless they know God’s ways and they cannot know God’s ways unless God acts to open their eyes. That act is a supernatural act of grace initiated by God alone. Yes, Moses petitioned God but God had already known Moses. This is the prayer of a regenerate man. An unregenerate man would never pray such a prayer because God does not know him and he does not know God.

This means that an apologetic method must acknowledge the Bible’s description of the unregenerate condition. We see how men come to know God throughout Scripture. I like to begin with the New Covenant description and move from there.

The New Covenant tells us that it is God who brings men into the covenant and that God is the one who teaches men and writes his law upon their heart and places the fear of Him in their heart. (Jer. 31-32)

Solomon clearly tells us that the fear of the Lord is the very beginning of knowledge. (Prov. 1:7) Again, it is God who places the fear of the Lord in the hearts of men. Unless God acts, there is no beginning of knowledge.

Luke tells us that Christ opened the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures. (Lu. 24:45) The act of opening up the mind was and is divine, supernatural.

Luke again reminds us in Acts 16:14 that it was the Lord who opened Lydia’s heart to respond to the gospel. The Lord acts and when he does, men always respond. Otherwise we are left with the implausible notions that God opens men’s minds and they still reject his good news or men come to understand the gospel themselves, based on their own analyses and assessments and criteria.

John articulates the epistemic situation quite clearly when he says, “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” (1 Jn. 5:20) Here John says that our knowledge of the One who is true is dependent on our understanding, which is itself, dependent on the act of the Son of God coming and giving us that understanding. Apart from that act, we simply cannot know the One who is true.

Apart from faith that is given by grace, men cannot possess true knowledge of God.

Unregenerate men have not been given faith by grace.

Therefore, unregenerate men cannot possess true knowledge of God.

Now, if unregenerate men cannot possess true knowledge of God, they also cannot possess true knowledge of God’s ways. And since they cannot possess true knowledge of God’s ways, they cannot possibly subject Christian belief to a fair evaluation. They simply do not possess the necessary tools to do so. Only God can do that. Where does that leave us? Think about it.

Bruggencate and Hernandez

Is Christian Belief Accessible to the Unregenerate Mind?

The question is usually framed a little differently in apologetic or philosophical parlance. Is Christian belief rational? While many apologists would contend that such a question is best asked of the apologist, or the Christian philosopher, I think it’s best asked of the Christian theologian. Then again, I am a wee bit biased. The task of Christian theology never really ends. It never ends because it must constantly respond to old ideas packaged in new wrappings that continue their age-old objective of contradicting Christ. And the question before us today is no different. Some would say that I am being a bit sarcastic for framing the title the way I have and I suppose there might be a degree of truth in that.

In a recent debate between Sye Bruggencate and Eric Hernandez, Eric made the following claim: “Faith is a confidence based on knowledge.” Now, the debate concerns apologetic method, and in particular, evidentialist vs. presuppositional methodologies in Christian apologetics. To be sure, Eric’s description of faith is what I want to zero in on because I think it is here that most of our differences reside. Regarding Eric’s understanding of faith, and that of most evidentialists, this is exactly what Wolfhart Pannenberg would say about faith as well. Faith is limited to that historical evidence that is accessible to reason. Many of these modern apologists seem oblivious to the fact that their understanding of faith is informed by the enlightenment move rather than by Scripture. Rather than challenge the methods introduced by the historical-critical method, theologians retreated into mythology and bowed to the majesty of human reason. It all began with John Locke. Evangelicalism had accepted the scientific method without question and the historical critical model that she brought with her. Christianity bragged that science was her best friend and there was nothing to fear: science would only always join Christianity in lock-step (pun intended) and proclaim her undying loyalty. Everything was going just swimmingly until Robert and Susannah Darwin decided that four children were not enough. Enter their fifth child, Charles.

It was like a bad dream. The Christian family had an informant among them. It would be men like Charles Darwin who would redefine science, Christianity’s bedfellow, only to have that friendship shattered by the most brutal betrayal of all time. Since the theologians had built their theology upon the assumptions of the principle of inference and scientific method, they were impotent against the attacks that science would unleash against them. Human knowledge would come through the senses. The role of the human mind would be paramount in discovering truth, in attaining true knowledge, in achieving rational thought altogether. Since the Christian theologians were committed to the inductive principle, they reasoned that the truth of Christianity could be arrived at the same as any other truth. After all, all truth is God’s truth and if induction works everywhere else based on natural law, why shouldn’t it work here as well? Now, revelation must submit to reason for its rite of passage. Even the Christian canon, Scripture, would have to give way to the canons of human reason. The final authority for how faith would be defined and even what we believe about the nature of Scripture would have to pass the tests of autonomous human reason. And so it remains true today of evidential apologetics as Eric Hernandez so aptly demonstrates.

According to the evidentialists, the Christian faith is not a faith that serves as the necessary precondition for knowledge. The regenerate and unregenerate mind alike is of the same structure and capable of making the same evaluation of truth-claims. This is a faith that is limited by autonomous human reason. Our faith can go no further than our knowledge can take us. And since that knowledge can never attain certainty, and could be wrong at any point along the way, our faith is always subject to revision, perhaps even a radical revision depending on how human knowledge goes. And since we cannot gain certainty in this arena, then the theological concept of the certainty of faith collapses within the evidentialist scheme. The evidentialist way of defending the Christian faith actually reduces it to a naturalistic exercise and in the end, unwittingly destroys Christianity by destroying its most basic claims about the nature of human beings: without Christ, we are dead in trespasses and sins.

However, Henriette and Jan Fredik Kuijper would contribute to this conversation by way of their son, Abraham. It was Abraham Kuyper’s observations of the movements taking place within evangelicalism that should grab our attention. Kuyper rejected the speculations of rationalism and of enlightenment philosophy, holding fast to his reformed Dutch theology, and more specifically, to a distinctly biblical epistemology. Kuyper pointed out that it was devastating to the Christian faith to ignore the noetic effects of sin on the unregenerate mind. Nothing is more fundamental to Christianity than that we are utterly hopeless and helpless without the work of Christ. And that work must be supernaturally applied to our person, indeed, our minds, through the agency of the Holy Spirit. It is through that work alone that men come into the true knowledge of God, of Christ, of God’s revelation of Scripture. Kuyper argues that God as revealed in Scripture is known by us, not as a conclusion of an argument but as a primary truth immediately apprehended as the result of spiritual communication to the human consciousness. Kuyper saw knowledge as an entire noetic structure while the evidentialist take the inductivist approach. The evidentialists unwittingly place themselves in a no-win situation, supposing that such evidence and arguments constituted conclusive arguments for the truth of Christianity. [Faith and Rationality]

Is Christian belief rational? If by rational you mean, does it meet the rational criteria demanded by the unregenerate mind, the answer is no. For the pagans, blasphemers, God-haters, and the lawless, Christian belief is not rational. How do I know this? For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor. 1:18) According to Paul, Christian belief is moria, or moronic, to those who are unregenerate. This raises the question, why are we attempting to make Christian belief rational to someone who’s very state does not possess the necessary structure to make it so? Why then do we engage the unbeliever at all? We engage because we love to obey God and God commands us to engage. So, doesn’t God use imperfect declarations of his truth, even poor arguments to win men to himself? I suppose he can and does. But that misses the point. When I engage the unbeliever, my goal should be to follow God’s method, to honor His truth, to stay true to His message, not to see results. So the idea that it works is no excuse to slack in this area. Christian belief is rational to the truly rational mind: the mind of God.

Irrational Atheism

Building off my last blog on the irrationalism of atheism, I think it is a good idea to provide some realist accounts of what happens when humanity moves deeper and deeper into the belief that all knowledge actually begins with the human person as autonomous rather than with God. In order to demonstrate the tsunami of irrationalism that is in the process of destroying whatever is left of reason, I want to point you to Houston, TX, the U.S. Military, the Public School System of the United States, Harvard University, and finally, another incident of gay bullying and intimidation at a Christian college. Truly, reason has been turned upside down on it's head. However, such a state of affairs is only to be expected if it is the case that God, the creator and sustainer of all that is, is the only true source of human knowledge and the basic necessity for human predication.

By now, most people have heard or read about the controversy in Houston, TX. The first lesbian mayor of a major US city has caused a firestorm of controversy by essentially ignoring the first amendment of the constitution of the United States which seeks to protect five very basic rights:

1. Freedom of religion and the expression thereof

2. The freedom of speech

3. Freedom of the press

4. The right to assemble

5. The right to petition for governmental redress

In the Houston situation, it seems that 3 of the 5 of these very basic undisputed and non-debated points of the first amendment are being trampled. Why? What is the issue? It seems that the city of Houston wants men who feel like women and women who feel like men to be able to use the public rest room of the gender the feel like they are rather than the one that science actually demonstrates them to be. This is not a difficult item to manage if only we just use our reasoning powers. Men should use the men's rest room because they are in fact men regardless of whatever mental health issues they may have. Would we allow a man to squat in the public park so long as he told us he felt like he was a dog?

In recent times, the issue of women in combat has been debated here in American culture. Once again, the debate has ignored the very basic purpose of a military: kill the enemy through superior soldiers, equipment, and technology. However, in this debate the basic purpose of the military is ignored in preference for a "higher" one: women's opportunities to advance up the military ladder. And since that right trumps the very purpose for a military in the first place, we politicize the issue and open our minds so far that our brains fall out and land right on Pennsylvania Ave. According to the Interim CRM Report dated October, 2014, 20 women have now attempted to pass the Marine's Infantry Officer Course and none have passed. The report sums their findings up with the following: Nothing produced by the research so far indicates that women can be physical equals and interchangeable with men in the infantry. What is amazing is the amount of time, effort, and economic resources it took to produce something that any norman human could have told them from the start, that is if they had allowed science rather than politics to dictate their answer: men and women are very different creatures with men as a class being physically superior to women and not by a small margin. While that statement may be politically incorrect, by all accounts, science is on my side.

Recently, a mother in the state of North Carolina attempted to have her child become a student of the public school system, kindergarten to be specific. After just a few short weeks, she went in to remove her daughter from the system and decided to homeschool her instead. But the mother was met with threats from the principle stating that the mother would be charged with truancy if she removed her daughter from school now that she is enrolled. After bringing in an attorney, the matter has been resolved but isn't that the problem. The mother had to bring in an attorney to do what she believes is in the best interest of her own child. What sort of reasonable person, especially an education professional, would think that mother did not have the legal right to take this action?

Recently, a group a Harvard University students were asked to pick which entity, the United States or ISIS, represented the greater threat to world peace. Almost to a kid, the Harvard brainy acts said the United States represented a greater threat to world peace than the terrorist group, ISIS. In fact, some of these intellectuals blamed America for the very existence of ISIS. My advice: get your tuition back. You don't have to go to Harvard to arrive at these sorts of idiotic conclusions.

Gordon College, a missionary training ground near Boston, MA continues to deal with persecution over it's desire to prohibit homosexual behavior among potential faculty members. Gordon is a Christian college and Christians reject homosexual behavior as sinful and prohibited and condemned by God. Yet, this did not stop the mayor of Salem from tearing up a contract that allowed the students to maintain and operate a tourist attraction, Old Town Hall, on the behalf of the city.

In the beginning God said let us make man in our image and in our likeness. Man is created in the image of God. The facts of the created universe are facts in terms of their relationship to God first. They can only be know as created phenomena related to God their creator, and then to one another. They can be truly known only in that sense. The organizing principle of the universe is the self-contained, self-sufficient triune God of Scripture. Humanity has rejected this view of reality. Instead, man is the beginning and head of all knowledge. Man has set up his idol of science and proceeded to arrogantly preach the scientific method, filled with limitations though it may be. And yet, when it suits him as it does in all the cases mentioned above, he does not hesitate (denying it while he does it), to abandon science due to other conflicting desires and urges.

What do we see in American culture? We see a prominent mayor of the 4th largest US city ignoring the constitution in preference for her own agenda. We see the US military caving in to the idea that the promotion of women in the military is of higher import than making sure that entity continues to be able to function as what it was designed to be: the greatest and most deadly killing machine the world has ever known. We see elementary school principles, themselves professional educators, wholly ignorant of the laws under which they operate and without any sensible judgment whatsoever in how they extend respect to the parents of the children they are responsible for educating. Finally, we see Christian colleges threatened to have their accreditation removed and their students losing valuable contracts because we have placed irrational, ignorant, tyrannical officials in office who could care less about the rule of law, the constitution, and certainly not the God to Whom they owe everything.

There you have it. Five cases in which atheistic or practical atheistic thinking leads to the most absurd positions imaginable. There can be no defense of the foolishness that now makes up most of American and Western European thinking on these matters. The abandonment of Christian values, even in a moralistic, temporal sense has very serious consequences. Those leading their respective cultures in these directions are simply demonstrating that they have given little to no reflection regarding the consequences that their actions are about to deliver. I am reminded of what Paul said to the ancient Thessalonian Christians, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πέμπει αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς ἐνέργειαν πλάνης εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι αὐτοὺς τῷ ψεύδει, 12 ἵνα κριθῶσιν πάντες οἱ μὴ πιστεύσαντες τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ἀλλʼ εὐδοκήσαντες τῇ ἀδικίᾳ. "For this reason, God will sent them a deluding, misleading influence so that they might believe a lie, IN ORDER THAT, they all might be judged who were not believing the truth but taking pleasure in unrighteousness. God sends them a deluding influence with the result that they believe a lie and He does so for the purpose being to bring them under judgment. These are the times in which we are living. Why is God engaging in this sort of activity? It is because humanity has not loved the truth so as to be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). For this reason, God sends a deluding influence resulting in men believing a lie in order that He may execute judgment upon them.

The Irrational Atheist

Recently, I find that I am in constant contact with atheists. I had always thought that most atheists were of the intellectual sort, highly intelligent, good debaters and such. I have to confess that most of them that I talk to and even read are little more than rude and condescending boogers. Most of their arguments are sophomoric at best and juvenile at worse. Very few of them seem to be intellectually or philosophically honest and I suspect most of them know this to be the case even if they won't admit it.

Recently, in an aticle that appeared in The Atlantic, Crispin Sartwell admitted that "Not believing in God isn't always based on arguments - and that's okay." Sartwell admitted that the scientific worldview itself, naturalism, cannot be explained by science no more than religion can. At least he is honest about it. Sartwell admits that he is an atheist because of how he things about the universe which is ultimate derivative of his extremely limited experience. Sartwell says he sees the universe as a morally indifferent thing. Once again, at least he isn't trying to use chemical processes in the brain to establish a universal morality. Those who make such arguments always fail to tell us which brain.

"But for many people, belief comes before arguments." Sartwell goes on to say that the arguments are generally post-hoc rationalizations. He is right. The sad truth is that most atheists won't admit this, no, not in a million years. They arrived at their position only after examining all the available evidence and then after thoroughly and fairly examining Christian theism. At least that is what the overwhelming majority of atheists want us to believe.

The atheist claims that naturalism is the only worldview that makes sense. All knowledge comes through the senses we are told. But when we inquire as to what scientific proof we they have to offer, it all comes down to "that's just way it is." Well, I forgot the expletive but you get the gist. When we ask the atheist to defend morality he tells us that morality is nothing more than a self-preservation mechanism in the brain or a convention of society. He always forgets to tell us which brain or which society if right if there are differences. He also forgets to tell us where the survival instinct comes from and why all these molecules in motion are so afraid of dying. When the atheist is asked to provide an intelligible account of the relationship with the irrationality of individual facts and the rationalizing principle we mostly get little more than rhetoric mixed with a lot of poppycock and outright propaganda. 

Sartwell admits, "The idea that the atheist comes to their view of the world through rationality and argumentation, while the believer relies on arbitrary emotion and commitments, is false." I have made this point to many atheists only to be called insulted three ways to Sunday. Sartwell is right.

It is equally true that Christians do not come to Christianity by rationality or argumentation. Christians are not the products of family, environment, and society. That's how we get hypocrites and false converts. John tells us very well how Christians are made: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Christians are not the products of their parents. They are not the products of their own free will contrary to what most American Christians assert. Christians are born of God, by the will of God, as a result of the work of God the Holy Spirit applying the gospel of God the Son, Jesus Christ, to their heart. Otherwise, they are not Christians. 

The apostle Paul tells us in Romans 10, that Christians must make a confession of Christ as Lord and that we must literally believe that God literally raised Christ from the dead in order to be saved. This confession took place at the very entrance into the Christian group. Now, to modern minds in western culture, confessions don't mean much. They are unfortunately a dime a dozen. But in the Greco-Roman-Jewish world of Paul, they were one of the most significant events in a person's life. The use of the tetragrammaton (Yahweh) by early Jewish Christians is extremely significant. Larry Hurtado writes, "Romans 10:9-13 is particularly worth noting. Paul here commends the act of "confessing" (homnologeo) with the mouth that "Jesus is Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun), which is to be accompanied by heartfelt belief that God has raised Jesus from death; Paul portrays these acts as having salvivic consequences (vv. 9-10). that the confession is a ritual act in the context of worship is indicated by Paul's adaptation of Joel 2:32 (LXX 3:5) to describe the action."

The creed of creeds in the Christian Church is known as The Apostles Creed. The Creed dates back to as early as the second century and was known to Irenaeus and Tertullian. "As applied to a creed, it was a sign or test of membership in the Church. Assent to the creed or symbol was required of those who were being baptized." For early Christianity, there was far more to identifying with the Christian group than there is today.

I say all this about the confessions and the creeds to point out that most atheistic arguments against the Church are either based on exposure to a false Christian or Christianity or a complete misunderstanding of the teachings of Christianity. The rest of the arguments are just a reflection of their hatred for the God of Scripture. They have stiffened their resolve to follow along the path of Satan in his full rejection of the Creator. 

In the end, Sarwell tells us that he loves this world's beauty and that he hates its suffering. But as Al Mohler said, and I agree, to acknowledge beauty is to presuppose a standard by which beauty is measured. And such a standard simply cannot exist in a God-less universe or in an atheistic worldview. And that in and of itself is an irrational position in and of itself.

Peeping Thomists, Classical Foundationalism, and Classical Apologetics

 Thinking Critically & Biblically about the Foundations of Christian Theism

Is belief in God intellectually irresponsible, irrational, and philosophically rash? It seems inescapably true that no belief should be acknowledged as true belief or genuine knowledge unless it is accompanied by sufficient evidence. This raises several questions about the nature of knowledge, true belief, and the notion of sufficient evidence. Much has been made over the difference between belief that God exists and belief in God. Plantinga writes, “So belief in God must be distinguished from the belief that God exists.” I am not convinced that Plantinga is not guilty of overstating the case.

When Christian theism speaks about belief in God, it speaks about belief in a very specific personal being. Christian theism speaks of the self-contained triune God of the Christian Scripture. This is the God that created all that exists. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. He is the God that became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. He is Lord of heaven and earth, maker of all things and the giver of life. When Christian theism speaks about belief in God, this is the God it has in mind. It follows then that statements about belief in God are statements encompassing existential beliefs. Christian theism is not satisfied to hold God out as a meagre idea or concept. Christianity is not merely a noetic structure by which to organize and make sense of one’s experience. Christian theism is the only rational worldview available to humanity. The other worldview, specifically, the non-Christian worldview is reduced to absurdity when it is subjected to an internal critique of its propositions. This is true regardless of whether or not the non-Christian worldview comes in the form of a militant atheism or a false religion such as Islam.

The issue I am discussing belongs to the branch of philosophy known as epistemology. This branch deals with our theory of knowledge. What does it mean to know something about reality? When we say we know something, we mean, as Halverson says, (1) it is actually the case, (2) we believe that it is actually the case, and (3) we have reasonable grounds for believing it is actually the case. [Halverson, A Concise Introduction to Philosophy, 26] The controversy enters at point 3. I may state the case as it actually is. I may even believe the case as it actually is. But unless I have reasonable grounds for believing the case as it actually is, it cannot be said that I possess true knowledge. My belief may be a lucky guess or based on bad reasoning with the right answer. The controversy in epistemology between Christians, Non-Christians, and various schools of apologetics concerns “reasonable ground.” This is the age-old philosophical problem of the criterion. What do we mean by reasonable ground?

“Many philosophers have endorsed the idea that the strength of one’s belief ought always to be proportional to the strength of the evidence for that belief.” [Plantinga, Reason and Rationality, 24] Many Christian apologists have embraced a variety of these concepts from enlightenment and contemporary philosophies and integrated them into gospel proclamation and Christian apologetics. The problem with the approach at hand is located in the phrase “strength of the evidence.” W.K. Clifford wrote, “To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” [W.K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief, 183] Of course it would be irresponsible if we did not inquire what sort of evidence could be offered up for this belief. And this is the heartbeat of the issue. Beliefs are supported by evidence, which is based on other beliefs, which are themselves supported by evidence and so on and so forth. The chain of beliefs, sooner or later inevitably attaches to some belief that requires no evidence for its support. This leads us to the question, what is the sort of belief that requires no evidence? For unless we land upon this ground, we never land at all. Skepticism carries the day in light of this infinite regress. Where do beliefs begin? What is the origin of human knowledge? Where is the fountainhead of human predication? How is it possible for inquiry to exist if we are not able to locate the source of human knowledge?

Should we, as Anthony Flew once said, begin the discussion without the assumption of God? Is it ever ethically proper for a Christian theist to pretend, for argument’s sake, that God does not exist? Alvin Plantinga thinks we can and should: “the debate cannot start from the assumption that God exists.” [Plantinga, Reason and Rationality, 26] Is such an assumption necessary to the proclamation and defense of the gospel? Is such an assumption necessary for the defense of Christian theism? Classical apologists answer in the affirmative. I am convinced by Scripture alone that no Christian ever has to submit to this kind of demand. Regrettably, in the name of being rational, and in the name of credibility, and in the name of respectability, classical apologetics, the predominant form of evangelical apologetics, makes such concessions. For the remainder of this post, I will explore why such concessions are not only unnecessary, but actually weaken the Christian apologetic and potentially compromise the gospel. At a minimum, the rationalism that seeps into the discussion brings with it an array of unnecessary confusion because of the glaring inconsistencies it has with sound biblical theology.

Now, the direction in which I am heading is that of classical foundationalism. Thomism is best understood as a version of classical foundationalism. It denies that belief in God is properly basic. “The existence of God, furthermore, is not among the propositions that are properly basic; hence a person is rational in accepting theistic belief only if he has evidence for it.” [Plantinga, Faith and Rationality, 48] Now, foundationalism establishes norms for what qualifies as rational. It is a system that imposes rules and standards around what justifies belief. Any belief that fails to live up to these standards ought to be rejected as irrational. Hence, one can see that sufficient evidence as defined by Thomism or classical foundationalism serves as the ultimate authority for justified true belief. And this standard is unhesitatingly directed toward belief in the existence of God. Such theistic beliefs should only be accepted if they pass the bar of human reason.

As Plantinga points out, classical foundationalism is best understood in comparison with a noetic structure. A noetic structure is a way in which the human mind organizes experience to make sense out of the world. Within that structure there are basic beliefs and non-basic beliefs. Non-basic beliefs are accepted on basic beliefs. Any non-basic belief that does not follow from basic beliefs is deemed irrational. Hence, since belief that God exists is deemed a non-basic belief, it must be tested and shown to follow from some basic belief. According to Aquinas, scientific knowledge of the existence and immateriality, unity, simplicity, and perfection of God is possible. It is possible because, following Aristotle, scientific knowledge is self-evident or basic. Hence, from these basic beliefs, we can know that God exists. In case it is not obvious, we are moving now toward natural theology.

Classical foundationalism then, says that belief in God is not properly basic because the proposition that God exists is not self-evident, or evident to the senses or incorrigible. In other words, belief that God exists is arrived at from other more basic beliefs. Now, we may agree for argument’s sake that properly basic beliefs are beliefs that are self-evident, or evident to the senses or incorrigible. But as Plantinga points out, why do we have to accept the belief that these and only these types of beliefs are properly basic? I have to ask if such a belief itself is self-evident, evident to the senses, or incorrigible. I must confess that I cannot see how it is. From this fact, it seems to me that classical foundationalism rests upon flimsy grounds itself. In other words, it seems to me that classical foundationalism runs the risk of being what Plantinga calls, self-referentially incoherent. We presuppositionalists would say that it is reduced to absurdity when it is subjected to an internal critique.

This is precisely where the conflict between Aristotelian Philosophy collides with Reformed Theology and where Classical Apologetics crashes into Presuppositional Apologetics. The former has embraced a rationalistic epistemology while the latter has adopted a revelational epistemology. Contrary to Norman Geisler’s view that it is impossible for authority to serve as our ultimate criterion for knowledge, Reformed theology affirms that the only way to know God is by way of an ultimate standard that is thoroughly revelational in nature. Geisler contends this is impossible because “it is always possible to ask why we should believe any authority.” [Geisler, Introduction to Philosophy, 105] Paul assured us that just because we could answer back to God that did not mean it is wise to do so. (Rom. 9) I think it is good to remind the reader at this time about the promise of the serpent in the garden. Satan’s assertion was that man could know reality just as God knows reality, independently, self-sufficiently. This was in fact the promise of Satan. Satan promised man he could attain knowledge independently from God.

The reformed theologian approaches epistemology, not with Aristotle’s Metaphysics in his hand, but with a Bible. Bavinck says, “Instead, “implanted theology” was viewed as a natural fitness and inclination implanted in the human mind, enabling it to attain to knowledge of God “apart from any discursive thought and reasoning of the mind,” and to back up this knowledge with an incontrovertibly certain testimony.” [Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. II, 66] Human knowledge is, according to Scripture, revelational in nature. Moreover, according to Scripture, man does not have to go looking for God. By all accounts, God comes to man as soon as the capacity for rational thought arrives. With reason there is God. When the mind is ready to reason, God is. I think it right to say that God is the one conditioning the mind, preparing each mind for the process of rational thought. Rather than coming in at the end of some reasoning process or scientific or historical investigation, knowledge of God is there from the very beginning.

“There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty.” [Calvin, Institutes, Vol. I, 43] The source of human knowledge is God alone. The method by which mean know is revelational in nature. “But the knowledge of the deity is immutably in all because there is no nation so barbarous upon whom this persuasion of deity does not rest.” [Turretin, Institutes, Vol. I, 7]

Classical Foundationalism and Thomism following it, along with Classical Apologetics, require the existence of uninterpreted brute facts and the possibility of neutrality in order to build their system. Scripture denies that facts can exist apart from their status as being created by God for God’s purpose. Moreover, such facts must be interpreted according to God’s pre-interpretation of them. Any other view of knowledge collides head-on with biblical revelation. “No fact in the world can be interpreted truly except it be seen as created by God.” [Van Til, Survey of Christian Epistemology, 18-22] The entire enterprise then of Classical Foundationalism collapses not only from within but from without, and with it, classical apologetics. If there are no brute facts from the start, then it seems impossible for the foundation to form at all. We all should remember the words of our Lord when he said he that is not with me is against me. Hence, the notion of neutrality is more than a little naïve given Scripture’s description of man as a hostile enemy of God. Neutrality turns out to be another misguided philosophical conjecture that adds little value to the discussion.

In conclusion then, since God is the source of human knowledge and since it is the fear of God that leads to knowledge, God must be seen as the necessary precondition for human predication. The argument is summed up in the form of Modus Tollens, “If human predication, then God. There is no God. Therefore, there is no human predication.” From this argument if we see that even the attempt to deny God presupposes His existence. The minute we begin predication, God is presupposed. This is because God is the necessary precondition for all experience. We show this by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary.