The Early Church Telling the Old, Old Story

Christians in the Roman world found themselves in a cultural setting of moral decadence, philosophical relativism and religious pluralism.  However, they narrated the world in a new way.  They did not accommodate the faith to the culture but set forth the faith in a countercultural way.  In a world that had no set beliefs, they proclaimed, “We believe.”  In a world that had no ethic, they proclaimed, “We behave.”  In a world where there was no belonging, they declared, “We belong.”

Robert E. Webber, Who Gets to Narrate the World?: Contending for the Christian Story in an Age of Rivals, 51.

A Pastor Ready In and Out of Season: J. C. Ryle’s Warning for His Times...and Ours

I suggest, for one thing, that we ought to exercise a special jealousy over our own personal religion [i.e., evangelical Protestantism].  Let us take heed that it is thoroughly and entire Evangelical.  The times we live in are desperately unfavorable to a sharply-cut, decided, distinct, doctrinal Christianity.  A fog of vague liberalism overspreads the ecclesiastical horizon.  A settle determination to think everybody is right, and nobody is wrong, everything is true, and nothing is false, meets us at every turn.  The world is possessed with a devil of false charity about religion.  Men try to persuade us, like Gallio, that the alleged differences between creeds and schools of thought are only about “words and names,” and that it is “all the same thing.”  In times like these, let us be on our guard, and take heed to our souls—“Watch ye: stand fast in the faith.  Quit you like men: be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13).  Let us steadfastly resolve to stand fast in the old paths, the good way of our Protestant Reformers.  Narrow, old-fashion, obsolete, as some may be pleased to call that way, they will never show us a better!

J. C. Ryle, Knots Untied, Kindle, loc. 403—412.   

One Good Reason for Developing a Philosophical Mindset

For all you Liberty students taking PHIL201 and finding this page by googling one form or another of your second discussion board topic, if you find this post helpful, take the time to drop a comment.  I'd love to hear from you and where your going with school. KLS.

One good reason for developing a philosophical mindset is that, philosophy helps us to define and clarify what we and others believe. Moreover, I have three reasons to believe this is a sufficient cause to culture a philosophical mindset.

First, for Christians, there is eternal significance in defining and clarifying one’s beliefs. In creation, God, whose mind is the final residency of the real, rationality, unity, coherence, et cetera, created humans in his image to reflect his rationality and glory in the world and so view it aright. Adopting and engendering a view of God, the world, and ourselves as his creatures, is a fundamental step in correctly reflecting God’s image. However, since man’s fall, our natural tendency is to throw of God’s view of things and create false epistemological constructs and pseudo-realities, wherein we ourselves become the ultimate authorities in predicating the real, the right, and the reasonable. Through the redemption in Christ, we are rescued from the futility of our self-idolatry; we are renewed in true knowledge after the image of him that created him (Col 3:10), given the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16), and are thus enabled to again love the Lord our God with all our minds, thinking God’s thoughts after him (Mk 12:30). Finally, for the Christian, developing a philosophical mindset is an integral part of continually growing in the knowledge and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet 3:18); it is a discipline within the sanctification process.

Secondly, with respect to others, be they authors, movie producers, bloggers, or the next door neighbor, defining and clarifying the beliefs of others is critically important. Regarding beliefs and entire belief systems, there is no neutrality in one’s relation to God (Lk 16:13). Christ is the ultimate dilemma, one is either for him or against him; neutrality and middle ground are excluded (Matt 12:30). Everyone’s beliefs are therefore covenantally conditioned by their relationship to God. One will have either Christ speaking in his self-attesting word as their ultimate epistemological authority or will surrogate himself or herself as that authority. A philosophical mindset helps the Christian examine and systematize the corollaries and consequences of the innumerable non-Christian worldviews, which make up the philosophical ambiance and spirit of our age.

Third, then, is the profit of a philosophical mindset in the relation of the two antithetical views expressed in the two points above. By aiding us to define and clarify both our own and the beliefs of others, developing a philosophical mindset helps to detect and avoid the temptation of syncretism, the dangerous admixture of humanistic, materialistic, or otherwise antagonistic beliefs incompatible with Christian presuppositions. We hereby avoid the sin of “double mindedness” (James 1:8; 4:8; cf. Ps 119:113). Furthermore, on the one hand, by being enabled to define and clarify beliefs, Christians are in a much better position to defend and commend the gospel and the worldview in terms of which the gospel makes sense. On the other hand, we are better equipped to understand and deconstruct the non-Christian worldviews that are raised as strongholds against the knowledge of God in Christ (2 Cor 10:4, 5). Cultivating a philosophical mindset equips Christians to answer the folly of competing worldviews without becoming foolish themselves (Prov 26:4, 5).

If they are right, they are wrong...

I have an apologetic maxim that I have tried to instill into both my girls. That is, “If they are right, then they are wrong”—the “they” being unbelievers. One of the most (ironically) consistent entailments of every non-Christian outlook is self-contradiction. This problem haunts the reasoning of everyone who will not evaluate things in light of God’s redemptive-providential plan and rule in Christ. If they are correct in their premises, they will draw contradictory conclusions, and vise versa. This is the folly of those who will not build their house of knowledge on the sure rock of Christ's enduring word.

The following editorial exchange is an explicit example of this problem. For a little background, the Daniel Esau reference is to a letter Mr. Esau wrote seeking to vindicate religion in general and Christianity is particular from secularist’s letters attacking the sam

I’m not particularly interested in standing with Mr. Esau in his attempt to defend the abstraction “religion.” I only know of particular religions, and only one that is defensible, namely Christianity. Ms. Hawkins had a similar interest, narrowing her focus to Christianity, so I felt obliged to answer.

'True religion' depends on one's beliefs

I read with interest the commentary by Daniel Esau, "Religion has accomplished much good" (Oct. 30), on his defense of religion. I certainly wouldn't argue with his list of good deeds done in the name of Christianity, though good-hearted people with or without religion contribute to the same causes. But I take exception to his use of the words "true religion" and "false religion." When it comes to spiritual beliefs, truth is a matter of opinion.

Muslims believe theirs is the true religion. That some have chosen the path of terror does not negate its peaceful side any more than our criminals define all Americans. And we all know that within the Christian religion there are many deviations of what each considers the truth.

Major violence throughout history began when one religion decided to spread its beliefs to the entire world by force, a concept that Jesus never taught. History has shown that Christianity and Islam are the two main culprits of this phenomenon.

Many historians believe that the seeds of Islamic terror began with the first Crusade in 1095 when Christians invaded Jerusalem and massacred the entire Muslim population. People tend to remember things like that.

ROSEMARY HAWKINS

My response...

Letter writer’s belief depends on opinion

“True religion depends on one’s beliefs” (Rosemary Hawkins’ letter, Nov. 4) and regarding “spiritual beliefs, truth is a matter of opinion.”

Strangely, Hawkins perceives herself to be free from the slough of religious irrationalism that she imposes on others. One can only conclude with Hawkins that religious truth is merely opinion and thus autobiographical, without objective meaning; or that Hawkins believes to possess that privileged place of objectivity that allows her to pass universal judgment on religious truth claims.

If it’s the former, then her letter was just one more person’s “spiritual belief” expressing a distaste for other religious perspectives, which isn’t very remarkable. However, if it’s the latter, then she believes her letter conveyed objective truth about religion and her point is self-contradictory.

Hawkins’ view has the pretense of even-handedness. But the fact is that it’s just one more perspective that claims to have religious truth cornered.

Because the Christian Scriptures teach that Christ is the Truth and the exclusive Way, all contrary claims are false by definition, including Islam. Therefore, Hawkins’ denial of such claims is just another way of saying that Christianity is a “false religion,” the very thing she wants to “take exception” with.

KEVIN STEVENSON

Some Prophetic Insights from Robert Lewis Dabney

Of the Theocentric nature of human knowledge:

“Every line of true knowledge must find its completeness as it converges on God, just as every beam of day-light leads the eye to the sun. If [Christian] religion in excluded from our study, every process of thought will be arrested before it reaches its proper goal. The structure of thought must remain a truncated cone, with its proper apex lacking.”

Of the philosophical/religious neutrality pretentiously posed by secular educationalists:

“The instructor has to teach history, cosmogony, psychology, ethics, the laws of nations. How can he do it without saying anything favorable or unfavorable about the beliefs of evangelical Christians, Catholics, Socinians, Deists, pantheists, materialists or fetish worshippers, who all claim equal rights under American institutions? His teaching will indeed be ‘the play of Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet omitted.”

On Secular Education, pp. 16—17