The Image of God

The Biblical doctrine of creation states that man is made in the “image and likeness of God.” Since man is made in the “image of God,” we should discuss about God before we discuss about man. That is the logical order. Anthropology presupposes theology proper and that is way the topics are arranged in any text of systematic theology. Just because man is made in the “image of God” does not mean that he mirrors God’s attributes in every way. God is omniscient. We are not. God is omnipotent. We are not. God is eternal. We are not. We need to know about God’s attributes and which of those has limited expression in man – in other words, God’s communicable and incommunicable attributes.

The Bible begins by stating about the act of creation and the method God employed in the process. Based on just this one chapter alone, we can come to some elementary conclusions about the image of God. The first act that God does is to speak, for “In the beginning God said….” God spoke the whole of creation into existence (Genesis 1: 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, and 26). Man was created “in the image of God” on the sixth day as the crown of all creation. Even if we do not look into the other passages in the rest of Scripture that throw light on this, we can come to some valid conclusions as to what the image is, based on the first chapter of Genesis alone.

First, we see that God spoke. We can at least expect that the image must include linguistic ability. And after God created man, He spoke to him and gave him a command – that is, words to obey (Genesis 2:16,17). This implies that Adam was created with faculties of understanding and reason, to process verbal information. He had to at least know the difference between obedience and disobedience to God’s commands. He did not learn this by experience. God instilled that in his mind when he created him.

God modeled clay and then breathed into it the breath of life, and then man became a living being – both body and spirit put together (Genesis 2:7). It is the image of God that separates us from the rest of creation. Let us look at some verses which throw further light on this:

“But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty that gives him understanding.” Job 32:8

“[God] who teaches more to us than to the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds of the air?” Job 35:11

“for God did not endow [the ostrich] with wisdom or give her a share of good sense.” Job 39:17

Thus, the “breath of the Almighty” is what gives man understanding, “teaches” him more and makes him “wiser” than animals. He was given “wisdom” and “good sense” as opposed to the Ostrich which was not endowed with these. Hence, it is not an exaggeration to say that the image of God refers to a rational mind. Some will say that the “image of God” refers to morality. But, what they fail to notice is that man is moral precisely because he is rational. Let me explain.

God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of life. They transgressed and Fall continued. Now for Adam and Eve to obey God, the needed to understand His commands in the first place. They needed to understand what is good and what is evil. They needed to discern the difference between obeying God and disobeying Him. Now all of that is a matter of rational thinking. In other words, morality presupposes rationality.

We don’t call a dog immoral because it mates with more than one female dog during mating season. We don’t speak about righteous cows or wicked horses. Animals are not moral because they are not rational. Moral judgments do not apply to animals because they are not rational. They cannot understand the commands of God, which is why they cannot obey them. On the other hand, man is a rational being. He can understand the commands of God, and is expected to obey them. Refusal to do so constitutes sin. Thus, in the most basic essence, sin is a lapse in rationality. And this is what happened during the Fall. The “image of God” was not destroyed, but distorted.

Since then, man’s ability to think correctly has been greatly hampered. This is referred to as the “noetic effects of sin.” He cannot think correctly about God, though God has made such knowledge clear to him, as explained in Romans 1:18-32. Men suppress the truth by their wickedness. God had already made things plain to them. Since creation, God’s divine attributes have clearly seen so that men who refuse to acknowledge God are without excuse. Their “thinking” was futile and their “foolish hearts” were darkened. They deluded themselves to be wise, when in fact, they were actually fools. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped created things rather than the Creator. Also, their rejection of the knowledge of God has caused them to indulge in reprehensive behavior which is morally deviant, violating God’s ontological status for sexuality.

Sin’s effect on the mind has been comprehensive. It has affected his whole thinking. Theologians call this “total depravity.” Before redemption, man is in spiritual darkness. “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 4:4). Because of this, he cannot think correctly about God, even though God has revealed true propositions to sinful man in his mind. This is called general revelation, because this is given to all men at all times, regardless of geographical and cultural boundaries. Psalm 19 and Romans 1 illustrate this point. God’s handiwork is seen in creation. Some people can try to smuggle in an empirical interpretation of this passage. They say that man can “see” God in nature. We earlier saw the futility of empiricism. Rather, the correct interpretation is that God has given the necessary presuppositions to man, so that when he sees God’s creation the appropriate response should be worship.

But this is not the case. Because of their wickedness, men deliberately suppress this knowledge and practice abominable things, thus inviting further divine judgment upon themselves. Thus, general revelation in itself does not have a salvific purpose. To attain redemption, man needs special revelation, that is, propositional content from the Bible which gives true statements about God, man, sin, salvation, and judgment.

Thus, as long as man is in this state of spiritual blindness, he cannot understand and believe true propositions about God. Ephesians 4:17-19 describes the spiritual state of man before conversion. Unbelievers live in the “futility of their thinking,” “darkened in understanding,” and separated from the life of God because of the “ignorance” that is in them because of their hardened hearts. Unbelievers are the way they are because they don’t think correctly, that is, Biblically, about God. And the cure to this also targets the mind. So, when God grants repentance, people are led to “a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 2:25).

Only Christ can lift the sinner out of the epistemological abyss and grant him “the light of the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). In Ephesians 4:23-24, we are told to be “made new in the attitude of our minds.” So, to not be like the unbelievers, we must no longer think we way we used to do, before our conversion. We have to put on the new self which is being “renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (Colossians 3:10).

Can you see the Scripture’s emphasis on defining the “spiritual life” in terms of intellect? Just because something is “spiritual” doesn’t automatically mean that it is mystical, or something esoteric. The Biblical model of spirituality is centered on the mind, and this should be the target in evangelism and discipleship. When man is born in sin, the “image of God” is in a distorted state, and at conversion, God begins to work on it restoring it gradually to conform it to the likeness of Christ.

It takes a sovereign work of God whereby he converts sinful man’s mind and grants him faith. Since this article is not a treatise on soteriology, I cannot provide detailed exegetical arguments. Please refer any text on Reformed dogmatics (Grudem, Berkhof, Hodge, Calvin, to name a few) to understand soteriology comprehensively. God has given us everything we need for sanctification through knowledge of Him (2 Peter 1:3). The subsequent development as a Christian consists of growing in knowledge and grace (2 Peter 3:18), renewing the mind, which leads to transformation, so that we can know and do the good pleasing and perfect will of God (Romans 12:1-2).

In Psalm 32:9 God says, “Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.” Therefore, to despise rationality is to mock and insult God’s wisdom in the way He made us. If we shun knowledge, wisdom, and understanding of the things of God, we are not acting like “mature Christians” but like brute beasts which have no understanding.

The Biblical View of Knowledge

Now, we need to understand about the nature of knowledge. What is knowledge? What is the difference between knowledge and opinion? What is the link between knowledge and truth? Are they same or refer to something different? These are the questions that we will unwrap and answer.

Something is considered to be knowledge when the information is true. When we are talking about knowledge, there is a cognitive claim. That is, the idea of truth is implicit when the word “knowledge” is used. Otherwise that proposition is called an opinion or something else. Knowledge, is therefore, based on truth, and something which is not true cannot be reckoned as knowledge. Vincent Cheung defines knowledge as the “intellectual retention and comprehension of true propositions.” We can claim to have knowledge when the propositions we affirm are true.

But now, how do we know which propositions are true? Everybody believes some propositions or the other, the sum of which constitutes his worldview. When there are various worldviews, how does one judge which worldview is true? Answering this would require us to go into the fine details of apologetics and bibliology, and that is beyond the scope of this article. However, I will briefly state a few points which would present the answer in an embryonic form. Later, in another essay, I will elaborate on this.

John 17:17 says, “Thy word is truth.” Truth is defined as God’s Word itself. Notice that the verse does not say “Thy word is true.” This would mean that there is some higher standard of truth, and being “true” would mean conformity to that standard. Rather it says, “Thy word is truth.” This means that truth is God’s Word itself. There is no standard for comparison, since the Bible is the ultimate standard. Every other worldview is judged by the Biblical worldview. The Biblical worldview consists of all the propositions of Scripture and all propositions validly deduced from them. Every non-Biblical worldview is false since they do not start to reason from true premises. Any proposition in any worldview should be evaluated from the vantage point of Scripture. Since God is the ultimate reference point and authority for everything, He alone has the exclusive right to define truth and falsehood, right and wrong. To not believe His Word is rebellion and sin.

Now, we need to know about the nature of knowledge. As I mentioned earlier, for us to discuss about how man gains knowledge, we need to know the nature of man and the nature of knowledge. We have already examined Scriptural data and concluded that the “image of God” in man refers to a rational mind, endowed with understanding, with the capacity to process propositional content in a logical fashion. However, because of sin, man’s ability to reason syllogistically from true premises has been severely skewed. At conversion, this is reversed and the Christian is taught by God from His Word to think correctly.

Now, knowledge refers to true propositions. And when we say that something is “truth,” we are referring to a particular proposition or set of propositions which are true. So, in that sense, knowledge and truth are synonymous. I will be using these terms in that sense from now on. In John 17:17 we saw that God’s Word is truth. The Bible contains the self-justifying claim that all it contains is the truth. Now we have to look study about the nature of truth.

I am stressing the importance of the “nature” of truth again and again because there are a lot of funny ideas floating around. Many say that truth is an experience, an encounter, an emotion, truth is pictorial (“A picture is worth a thousand words”) and so on. However, none of these are true, as we shall see shortly. Some of you might feel that I am delving too much into all this. But this is important. Wrong theory will lead to wrong practice. So, it is worth spending some extra time learning the correct theory, so that apply we can it appropriately and glorify God. Here are some verses which throw light on the nature of truth.

Your righteousness is everlasting and your law is true. (Psalm 119:142)

Yet you are near, O LORD, and all your commands are true. (Psalm 119:151)

All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. (Psalm 110:160)

For the word of the LORD is right and true; he is faithful in all he does. (Psalm 33:4)

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. (Proverbs 30:5)

To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. (Revelation 3:7)

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. (Revelation 3:14)

Then the angel said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’” And he added, “These are the true words of God.” (Revelation 19:9)

He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” (Revelation 21:5)

The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.” (Revelation 22:6)

As the above verses state, it is the “words” which are true. We can now conclude that truth is propositional. A proposition, as defined in logic textbooks, refers to a sentence which can be either affirmed or denied. A sentence consists of a set of words connected in a meaningful fashion. A proposition is a “technical” term for a sentence. Words and clauses without context do not constitute a proposition. I am stating and explaining all this to the minute detail, because this has wide implications for what follows.

According to the Bible, truth is propositional, since only a proposition can be true or false. Truth is not pictorial. A picture is not worth a thousand words. Read Daniel chapter 2. King Nebuchadnezzar has a strange dream where he sees a lot of images and is deeply troubled by it. He calls in the courtiers to tell him the dream and interpret it. Nobody is able to do so. Daniel intervenes and God reveals the dream to him and the interpretation of it. The king did not understand the meaning of the image in gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay. The king did not understand what was meant by the stone striking the feet of the image and the image crumbling down. Both the image and event by themselves did not convey an iota of meaning to the king. Later on, Daniel, having been given the revelation by God, explains the meaning in propositions to the king and then it makes sense to him.

This proves that a picture is not worth a single word, let alone thousand words! If it is really so, that a picture is worth a thousand words, then why not convey that very idea through some picture? Why waste seven words to explain that idea when you can try to communicate that through a painting or some other pictorial equivalent? Obviously, it is impossible to communicate that idea through any picture. That is why they use words and not pictures to say that a picture is worth a thousand words! These statements might sound romantic but are stupid to the core. As children of the light, we should not parrot the clichés that the children of darkness repeat so very often. They don’t know what they talk about most of the time. In contrast with them, we should think before we speak.

I had mentioned that words or clauses without context do not constitute a proposition. In Daniel chapter 5, another king, Belshazzar sees the handwriting on the wall. There are four words, and the king is clueless as to what they mean. Daniel is called in, God reveals the necessary propositions to him, and then he makes sense of those words. This proves that single words, or phrases by themselves, without a context are meaningless and do not convey anything. After Daniel explains, the king knows and understands. Before that he was in an emotional frenzy. He was frightened, his face turned pale and his knees were knocking together. None of this emotional hype gave him truth. It was Daniel’s explanation in propositions that gave him truth. This also serves to reinforce that emotional excitement or fright will not convey any truth. Only propositions will convey truth.

In conclusion, it is worth quoting Vincent Cheung again: “knowledge is the intellectual retention and comprehension of true propositions.”

Biblical Epistemology

Having discussed the nature of man and the nature of knowledge, we are now fit to discuss about what the Bible teaches about how man acquires knowledge. The introductory chapters of 1 Corinthians provide an outline of Christian epistemology besides teaching other things. In 1 Corinthians 1:20-21, we learn that God has made the wisdom of the world to be foolish in His sight. God had determined that human ingenuity would not discover the truth about God, “for in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know him” (v 21).

Commenting on these verses, Mathew Henry says, “All the valued learning of this world was confounded, baffled, and eclipsed, by the Christian revelation and the glorious triumphs of the cross. The heathen politicians and philosophers, the Jewish rabbis and doctors, the curious searchers into the secrets of nature, were all posed and put to a nonplus. This scheme lay out of the reach of the deepest statesmen and philosophers, and the greatest pretenders to learning both among the Jews and Greeks. All the boasted science of the heathen world did not, could not, effectually bring home the world to God. In spite of all their wisdom, ignorance still prevailed, iniquity still abounded. Men were puffed up by their imaginary knowledge, and rather further alienated from God.”

In chapter 2:9-10, we learn about God’s plan. “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard (empiricism), no mind has conceived (unaided rationalism), what God has prepared for those who love Him – but He has revealed it to us by His Spirit.” Notice the contrast that is being drawn up here. Man, with his own effort, could not do anything to reach out to God. But God has taken the step to reach out to man and reveal knowledge to him.

Based on sensations (“eye has not seen, ear has not heard”) man could not learn or discover anything about God. We earlier saw how on the basis of empiricism, one cannot know anything truly, let alone know about God. On the basis of unaided rationalism, one cannot know the true premises (“no mind has conceived”), so the entire reasoning is arbitrary and haphazard. Empiricism and Rationalism cannot provide man with knowledge of God. So, what is the way out of this epistemological abyss? REVELATION!

Scripture continues and says “God has revealed it to us by His Spirit” (2 Corinthians 2:10). Empiricism and Rationalism (that is, unaided rationalism) have failed to provide humanity with the knowledge of God. Quoting Mathew Henry again: “all the boasted science of the heathen world did not, could not, effectually bring home the world to God.” In spite of all their meticulous efforts, “ignorance still prevailed.” With all the hype of civilization, men still had only “imaginary knowledge” and were “further alienated from God.” What pitiable state of affairs for those without the knowledge of God! But this was so, because God determined this is the way it ought to be (1 Corinthians 1:21). This was to frustrate human effort, pride, and wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:29). This was so that man could never boast.

The Bible says that we know about God because God has chosen to reveal knowledge about Him through the words of the Bible. “All Scripture is God breathed,” that is, (in the Greek) literally, from the mouth of God. Again, read the section on bibliology from any text on systematic theology to understand the doctrine of the Word comprehensively. God has given us knowledge about Him in His Word, the Bible. Theology is possible because God has revealed knowledge. If God did not reveal it, we would not know about it. “The secret thing belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and our children forever, so that we may follow all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Now, the Bible teaches that God creates, controls, and facilitates all operations in the universe, whether it is the death of a sparrow, or knowledge acquisition by man. When it comes to knowledge of God, though He has revealed truth about Him in His Word, not every person reading it can understand it or believe it. Because, even there, man is dependent on God for understanding and believing truth. Here are some verses which teach that.

All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27)

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (Acts 13:47-48)

When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. (Acts 18:27)

And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” (Romans 10:20)

If God decides to reveal knowledge to somebody He will do so, and if He decides to withhold knowledge from another person, He will do so. Knowledge acquisition by man is solely dependent upon the power and pleasure of God.

At the same time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and the learned and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was Your good pleasure.” (Mathew 11:25-26)

No other view of epistemology will be more humiliating and frustrating to human effort and pride. But this is precisely the reason, why God determined it this way – so that no man may boast before Him. Knowledge is possible because God reveals it to man through the Bible and reinforces it in his mind and makes him understand it when he sees or hears propositions from it.

However, some will say that one still has “see” the words that are written on the paper in the Bible or “hear” the words of the Bible when it is being read aloud. That is, they still want to hold on to empiricism. We have already refuted the futility of empiricism, and we need not repeat it here. They make this objection not because empiricism is defensible, but because the noetic effects of the Fall is strong in their minds, and they need Divine operation to blast the strongholds of empiricism. God have mercy on them.

Knowledge is conveyed and retained in the form of propositions. Knowledge is retained in the mind. God engraves knowledge in the mind of man. So what then, is the role of “seeing” and “hearing”? Are they the means of conveying knowledge? NO! That is what we refuted in the earlier part of the essay. To answer this, we again we turn to 2 Corinthians 2:9-10. Here we see that neither seeing nor hearing can provide us with knowledge of God. But “God has revealed it to us by His Spirit.” It’s God’s Spirit who imparts knowledge of God in the form of propositions to the mind of man. So, knowledge does not reach us through seeing or hearing. Sensations do not provide any means of knowledge. God’s Spirit conveys the propositions directly to the mind of man without any sensations coming in between. Verse 11 and 12 go on to explain that no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. And God conveys His thoughts to us through His Spirit, so that we may understand what God has given us.

Sensations are merely the occasions during which God conveys knowledge to the mind of man. That is, upon the occasion of reading the Bible, God directly conveys knowledge to the mind of man and causes Him to believe what is written. Upon the occasion of hearing the words of the Bible, God directly conveys knowledge to the mind of man and causes him to understand and retain it. So, knowledge NEVER came from sensations. The sensations are merely the occasions during which God directly conveys knowledge to the mind of man. This also explains why those people who are deaf and blind from birth can still understand the Bible using the special means of communication available for them. Hence, this view is also called occasionalism, which refers to the fact that upon the occasion of the concerned sensation, God directly and immediately conveys knowledge to the mind without any secondary means.

This is Biblical epistemology and it is consistent with the Biblical view of the nature of man and the Biblical view of the nature of knowledge. Biblical occasionalism is the only hope for finding the way out the epistemological darkness.

Now, I prefer to use the term “Biblical” worldview over “Christian” worldview because the former is more specific as to the content, when the latter is more likely to arouse feelings of the cultural ambience that goes along with Christianity. Moreover, in the present-day religious climate, there are so many things done under the name of “Christianity,” such as Catholicism, and other cults which borrow Christian terminology, when in fact, they are diametrically opposed to Christianity. For this reason, when the term “Biblical worldview” is used, it would point to a very specific source of content – the Bible.

The First Principle – Biblical Infallibility

The first principle of the Biblical worldview is “the Bible alone is the Word of God.” A first principle should be the starting point, should be self-authenticating, make knowledge possible, and the rest of the propositions in the worldview should be deduced from it.

Now, no first principle can be “proved,” in the sense that it cannot be argued for on the basis of some other proposition. If that is so, then it is no longer the “first” principle. If you want proof for everything you can have proof for nothing, since, to prove A you will need B, and to prove B you will need C, and you will land up in an infinite regress. If that is so, the worldview cannot even begin! So, the idea that we should have “proof” for everything is nonsense. What “proof” do you have for the very idea that you should have proof for everything?

But just because one does not have “proof” for the first principle does not mean that it cannot be logically defended. In the following essay, this is what I intend to do regarding the Biblical worldview.

The Starting Point

The first principle should be the starting point of the worldview. There can be no proposition higher than this from which it is derived. This is the ultimate proposition in the entire worldview, and this means there can be no other proposition greater than this. The first principle of the Biblical worldview is Biblical infallibility. This means that the Bible is cannot make a mistake when it talks about something.

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16).

“Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21)

This means that all the propositions in the Bible are true. This is so because God revealed all the propositions in the Bible. All of Scripture – ALL of it – carries God authority, and this means you cannot selectively take some propositions from Scripture and reject others. When you come to the Bible, you accept it as a whole. If you take some propositions and reject others, by what epistemological standard are you doing so? If you affirm the first principle of the Biblical worldview, then you are committed to affirming all that the Bible states.

There is another term – inerrancy – which means that the Bible does not make an error when it talks about anything. Though these two terms are somewhat similar in meaning, the term infallibility is more specific since it denotes the actual potential (the Bible cannot make a mistake) than the actual state of affairs (the Bible does not make a mistake).

Now, every worldview has its first principle. No one can deny us taking our first principle as Biblical infallibility. Every worldview begins somewhere or the other, and we begin with the proposition that God has revealed all the propositions in the Bible. This is called presuppositionalism.

The critics will say that we first assume the existence of God, and then we come to the Bible to prove it. But if you notice, I am not concerned with proving the “existence” of God at all. Merely proving that God “exists” means nothing. Which God (? god)? The God of the Bible, or the Koran, or some New Age idea of Cosmic Consciousness? I am not assuming the existence of God independent of the Bible, and then coming to the Bible to prove it. Rather I first come to the Bible, and then know that God exists, and that He has revealed Himself in the words contained therein.

Self-authentication

Next, a first principle should be self-authenticating. That is, it should satisfy the very demands it is making. In case of the Biblical worldview, the first principle is self-authenticating. How do we know the Bible is the word of God? The very Bible tells us so!

“Thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)

“Every word of God is flawless.” (Proverbs 30:5)

Now, there are those who will say that this amounts to circular reasoning – using the conclusion as a part of the premise. But you should note that we are dealing with the first principle. You cannot have a higher authority to validate the first principle. Since the first principle is the ultimate proposition in the worldview, it should not depend on any other proposition for its justification. So, how do I know the Bible is the word of God? The Bible tells me so.

Just take a look at the first principles of other worldviews. In agnosticism, the first principle is that one cannot know anything about reality. But this first principle cuts itself because one has to know something about reality in order to state that nothing can be known about reality. One assumes some knowledge of reality in order to deny it in the first place. Thus, agnosticism cannot stand logical scrutiny at the level of the first principle.

Next, in empiricism, the first principle is that “all knowledge comes through sensations.” Does this first principle justify itself? Did the very idea that all knowledge comes from sensations, come from sensations itself? No. Then, where did it come from? You see, the first principle of empiricism does not validate itself. Moreover, how do you know the senses are reliable? The reliability of sensations has to be established prior to that, which has not been done, and one cannot proceed to do so, on the basis of this first principle which collapses right at the start.

Next, in the scientific worldview – scientism – the first principle is that something is true only when “proved” by science. Ignoring the logical fallacies in the scientific method for now, was that very proposition – that everything should be proved by science – proved by science itself? If everything should be proved by science, then you also have to prove that very proposition by science – which cannot be done. The first principle of the scientific worldview digs its own grave.

In contrast with these irrational worldviews, the first principle of the Biblical worldview states that God has revealed Himself in the words of the Bible. And how do I know that? From the Bible itself! So, the Biblical worldview is self-justifying.

But, just because any worldview claims infallibility does not mean that it is, indeed infallible. For example, the Koran also claims infallibility. But when we examine the Koran and look at the other propositions in it, we will find that it contradicts itself and thus self-destructs. I will write about this in a separate post in the near future.

The Possibility of Knowledge

Next, the first principle of the worldview should make knowledge possible. For example, if I choose a first principle such as, “a guitar has six strings,” such a proposition may be true but does not tell me about the nature of the universe, or why murder is wrong. So, a first principle must be broad enough to make knowledge possible.

Any worldview has components such as epistemology, metaphysics, anthropology, ethics, soteriology, and eschatology. The first principle should be epistemological. If the first principle is metaphysical or ethical, it cannot be self-authenticating and cannot proceed. For example the proposition, “God exists,” does not make knowledge possible. How does one know about the existence of God in the first place? So, the first principle should be the epistemological foundation of the entire worldview.

In the Biblical worldview, the first principle is that “the Bible alone is the word of God.” So, on this basis the rest of the categories can be derived from taking the propositions from Scripture and validly deducing other propositions from them.

Network of Propositions Deduced From the First Principle

Finally, it is important to remember that a worldview is a network of propositions. That is, all the propositions will be related to each other. If they are not related and end up contradicting each other, then the worldview will self-destruct. Also, all the propositions in the worldview should be derived and deduced from the first principle. If a proposition is not derived from the first principle, then it means its rejects the first principle, and depends upon some other worldview’s first principle. This reeks of inconsistency and contradiction, and such a worldview should be rejected straight away.

I have shown you earlier that the other worldviews cannot even begin on the basis of the first principle, let alone validly deduce other propositions from it. In contrast with this irrationality, in the Biblical worldview, we start of with the first principle of Biblical infallibility and deduce the rest of the propositions from it. This is called systematic theology, and to this we will now turn.

Components of the Biblical Worldview – Systematic Theology

To know the components of the Biblical worldview one needs to study systematic theology. In systematic theology, we gather all the verses regarding a particular topic and validly deduce conclusions from them. The topical arrangement that is followed in most systematic theologies corresponds to the philosophical outline which I had outlined earlier.

The doctrine of the Word of God (Bibliology) is the theological equivalent of epistemology, which is the theory of knowledge? How do we know? Because God has told us so in His Word.

Next, moving on to doctrine of God (Theology Proper), we are told about the nature and attributes of God. We learn about creation, providence, and the beings of the spiritual world such angels and demons. This corresponds to metaphysics, which deals with the nature of reality (Greek, meta = beyond; physics = material world).

Next, we move on to anthropology and we learn about the creation, purpose, and nature of man. A subdivision of anthropology is the doctrine of sin, or hamritiology. We are told about what went wrong with man and the state mankind is in.

Next, there is soteriology, or the doctrine of salvation. But prior to this, there is Christology, or the doctrine of Christ, where we learn about the nature and attributes of Christ, and about the work He has accomplished for His people. As a result of this we study about the application of this in soteriology.

Finally, there is eschatology, or the doctrine of the end times, which is the Christian theological equivalent of the doctrine of time. We learn that time is not cyclical, but linear, and that God will bring history to a grand finish at Judgment Day, when He will judge the world through Christ.

This is a succinct summary of the components of the Biblical worldview. In systematic theology textbooks there are other components such as pneumatology, ecclesiology, and missiology, but those are not the core doctrines which accentuate and separate the Biblical worldview from the rest of the worldviews.

What about truth in other worldviews?

Now a question which might arise is, what about truth in other worldviews? What about other religions? Aren’t all religions just the same? Don’t we all reach to the same God? Most of the amicable folks who want to promote “world peace” and “religious harmony” keep harping on such statements again and again. But repeating something again and again does not make it true. Most of those who say that there is truth in all religions, that all religions are basically the same, and that we can learn from all of them, betray their ignorance in wide measure. In fact, if they take the minimal effort to study world religions, the contrast between the worldviews will be glaringly obvious.

To affirm that there is some truth in every worldview means that the person making the claim already has all the truth, so he is able to recognize it in each and every worldview. Unless one has omniscience, one cannot declare one worldview true and the other as false.

In Colossians 2:3, we are told that in Christ are hidden “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” There is no wisdom, knowledge, and revelation elsewhere in any other religion or worldview. In Revelation 19:13, Christ is also called the Word of God. Hence, by deduction we can state that all knowledge and wisdom is found the Word of God – the Bible. Of course, this does not mean that God has revealed exhausted His mind in the Bible, but it means everything He wants us to know is revealed in the Bible. The Bible was given to reveal truth and not to conceal it. God is omniscient, and He has revealed a portion of His mind to us in Scripture. This is not an excuse to shout “mystery” to justify our laziness or unbelief, but to pursue the knowledge of God with all ferocity and vigor since “everything we need for life and godliness” is revealed to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

The Bible provides us with sufficient information for all intellectual and pragmatic endeavors. To deny this is spiritual treason. Since God has revealed Himself in the Bible, and His knowledge is infallible, it means that everything the Bible speaks about is completely true.

There are some who say that worldviews can be partially true, and partially false. But this is just a subtle attempt to cover up their incompetence. To say that a worldview can be partially true means that there are some propositions which are true and other which are false. However, on what basis will you decide which propositions are true and which are false? This means that you should presuppose another worldview and judge the worldview under question on the basis of that worldview. But how do you know whether the worldview which you use to judge the other worldview is completely true?

Unless you have infallible information revealed to you by an omniscient mind, there is no way for you to authoritatively judge any worldview. This is what God has done in the Bible. He has infallibly revealed His mind to us in the words of Scripture. So, on the basis of Scripture we judge each and every worldview that exists.

The Biblical Worldview vs other worldviews

Strictly speaking, there are only two worldviews – the Biblical worldview and the rest of the worldviews. Right at the dawn of history, God ordained this conflict (Genesis 3:15), maintains it. The contrast between the worldviews is so glaring that the Bible refers to it as the contrast between light and darkness (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). This is why conversion from any other worldview to the Biblical worldview entails a complete revamping of one’s thought life wherein he or she is taught to think on the basis of Scripture (Psalm 1:2).

Darkness is not a dim light, but rather the absence of light. That is the intellectual state of all the other worldviews. The Biblical worldview is not “more” rational than the other worldviews. The Biblical worldview is the only rational worldview and the rest are irrational gibberish, no matter from where they come from (Romans 1:22).

So, what does the Bible say about other worldviews? From Psalm 147:19-20, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, we are told that God revealed His Word only through the prophets of Israel and the apostles in the New Testament. He has not revealed His Word elsewhere. So, on the basis of the Biblical worldview, we affirm that there is no possibility of truth elsewhere. On the basis of the Biblical worldview we affirm that every other worldview is false and will lead to damnation (John 14:6).

Isaiah 8:20 says, “To the Law and to the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, they have no light of dawn!” What is peculiar about the light of dawn? It has very minimal light, since it is just recovering from the night. That is the way it is with anyone who does not speak according to the Bible. They do not even have that minimal light and understanding. They are in intellectual and epistemological darkness. So, how does one get out? Not until God sovereignly grants understanding to their mind. We will now look at this in detail.

Epistemology Is the Issue

It is important to note that in all these essays I am writing about epistemology – about how we can gain knowledge. We have been examining various schools of thought in the history of philosophy and critiquing them. We saw how agnosticism and empiricism makes knowledge impossible. Epistemology is the controlling principle in any worldview. So, please read this current essay with that in mind, since in this essay we will be looking into whether science can discover “truth.” (It will help if you will read essays [1] and [2] again, so that you will grasp the concept of worldview more comprehensively, and can understand my critique against the epistemological “foundation” of science.)

Science has had a lot of “success,” in the sense that today we have computers, aircraft, digital cameras, microwaves, medical technology, the internet, and a host of other amenities which has made life more comfortable than what it was couple of centuries ago, or maybe, even half a century ago. But it is a grave error to confuse pragmatic success with epistemological power. The two are totally unrelated. Just because we get certain results, it does not mean that the method used to achieve them is infallible. We will analyze science from the vantage point of epistemology, and see whether it deserves the reverence which many scientists claim it does.

Defining Science

We begin by defining the terms. “Science” is a word that is too common in usage, that almost everyone using it think they know what it means. But a simple challenge for them to define it might leave them gasping for an answer. It is indeed a miserable state of affairs that the scientist, who is busy experimenting, and charting graphs in his lab, is most of the time not aware of the very foundations and limitations of his discipline. That is left for the philosophers to worry about, he thinks. This often so because, the scientist is a very “practical” guy who wants results immediately, while the philosophers are those who have a lot of time at hand, who can “theorize” about these issues. But it is this very attitude – that, we shouldn’t worry too much about theory, but focus on practical results – that makes scientists more stupid than they realize they are. I wouldn’t be surprised if that statement had jolted you. But if you share my worldview, you cannot help but affirm that “God has made foolish the wisdom of the world” (1 Corinthians 1:20). In this essay I intend to demonstrate precisely just that, so read on.

So, let’s being by defining science. This is what Merriam Webster has to say about it:

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split – more at shed

Date: 14th century

1: the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science

4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

The meaning of a word if often limited by its usage in the historical context. Today, “science” refers to the academic discipline where information is gained by the process of observing, experimenting, framing hypotheses, repeating the experiment again, cross-checking, and arriving at a conclusion. But that is not the sense in which the word was used a few centuries ago. The word “science” is derived from the Latin word scientia which means knowledge. Science, way back then, referred to an organized body of knowledge, regardless of the method of acquiring it. But it is not so it today’s context.

So, in my critique of “science,” I will be operating on the colloquial usage of the term – the third and fourth definitions given in Merriam Webster above.

The First Principle

The first principle of any worldview which starts off with science is based on observation and sensation. So, the crucial point to note is that science is based on empiricism, and I have refuted empiricism in the previous essay. So, we can dismiss science straightaway, without further ado. But, since such a big deal is made about science by the majority of the populace, it will be worth the effort to show them the chinks in the scientific armor.

There is a truism in scientific circles that they will accept something as true only when “proved” by science. It is repeated so often, and from various angles such that most school goers and college students are brainwashed with this maxim. It will take a considerable amount of reason to wipe this from their consciousness.

It can be stated without exaggeration that the first principle of the scientific worldview is that “everything should be proved by science.” But again, does this proposition justify itself? Does it satisfy the very demands it is making? Can you prove that very statement – that “everything should be proved by science” – by science? No! Worse still, can you deduce the other components of a worldview such as metaphysics, ethics, soteriology, and eschatology from such a first principle? No! Right at the level of the first principle, science collapses, but wait! I have lots more to say. Keep reading…

Observation and Sensation

The first thing to note about science is that it is based on observation, which, in turn, is based on sensations. Sensations are unreliable, which is why two people looking at the same thing, can come up with totally different conclusions. Please read the previous essay on empiricism to understand why sensations are unreliable.

If observation is SO reliable, then why do you want to repeat an experiment? Why do you want other people to repeat the same experiment? This is a subtle betrayal that your senses are not reliable, and you want to test them again.

But, how many times do you want to repeat it? Three times? Five times? Thirty-seven times? On what basis do you set the limit? Who decides, and why? That is purely arbitrary.

Also, most scientists are not content with their own experimentation. They want others to repeat them. But why? Is it because your own sensations are not reliable? If so, are the observations and sensation of the next scientist reliable? How do you know? Who decides? Do you want to call in a third person? But why should his senses be more reliable than both of yours’ put together? When do you decide where to stop?

How many people should repeat the experiment? In how many places should they repeat it? There is no rational justification for the choice that is made here. Most often for the sake of convenience, the readings and experiments are repeated three to five times, under highly selective conditions, by few or several people.

Let me illustrate what I have written above with an example which might strike you close to home. Try jogging your memory back to your high school physics lab. Take any experiment you want. I will use the simple illustration of the experiment in which we measure the focal length of a concave or convex lens. Were all the readings you got the same? Wasn’t there a variation? What does this mean? It means that your senses are not reliable. Now go and check the readings your other classmates have got. Were they the same? If you have any degree of intellectual honesty, you will say no.

Usually, the readings will be close to the actual focal length of the lens, but it is not unusual to get a reading which is far outside the “normal” range. For example, if the actual focal length was 20cm, the readings you get might be 18.4cm, 19.2cm, 17.5cm, 18.7cm, and so on. On more than one occasion, when doing this experiment several times, you might get 13.4cm, 24.5cm or something similar.

You can apply this line of reasoning to any experiment you did in high school or college – whether it is measuring the thickness of a wire using the screw gauge, checking the temperature at which salivary amylase acts, or about the color of the flame when calcium salts are burned – and you will see the unreliable nature of observation. Scientists have no explanation for this happening, which is why during calculations with the data, when they want the “results,” the eccentric readings will be left out. This is not logical acumen, but selective bias. I will write more about this shortly. So, point one is that science is based on observation, and since observation is unreliable, science is unreliable.

Induction

Next, we have to note that science is based on induction. Induction is the attempt to arrive at universal conclusions based on general instances. But induction is always a formal fallacy. By observing isolated instances one can never make a universally binding statement. This is so because, to make a universal statement, one needs all the knowledge that is possible, and that means you should be omniscient.

Take for example, the experiment whereby gravity is determined by observing a pendulum bob. By just observing the motion of a steel pendulum for a few seconds, followed by a few calculations, you cannot generously state that gravity is the same everywhere, all the time. Have you observed all the pendulum bobs in the past, present, and future? Have you observed them in all places, under conditions which differ from yours? What if you used a bob made out of lead, or a hollow copper bob filled with water or mercury? Will the readings and calculation remain the same? Will the calculation for the “gravity” you get be unanimous? Go try it out, and honestly evaluate the results.

You will find that even when using the same bob, under the same conditions, you get different readings, let alone using different material in different conditions! You see, based on couple of hours of experimentation in an air-conditioned lab, surrounded by the scientific “aura,” you cannot make a universally binding authoritative statement.

Vincent Cheung takes this one step further. In his book, Ultimate Questions, he writes this:

Some people try to rescue induction by saying that, although it cannot conclusively establish any proposition, at least it can establish a proposition as probable. But this is both misleading and false. Probability refers to “the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes.” Even if we grant that empirical and inductive methods can discover the numerator of the fraction (although I deny that they can do even this), to determine the denominator requires knowledge of a universal, and omniscience is often necessary to establish this.

Since probability consists of a numerator and a denominator, since the denominator is a universal, and since empirical and inductive methods cannot know universals, then to say that induction can arrive at “probable” knowledge is nonsense. Even apart from other insoluble problems inherent in empiricism itself, an epistemology that is based on an empirical principle cannot succeed, since empiricism necessarily depends on induction, and induction is always a formal fallacy.[1]

Asserting the consequent

Next, science cannot avoid the fallacy of asserting the consequent. In logical language it is stated as,

1. If P, then Q

2. Q

3. Therefore P

Notice the form of the argument. Premise 1 only states what will follow if P is the case. That is, if P is true, then Q will be true. But there are a number of things which can be substituted for P, and still Q will be true. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Q will follow only from P. I will illustrate this with an example. If it is raining, the ground will be wet. The ground is wet. Therefore it is raining. However, the conclusion just does not follow from the premises. The ground can be wet due to so many reasons. A water pipe might be leaking, or a truck might have spilled water along the way.

I will use another example from my field of study. If the brain stem is damaged, then the patient will be dead. The patient is dead; therefore the brain stem is damaged. This is ridiculous! The patient can die due to various reasons. It just does not follow that the brain stem has to be damaged in all situations. He might have had a heart failure, renal failure, respiratory failure, or a massive blood loss.

Take another example from literature. If someone reads Shakespeare, he will have good command over the English language. He has good command over the English language; therefore, he has read Shakespeare. This again, is fallacious!

If the law of gravitation is true, then freely falling bodies will have constant acceleration. Freely falling bodies have constant acceleration; therefore the law of gravitation is true. Can you see the fallacious nature of this type of “reasoning”?

The scientist starts off with a hypothesis where he predicts a result. He then, performs an experiment, and he gets the result. Therefore, the smart scientist concludes, his hypothesis is true! This is the type of “thinking” that takes place in the hallowed portals of science today. Science “works” by asserting the consequence, and you cannot achieve formal syllogistic validity with such type of reasoning. It is irremediably fallacious. You cannot side-step this fact, no matter how much you try to brush it under the carpet of scientific jargon and elitism.

Equations are Arbitrary

Next, we will deal with the method by which equations are discovered. Again, let’s go back to your high school physics lab. You have dangled the pendulum bob and recorded readings till your patience is exhausted. You have a set of readings, which are different from each other. Then you take the sum of them and then divide them by the number of readings. That is then touted as the “objective” value. But why did you choose to average all the readings? Why not take the mode? Why not the median?

You see, your choice of the average was purely whimsical. That is, it was arbitrary. Your data did not dictate that choice to you. You have a set of data before you. Now what do you do with it? How do you proceed? No matter in which direction you go, the data did not direct you to do so. It is a private decision independent of the data.

And, even then, what you have is the average, and not the actual reading itself. It seems like you have thrown out all your facts (the recordings) and stick to what is not a fact (the average). So much for observation, experimentation, and the claim that science deals with “facts”! Half-baked characters, whether in the university or in the ghetto, can easily chant that “science discovers facts, science discovers facts…” again and again. But asserting something again and again does not make it true.

I have just shown you that in science, you never deal with the “facts” as they are. You twist and contort them according to your personal whims. Scientific laws are not discovered, they are always chosen according to the private fancy of the investigating scientist. The raw data does not dictate the mathematical procedure you use to arrive at your conclusions. It is done on a purely subjective basis, and cloaked as “objectivity” in academic circles. So much for the intellectual neutrality which scientists claim!

But wait! I am not done yet. We are yet to see how laws are derived. You take your “facts” and plot them on a graph. Then it is time for you to draw a line. But how do you choose? There are an infinite number of lines that can be drawn through the points on the graph. Each line will represent a particular equation. But which line do you choose? Again, that is purely arbitrary! Which line represents the “real” equation? There are infinite number of lines for you to choose from. What is the probability that you will hit the right line? It is one divided by infinity, which is…..zero. Are you shocked? I have just subjected science to strictly logical analysis and this is what emerges.

In case you are dumb enough to say that I am “biased” because of my worldview, and therefore you won’t listen to me, at least listen to what others who have nothing to do with my worldview have said. Karl Popper, a very famous philosopher of science states, “It can be shown that all scientific theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.”[2] Albert Einstein, speaking about the real nature of the universe, said: “We know nothing about it at all…. The real nature of things we shall never know, never.”[3] Now, that was Albert Einstein for you. Bertrand Russell, who was antagonistic to Christianity all his life, said that all scientific laws are based on asserting the consequent, and thus, knowledge is impossible on the basis of science.

Ideal Situations

Finally, we have to note that all scientific laws describe ideal situations, which are never possible to attain in “real” life. Gordon Clark illustrates this point, again, with the pendulum bob.

The law of the pendulum states that the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the length. If, however, the weight of the bob is unevenly displaced around its center, the law will not hold. The law assumes that the bob is homogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point. No such bob exists, and hence the law is not an accurate description of any tangible pendulum. Second, the law assumes that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string. There is no such string, so that the scientific law does not describe any real pendulum. And third, the law could be true only if the pendulum swung on an axis without friction. There is no such axis. It follows, therefore, that no visible pendulum accords with the mathematical formula and that the formula is not a description of any existing pendulum.

Some might say that this might apply to physics and not to other disciplines such as sociology and biology. I do not dispute that. But that doesn’t mean you can escape from the rest of the above refutation such as the unreliable nature of observation, induction, asserting the consequent and so on. I mostly chose examples from physics because it is foundational to other experimental disciplines. Coming to the point, in science you deal with ideal situations which are impossible to replicate in real life. You cannot have absolute vacuum, frictionless surfaces, and tensionless strings. If this is so, then on what basis do scientists so cockily assert anything? Purely on the basis of their imagination. Nothing else. What passes for “knowledge” in scientific circles is nothing more than imagination, which is neatly re-packaged as “facts.” In fact, the present day structure for benzene, which is used all over the world in all chemistry textbooks was based on a dream which Kekule (a German chemist) had where he saw a snake engulfing its tail by its mouth. And today, his dream is the basis for chemical equations involving benzene all over the world!

Tissue of logical fallacies

John Robbins calls the scientific method “a tissue of logical fallacies.” Nothing can be more appropriate. Science can give you results, but not truth. So when people say things like “something is true only when proved by science,” they do not know what they are talking about or asking for. “Scientific truth” is an oxymoron. Science can never rid itself of the fallacies which are a part and parcel of its foundational methodology.

There is no point hoping that sometime in the future, we will discover truth through science. As long as you are stuck with empiricism, induction, and asserting the consequent, there is no way you can get out the epistemological abyss. No way! (In case you didn’t hear me the first time.)

But it works!

“But science works!” you say. I heat food with microwaves, fly in planes, send e-mails and so on. It “works”! But you have only succeeded in telling me what science can do. You have not told me how it can discover truth. Science can achieve a lot of pragmatic ends, and its function stops right there. It can NEVER furnish you with truth. This explains why false theories have also “worked.” Long before the theories of relativity, Newtonian mechanics was in vogue and it “worked.” So, when Einstein challenged scientific orthodoxy with relativity, they criticized him severely. But today, physics is unthinkable without relativity! Did Newtonian mechanics “work”? Yes! Do the theories of relativity “work”? Oh, yes! But how can contradictory theories both “work”? Well, welcome to “science”!

Let me again use an example from medicine. About fifteen or twenty years ago doctors stated that beta-blockers (a drug meant for reducing high blood pressure) should never be used in heart failure. So, in your board exams if you had mentioned that you can, in fact, use them, the examiners would have flunked you. Now the medical community recommends the same drug for heart failure with a big smile! You ask, what the heck is going on? (You now realize what a BIG stake you make on your doctor!) In fact, if you are relying too much on medical technology, just read up on the history of medicine and you will actually discover that the “trial and error” method was at the crux of the whole enterprise! Your doctor might not aware of all this. Maybe you should wake him up!

Scientific Mythology

The false conceptions of science which are embraced by scientists and other “intellectuals” is similar to the wide-eyed fascination with which children listen to mythological stories. The essence of mythology is to take you out of your humdrum world and promise you something which it cannot deliver. In the beginning, kids do not realize this, but later on, during adolescence, they grow out of it. The same way, the problem with the big kids – the scientists – is that they never even come close to intellectual puberty, let alone mature after that. They keep listening and drooling, all the while hoping that science will deliver its mythological promises, which it never can.

The solution is not to discard science all together, but to realize its limits and not over-estimate it. Its time to strip the mythological elements in science which have been a part and parcel of its community for so long. Science can help us achieving practical ends. That’s all. Scientists should keep quiet after that. No matter how successfully the theories “work,” it cannot give you truth. This explains why even contradictory theories also “work.” It can never give you absolute truth, so it is always false.

Epilogue / Epitaph

All is said and refuted with regard to the scientific methodology (mythology?). We could have dismissed science straightaway since it is based on empiricism. But, since there is so much of hype created today about science and its ability to discover truth, I think it was worthwhile writing an entire essay blaspheming the god of science. I know many of you who venerate this idol called science will find my attitude to be sacrilegious. I know I might have stepped on your toes. I owe you no apologies for that. In fact, you should be glad that I exposed the falsity of your assumptions. This is the task my Master has equipped me for – to tear down unbelieving strongholds and to take every thought captive to Him (2 Corinthians 10:5). Have you believed that science gives you truth? Its time you woke up from your delusion. You should not expect something from science which it cannot deliver.

Are you having a negative reaction to what I wrote above? You can have three or four PhDs behind your name, you can stroke your chin and try to exude that elitist aura, and you can play with your gizmos, gadgets, and dials, while pretending to ignore the shakiness of your very scientific foundation. But I know where you stand, and I have exposed it to you. You can ignore all of it, and still convince yourself that you are very smart. But the truth is that you are so irrational and stupid, that your reaction seems like brute instinct, rather than careful logical deliberation. For if you had even once ounce of rationality and logical sense, you will see through the epistemologically shaky and irrational “foundation” of science. You can always fool ignorant simpletons with clichés which are asserted again and again in university circles. But if you try such gimmicks with the Ambassadors of Christ, we will turn and tear you to pieces (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Do you want to know absolute truth? With your epistemological bootstraps you cannot pull yourself out to find it. Unless the Light that enlightens every man reveals it to you, you will still remain in your epistemological void. Its time for mythology to end and Revelation to take over. “To the Law and the testimony. If they do not speak according to His Word, they have no light of dawn” (Isaiah 8:20).

[1] Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, p 20.

[2] Karl Popper, Conjecture and Refutations, Harper and Row, 1968; quoted in Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations, p 11.

[3] Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: Life and Times; Avon Books, 1971; p. 504; quoted in Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations, p 10.

Empiricism refers to the school of thought which says that all knowledge comes through sensations. That is, when we observe the world around us using our sensations, we gain knowledge. The major proponents in this school of thought were David Hume, John Locke, and George Berkeley. We have already refuted David Hume in the previous essay on agnosticism, so we shall not repeat the same here. Moreover, I will not give a critique of individual views here, since the refutation I outline here will apply to all of them. There have also been some religious men such as Thomas Aquinas and William Paley who have advocated empiricism and tried to build a case for God’s existence based upon that. I will include a brief critique of “religious empiricism” as well.

The First Principle

Empiricism alleges that all our knowledge comes through sensations. Therefore when we see, hear, touch, or feel something, we gain knowledge. Observation is the means of acquiring knowledge.

Now, the questions to be posed to empiricist is, How do you know that all knowledge comes from sense experience? Did the very idea that all knowledge comes from sensations, derived from sensations itself? If not, where did you get that proposition from? How do you know sensations are reliable? How can one state that all knowledge is derived from sensations, without demonstrating the reliability of sensations?

Empiricism collapses right at this level. The first principle is not self-authenticating, and does not make knowledge possible. We can dismiss empiricism right away, but we will pose some more questions and see the logical pitfalls in empirical epistemology.

How do you “sense” sensations?

How do you “know” what is a sensation? That is, how do you know you are experiencing a sensation? Do you know that also on the basis of sensation? If so, then, what is the sensation (S2) that senses the first sensation? In other words, how do you sense a sensation? And how do you sense the sensation (S2) which senses the first sensation (S1)? And how do you sense the sensation (S3) that senses the sensation (S2) that senses the first sensation (S1)? And you cannot stop there! How do you sense the sensation (S4) that senses the sensation (S3) that senses the sensation (S2) that senses the first sensation? You will have to go ad infinitum. You can never even being your worldview if you want to hold on to your view that sensations convey knowledge.

What I have written above is neither a tongue twister nor an exercise for semantics. It is nothing but the logical outworking of empiricism. If it is true that all knowledge comes from sensations, then on the basis of empiricism, you cannot even start your worldview. With which sensation are you going to begin with? And why do you choose that sensation? Nobody has still answered the question of how they know they are having a sensation. Moreover, how do you know that you are not having a sensation? Again, on the basis of sensation? How do you “sense” that you are not having a sensation? You see, empiricism is fatally flawed right at the beginning.

Most importantly, how does sensation translate to knowledge in your mind? One has to write down in syllogistic form the argument defending the view that sensations can instill knowledge in the mind. All of them believe that the mind is a tabula rasa, which is like a blank slate, and sensations writes knowledge on the mind.

But how did you get to know that the mind is a blank slate in the first place? By sensation? Through which sensation did you sense that the mind is blank? Have you “sensed” your own mind the in the first place? How?

How did you sense that the mind is “blank”? If the mind is “blank” how did you manage to sense it? What is there in the mind for you to sense it, if it is blank? But, what is the “mind,” to begin with in the first place? Answer that question in a manner consistent with your epistemology. On the basis of sensations alone, first define what the “mind” is. Then, tell me how you got to know that this mind was blank. Again, answer that question on the basis of empiricism alone.

According to you, one has to sense everything to get to know it. But how do you sense a mind? Through sight? Sound? Touch?! Taste?!! Smell?!!! You see, I am simply drawing out the implications of empiricism for you. Do you see with your eyes what is in your mind? Do you hear it? Do you smell it?! Do you taste it?! Do you feel it? Now, tell me, how did you sense your own mind, let alone the minds of other people? Answer that question before reading further. I am holding you to the empiricism you are holding on to. Justify sensations, and then go ahead.

If the mind is “blank,” as empiricists claim, what is there for you to sense in the first place? There won’t be anything for you to sense! So, how in the world can you state that the mind is blank without even knowing what you are talking about? Are you trying to be funny or something?

And how do you sense when the mind is filled with sensations? And how do you sense the sensation that is conveying knowledge to the mind? Have you “sensed” these sensations? How do you know which sensations you are sensing? Again, on the basis of sensation? If you are bombarded with a whirlpool of sensations, which sensation do you pick out from to convey knowledge to you? Again, on the basis of sensation? You should answer all these questions if you seriously believe that empiricism is justifiable.

You see, I am asking, how do sensations translate to knowledge? Write down an argument in non-fallacious syllogistic form and demonstrate that sensations can convey and instill knowledge to the mind. It is impossible to write down that argument. Read again what I have underscored and then think of attempting such an endeavor. You will need all the luck in the universe, since you can never achieve formal syllogistic validity! How can you deduce a proposition form a sensation? Go ahead! I am waiting for some entertainment! Where will you start?! With which premise?!!! And again, if you want to maintain your consistency, you should first begin by justifying your “sensational” epistemology in the first place! (Pardon the pun, but I cannot avoid sarcasm here!) Getting my opponent into such a position is real fun, and resulting nuisance value is simply rollicking!

Are Sensations Reliable?

We know that mosquitoes bite and the water running between our feet in the beach sand feels good because we “sense” these events. However not everybody experiences this in the same way. People who have advanced leprosy will not be able to feel either a mosquito bite or the water running through their toes. People who are blind will not be aware that it is a mosquito which bit them. A thirty year old might not feel mosquito bite with the same intensity as a newborn. Also, if the mosquito bites you in the sole of your foot it won’t be as painful as a bite on your eyelid. People who have had a spinal cord injury might not be aware that they have legs in the first place, let alone experience a bite. And some people, who have had a limb amputated, might still feel that a limb exists (phantom limb phenomenon), and feel pain in that non-existent limb!

You see, the real feeling or sensation is impossible to settle upon on because there are wide varieties of individual factors which will vary from person to person and from time to time. You cannot “know a thing as it is” on the basis of empiricism. Sensations not reliable and it is impossible for people to have a unanimous decision on any given sensation. Just read the examples I have given above. Each person can come up with contradictory interpretations. Take the example of a mirage when you are driving on a hot summer day. You thought it was water, but when you came near it turns out to be nothing! This is the way sensations are. You can never arrive at epistemic certainty on the basis of empiricism.

The scientific discipline is subject to the same pitfalls. Scientists can observe the same set of data and come up with contradictory interpretations. In the next post on scientific epistemology, I will deal with this in greater detail.

Empiricism and Induction

But, wait! I am not done yet. Empiricism is plagued with induction, and you have to answer the following questions as well. Induction refers to the method by which general conclusions are arrived at on the basis of observing particular facts. Now, we have already shown the problems with observation and sensation, and we need not repeat it again. But empiricism is infiltrated with induction, which again damages it all the more.

In induction, you observe a limited number of instances and then conclude that is the case everywhere, all the time. For example, you observe thousand crows, and all of them happen to be black, and then conclude that therefore, all the crows are black. But how do you know that? Have you examined all the crows in the past, present, and future all over the world? There might be an albino. Based on your limited observation (not to mention the problems with observation per se), you can never claim certainty.

Have you known all the minds in the universe in the first place? The minds of all the people who have lived are living and will live in the future? Have you known about the minds of all the people all over the world? If not, how in the world can you shamelessly make an authoritative statement that the all minds are blank and that knowledge is instilled by sensations? If you are trying to be funny, I can understand that. You are truly “sensational.” I appreciate your sense of humor, but the place to be funny is elsewhere and not in the arena of logical argumentation.

Religious Empiricism

William Paley, Thomas Aquinas, R. C. Sproul, and William Lane Craig, are some of the many Christian apologists and theologians who hold to empiricism. It is not my intention to discuss comparative apologetics at present. That will be deserved for a discussion much later on. For now, we will see a major pitfall in their reasoning.

They try to start on the basis of observation and then make a case for the existence of God. Again, they have to answer all the questions posed above. They cannot do that. It is impossible for empiricism to have a self-justifying epistemology.

But there is another area of their arguments which I would like to focus on right now. It is about how they arrive at “God” right at the end of the argument. William Paley was a priest who is famous for his “watch-maker” argument. His argument is based on the fact that there is order and design in the universe. Since it is so, there has to be Designer whom he equates to be God. But how does a Designer in one premise suddenly become God in the next premise? Which God (?god)? This last part of the argument makes a leap in logic. The conclusion just does not follow from the premise.

Thomas Aquinas starts with motion. He finally lands up with a First Mover, and then suddenly makes the conclusion that “it” is God. But which God? The God of the Bible? Or the god of Islam? Or some neo-platonic conception of God? You see, right at the end of the argument, they make a leap from some impersonal entity to “God.” First, this argument is not valid since, if you trace the premises carefully, this conclusion does not follow them. Next, simply stating “God” will not do. Is this “God” the Trinitarian God who has revealed Himself in the Bible or the monistic god of Hinduism?

You see, it’s not some “generic” theism which Christians should defend and preach. We should defend a specific and exclusive Christian theism which will rule out all views contrary to it right from the beginning. I will write more on this when writing about comparative apologetics.

Epilogue (?Epitaph)

All has to do with empiricism has been discussed and refuted. If you still hold on to the view that knowledge comes through sensations, it is not because you are logically smart, but because you are irrational and hopeless. There is no hope for you unless the Morning Star rises in your heart to remove your intellectual blindness. Read on, and you will be told about the Light that enlightens every man.

Agnosticism refers to the school of thought in philosophy which asserts that it is not possible to gain knowledge regarding anything. The term was coined by T. H. Huxley, literally meaning “no-knowledge.” It is also called skepticism. The prominent men in this school of thought were David Hume and Immanuel Kant. They laid the philosophical basis for agnosticism. Immanuel Kant himself was a rationalist until he claimed he was woken up from his “dogmatic slumbers” by reading Hume. When studying the thoughts of these men, and refuting them, you will see that there are close overlaps with empiricism (the philosophy that all knowledge is gained by sensory experience). But since this essay deals with agnosticism, I will reserve a full rebuttal for empiricism later on. In this essay, I would like to briefly outline the chief contributions to agnosticism, refute them, and finally show you that agnosticism kills itself, with its very first principle.

David Hume

David Hume was a philosopher who lived during the time of the European Enlightenment. His epistemology of skepticism led him to agnosticism, and to throw doubt on the possibility of the miraculous and suspend judgments on metaphysical questions.

His skepticism was based on his epistemology. He was an empiricist, and hence believed that all knowledge comes only through sensations. Since no knowledge of God could be gained through sensory experience, he concluded that we cannot know God. In his famous Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding he writes this:

“If we take in our hand any volume – of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance – let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact or existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

Read the above quote carefully, for with these very words Hume digs his own grave. He says that if a proposition is neither mathematical (abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number) nor empirical (experimental reasoning), it is meaningless. But look at the very statements he made to assert that! Is it either mathematical or empirical? Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. So, what shall we do with his words? In his own words, let us then, commit it to the flames, for it can nothing but sophistry and illusion! According to him, if a statement is neither analytical nor empirical it is meaningless. But look at the very statements he wrote to assert that. It is neither analytical nor empirical. By a consistent application of his own criteria we ought to conclude that his statements are meaningless.

So what do we do with his ideas and books? Commit it to the flames! History does not record whether he was consistent enough to do that, but it’s amazing and funny to see that these so-called giants in the history of philosophy made a morass of their own thinking, but were never aware of it. Hume’s skepticism was a result of his empirical epistemology. But who said that all knowledge comes through sensations? Did the very idea that all knowledge comes through sensations come through sensations itself? Then where did it come from? You can see an inconsistency right there.

Hume’s view was not a harmless one which was just another philosophy to fade with time. It had positive impact on Auguste Comte of the Vienna Circle, and later, A. J. Ayer, who came up with logical positivism. This is a philosophy of language which states that if a statement is not empirically verifiable, then it is meaningless and nonsensical. This view had devastating effects on Christian theology. Since all statements about God would fall outside empirical verification, they concluded that theology is nonsense. However, logical positivism too died by its own sword, since the very first principle that all statements should be empirically verifiable was not empirically verifiable.

Immanuel Kant

Another individual who owed his intellectual development to Hume was Immanuel Kant. He was trained in the rationalist line of thought which was advanced by Rene Descartes, Benedict Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz. The rationalists stressed a priori categories of the human mind, and knowledge. They were against the idea that knowledge comes through sensations. Contrary to that, the empiricists, such as John Locke, David Hume, and George Berkley stated that the human mind is a blank slate (tabula rasa) and that knowledge is gained by sensations. These two schools of thought are rivalry, and Kant attempted a synthesis between these two philosophies. What seemed like an epistemological advantage actually landed him up in agnosticism.

Kant was initially trained in the rationalistic tradition, but then after reading Hume he claimed that he was “awakened” from his “dogmatic slumber.” He tried to attempt a synthesis between these two ideas. He said that all our knowledge is gained a posteriori from sensations, but it is structured by the a priori categories in the mind.

However, following this syncretistic epistemology which appears to be an apparent epistemological gain, we land up with wholesale loss. If all knowledge which gained through sensations is structured by a priori categories, then we can only know things as they appear to us, not as they are in themselves. We can know the phenomena, but not the noumena. We cannot know a thing as it really is, but only how it appears to us. We cannot know reality, but only appearance. This led him to state that we can never know the real state of affairs about anything.

Types of Agnosticism

Norman Geisler outlines two ways in which agnosticism can be classified.[i] In the first type, agnosticism can be unlimited or limited. The former holds that God and reality is completely unknowable. The latter claims that God is only partially unknowable because of human finitude and sinfulness. This position will reserve careful consideration later on.

In the second type of categorization, agnosticism can be weak or strong. The weak form holds that God is unknowable, and the strong form holds that God cannot be known. Those who believe that God is unknowable, cannot drive home that proposition with rational certainty. This leaves open the option that God can be knowable. The stronger position, that God cannot be known is the view which deserves sharp criticism.

Geisler, when analyzing these views, narrows them down to three alternatives when discussing about knowledge of God:

[1] We can nothing about God; He is completely unknowable.

[2] We can know everything about God; He can be exhaustively known.

[3] We can know something, but not everything; God is partially knowable.

The first position will be analyzed shortly. The second and third position will be analyzed when dealing with theism and the possibility of knowledge. It is too big a topic to be discussed here and my intention right now is to refute agnosticism, and not to consider the alternatives to it.

Self-refuting statements

Complete agnosticism is self-refuting. The claim that “reality is unknowable” posits some claim to knowledge. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to make that statement in the first place. They know that reality is unknowable. One has to know something about God to state that God is cannot be known. In their explicit attempt to deny knowledge, the implicitly posit a claim to knowledge – they know that God cannot be known. One has to assume some knowledge about reality in order to deny all knowledge reality.

Thus we can see that agnosticism self-destructs. If you claim that we can know something, then you are no longer an agnostic. Agnostics are those who know for sure that you cannot know anything for sure. Agnosticism contradicts itself right at the level of the first principle and cannot move any further. Anybody claming to be an agnostic cannot have a worldview at all, since agnosticism is about denying knowledge rather than affirming it.

Agnosticism collapses at the level of the first principle and leaves you in an epistemological abyss. You cannot have a worldview on the basis of agnosticism. You are in intellectual darkness, groping about not knowing where you are going or what you are talking about. Of course, if you are consistent there, you would not “know” that you are in intellectual darkness, which is why you need Ambassadors of the Light to come and enlighten you about it.

Epilogue (?Epitaph)

Strictly speaking, agnosticism cannot be rightly classified as a legitimate epistemology, since in epistemology you are dealing with how knowledge can be attained, and agnostics are trying to avoid that very possibility. Are you skeptic and proud to be one? Have you believed that skepticism is synonymous with sophistication? Well it’s about time you woke up from your “dogmatic slumber.”

If you really don’t know anything, you should just keep your mouth shut. If you do not know, then why do you want to open your mouth to say anything in the first place? If you know nothing whatsoever about reality, you cannot make any statement about reality. Logically, you should keep silence. If you do, however, claim to be an agnostic, every time you open your mouth to state anything, you are contradicting yourself and writing your own epistemological epitaph.

Or are you are in the category which says “I do not know”? If that is so, I commend your humility in owning up to your ignorance. To correct ignorance one needs instruction. Keep reading further and you will be told about the Light that enlightens every man.

[i] Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics; Baker Books, 1999; p 11.

Also, we noticed that in each worldview there is a hierarchy of propositions. For example, one cannot make a statement that same-sex marriage is wrong, unless one goes through a sequence of propositions in the reasoning process. Stating that same-sex marriage is wrong assumes that there is right way of marriage. And why is heterosexual marriage right, as opposed to homosexual marriage? So this involves a presupposition about human sexuality. But one cannot talk about sexuality, unless one talks about human nature. And you cannot stop there. You should talk about the origins of humans before that. And you cannot stop there too; you should talk about the origin of everything else before that. Before you do all this, you should tell us how you know all your statements are true. So, in every worldview there is an order of propositions in which each one is dependent on the other, progressing up the chain where one finally comes to the starting point.

The First Principle

Every worldview has a starting point. This is called the first principle. This is the ultimate authority in any worldview. The rest of the propositions in the worldview hang upon this first principle. If the first principle cannot stand rational scrutiny, then we should not take rest of the propositions seriously. You should keep going up the sequence of propositions until you come to the starting point. If a worldview does not have a starting point, then it cannot even begin, let alone proceed, and make other statements about reality. If a person denies that his worldview has a starting point, then don’t waste your time listening to him. Tell him that he would be more useful as a jester in the circus rather than discussing worldviews.

In every debate we should take the discussion to this level – to the starting point. For unless the validity of the first principle is established, it is futile to debate around the other propositions which are derived from it. Just playing around with the peripheral propositions while ignoring the first principle is a cunning way to skirt the fundamental issue. We should not minor on the major (the first principle) and major on the minor (propositions which are derived from the first principle).

A first principle, by virtue of being what it is, is the first. A starting point, by definition, is the beginning of the worldview. It cannot be deduced from some other higher proposition. If it is so, then it is no longer the first principle, and the proposition from which it was deduced becomes ultimate. Every worldview has a first principle and it is unavoidable.

Now, if you randomly catch somebody and ask “what is the first principle of your worldview?” most (if not all) of them (unless they have thought through these things) would not be able to tell you what it is. They might not even understand what you are talking about. It is up to us to patiently take them through the sequence of reasoning, and bring them to their starting point. Then we should explain to them about how the rest of the propositions in their worldview hang upon their first principle. We should then ask them to defend their first principle as we subject it to logical analysis.

Remember that the first principle is everything in the worldview. It sets the tone for the rest of the worldview. If the first principle crumbles under rational analysis and cannot be defended, then the rest of the worldview will collapse. If a worldview cannot start, it cannot proceed, and surely cannot finish. Such a worldview is incomplete and incoherent, and has no place in the marketplace of ideas. When the first principle is destroyed, then the worldview which claims to proceed from it is a farce.

Since the first principle is so important, we need to spend time looking at the criteria it should fulfill, for it to be rationally defensible. As I mentioned earlier, a first principle cannot be “proved,” in the sense that it cannot be deduced from a prior proposition. But that does not mean that it cannot be defended. Recall that I had earlier demonstrated that if you want to have “proof” for everything you cannot have proof for anything. You will land up in an infinite regress, and you cannot even begin. So, the first principle should be the starting point and the rest of the worldview proceeds from it. I am reiterating these things again and again to impress them strongly in your mind so that you realize that it is important to lead a debate or discussion up to this point.

Self Justification

A first principle should be self-justifying. That is, it should contain information to satisfy the very demands it is making. It should validate itself. Now, this does not amount to circular reasoning. In circular reasoning there are two propositions, X and Y, where you would use X to justify Y, and Y to justify X. But when it comes to justification for the first principle, you don’t have two propositions; you have only one. Or putting it another way, the conclusion is already assumed in the premises. But this is the way it should be with any ultimate intellectual criterion. Since the first principle is the ultimate proposition in any worldview, it should authenticate itself. It should not contradict itself and not depend upon some other proposition for its validation.

Most worldviews, as we will shortly see, will fail to satisfy themselves on this level. Even if a worldview claims to have a first principle that can satisfy the demands it makes, we must scrutinize the rest of the propositions in the worldview, to make sure that they are in fact derived from the first principle and do not contradict it, and each other.

The Possibility of Knowledge

A first principle should make knowledge possible. Just because a first principle does not contradict itself, does not automatically salvage the worldview. The first principle should pave the way for the rest of the propositions in the worldview. In other words, the rest of the propositions in the worldview should follow from the first principle. If there is a proposition in the worldview which is not deduced from the first principle (the parent proposition), then it should be rejected, since it is an illegitimate proposition.

This is another way of saying that a worldview should not borrow from propositions in other worldviews to help itself. If it is so, then it is no longer adhering to its first principle, and there is lack of consistency right there. Such a worldview contradicts itself right at that point. If a proposition is not derived from its first principle then where is it from? It is relying on some other first principle, which means it rejects its own first principle. It is not possible to have two first principles, because for any worldview, there is a starting point, not starting points. A first principle, by definition is “first.” It is not possible for two propositions to be first. One of them will be first and the other will either follow from it, or be unrelated to it. Just as how it is impossible for a baby to have two fathers, it is impossible for any worldview to have two starting points. So, if a proposition in a worldview is not deduced from its parent principle (first principle), then it is a bastard proposition, and it should be rejected, and the inconsistency exposed right there.

Let us quickly sum what we have discussed till now. A first principle should be self-justifying. But that alone is not enough. All the propositions in the worldview should be deduced from the first principle. In other words, a first principle should lead to the other propositions in the worldview, and thus make knowledge possible.

Ultimate Thought Categories

Every worldview has to provide answers regarding ultimate thought categories. These include epistemology, metaphysics, anthropology, ethics, soteriology, and eschatology.

Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge. It is derived from two Greek words, episteme, referring to knowledge, and logos, referring to study. It deals with the possibility, source, scope, nature, limits of knowledge, and methods of its acquisition. The most basic question to ask anyone is, “how do you know?” For unless the validity of his knowledge is defended there is no reason to take the rest of the propositions in his worldview seriously. The questions that epistemology deals with are the ones such as these: does knowledge come from our senses? Or, does knowledge come from reason? What is the difference? What is the difference between faith and reason?

Metaphysics deals with what philosophers call “ultimate reality.” In Greek, meta means beyond, and physics, refers to the material world. Thus, metaphysics deals with study of questions which are beyond the world that is observed with our senses. The questions considered are: does God exist? Is the universe eternal? Who made the world? Did the world create itself? Did God create the world? Are God and the universe identical? What is the nature of the universe? Is there a purpose to the universe? Are miracles possible?

Anthropology deals with the study of man. In Greek, anthropos refers to man, and logos refers to study. It deals with questions such as, where did man come from? What is the purpose of man’s existence? What is the nature of man? What is the connection between the soul and the body? Does the soul exist after death?

Ethics deals with theories of right and wrong. We make moral judgments about individuals and nations almost on a regular basis when we see, read, or hear about any even which occurs anywhere. Ethics answers questions such as: why is murder wrong? What is wrong with stealing? Who defines right and wrong?

Soteriology deals with salvation. That is, is discusses what has gone wrong with man, and what should be done to remedy the situation. What is man’s problem? What is the solution to fix it?

Eschatology deals with the theory of time. Is time cyclical? That is, do events repeat themselves in endless cycles? Or is time linear? That is, does it have a beginning and an end?

In any worldview, the propositions in each of these categories should be consistent with each other. For example, one proposition in ethics should not contradict another proposition in metaphysics or anthropology. And all the propositions regarding these categories should all be derived from the first principle.

In the forthcoming essays, I will discuss about various schools of thought in the history of philosophy and religion and see whether they can stand up to ruthless rational analysis. We will begin with their first principle, and if that itself cannot withstand logical investigation, we need not waste our time with the rest of the propositions. If the worldview cannot even start, then how can it make authoritative statements regarding other things? As I will demonstrate, most worldviews will crumble right at the starting point. Even if a worldview appears to have a stable starting point, when we look into the other propositions derived from it, we will find that they will crumble down. After that, when the dust settles down in the arena after the demolition of these false worldviews, I will proclaim and defend the only True Worldview which is the only logical hope for mankind which will provide true spiritual illumination. Get ready….

The term “worldview” is popular in many Christian circles nowadays. There are quite a few books and many websites which exist to teach believers about how to understand their worldview and relate to people who affirm other worldviews. It’s a good sign that believers are finally taking the interest in thinking through and working out their worldview. In this brief essay, I intend to define the term “worldview,” trace the etymological roots of the word, note the general characteristics and nature of a worldview, and observe the function one’s worldview serves in life.

The term worldview came into the English language as a translation of the German word Weltanschauung. Worldview refers to the beliefs one holds about reality and the way it is interpreted. It is the belief system through which one views the world and makes judgments and conclusions regarding anything. Some people use the phrase “world-and-life-view” to refer to the same thing, expanding on the depth of the definition. For the sake of convenience we will restrict ourselves to the term “worldview.” The term is also interchangeable with “philosophy” or “religion” since they too are systems of thought.

Influence of worldviews

Worldviews are like glasses. Depending upon the color of the sunglasses you wear, your sight will appear tainted according to the particular shade. Likewise, for worldviews, the belief system will color the understanding of reality. Your worldview will determine the way you interpret and evaluate any event or experience in your life or the world around you. Nobody can claim not to have a worldview. They might not be skillful enough in stating it, but that does not mean that they do not have one. Incompetence in articulation does not translate into absence of a worldview. Those who say that they do not have a worldview affecting their interpretation of reality would congratulate themselves thinking they are “objective” while the rest of the world is biased. But this is false, as we will look into this in detail towards the end of the essay.

So, what is a worldview?

I earlier said that a worldview is a “belief system.” Let us dwell for a moment on these two words. First, it relates to belief. A belief refers to an affirmation of what one considers to be true. It is mental assent or persuasion to a proposition (or set of propositions) which is considered to be true. Now, a belief can be held just about anything. It can involve the ultimate philosophical categories of thought and the daily mundane events of life. Thus, beliefs can be held ranging from the metaphysics of pantheism to the violation of traffic rules. There is no category about which one cannot hold a belief. When someone claims to “believe” something, he is making a cognitive claim – that is, a claim to knowledge. This is opposed to feeling or opinion. Feelings are vague dispositions of the mind where there is disturbance of thought. This is why most people cannot clearly express in words what they “feel” so passionately. An opinion is frequently confused with belief. However, they are not the same thing. When you opine, you do not claim certainty, whereas, in belief, there is a claim to certainty – to knowledge.

It might help here to briefly touch upon the link between belief and truth. Something is not true just because you believe it. That is, your belief does not create reality. Truth is independent of belief. So, a belief should follow from truth, and not the other way round. For example, at one point in time, people believed that the earth was flat. Later on, somebody set sail around the world, and then people believed that the earth is spherical. In this situation, it is not that “truth” had changed. Rather, people changed from holding false belief to a true one. Truth was what it was all along. Belief, in and of itself, cannot create reality. A belief is a mental state regarding the state of affairs about reality. You hold a belief about something. And this something is not what it is just because you believe it. It is what it is regardless of your belief. You can have a false or a true belief about it. Belief does not create truth. Rather, your belief should be based on truth. Truth is prior to belief.

Next, the word “system.” A worldview consists of collection of propositions which relate to each other. It contains a network of inter-related presuppositions. These propositions will usually cohere together in an orderly fashion to form a recognizable pattern. This is important because a worldview should be consistent. That is, the individual propositions in the worldview should not contradict each other, and the other propositions deduced from them. If a worldview is not consistent, then it will self-destruct, and nobody with critical faculties should take such a worldview seriously.

Another thing to be noted is that, a worldview is about the “basic” beliefs about reality. “Basic” beliefs are those fundamental propositions which have to be affirmed before one can talk about others. For example, one cannot make a statement regarding human sexuality unless one first knows about man. But you cannot talk about nature of man without talking about the origin of man, which in turn, would depend upon the origin of the world. Thus, in any worldview, there is a hierarchy of propositions. Some propositions are more central to the system than others.

The First Principle

Therefore, every worldview should have a starting point. This is referred to as the first principle. Since this is the starting point of the worldview, this is the ultimate proposition. The rest of the propositions in the system hang upon this proposition. If the ultimate proposition cannot stand rational scrutiny, then the rest of the worldview will collapse. Being “ultimate” it cannot depend upon some other proposition for its justification. If it does, then it is no longer ultimate. An ultimate proposition should be self justifying. That is, a first principle should justify itself. This does not amount to circular reasoning. In circular reasoning there are two propositions (X and Y), where you would use X to justify Y, and use Y, in turn, to justify X. But when we are talking about self-justification, you don’t have two propositions to justify each other. The ultimate proposition should justify itself. That is why the first principle is called the starting point.

A starting point, by definition, does not have anything before it. Every worldview has to have a starting point, or otherwise there is nothing left to such a “worldview.” If a worldview cannot start, it cannot proceed and make any statement regarding anything. A first principle or starting proposition is unavoidable. If every proposition should be justified by a prior proposition, then you cannot have justification for any proposition. That is, to justify X you need X1, and to justify that you need X2, and to justify that you will need X3, and to justify that you will keep going on and on into infinity. Thus, you cannot even begin. If you cannot even begin, how can you proceed, and why should anyone waste their time listening to you? If you want to have justification of every proposition you cannot even start, let alone work out the other details of your worldview. This is why a worldview needs to have a self justifying first principle for it to start and then construct a system which is consistent, in which the other propositions derived from the first principle do not contradict each other. We will look into this in more detail in another essay when we discuss about the fundamental questions any worldview should answer.

The relation between the first principle and the other propositions in the worldview can be illustrated by comparing the axioms and theorems which are found in geometry. Axioms are the foundational principles from which theorems are deduced. Axioms, by their very nature, are not deduced from some other higher proposition. They are taken as the starting point. You don’t prove an axiom. It has to be assumed. Axioms cannot be “proven.” In fact, they have to be assumed, if you want to have proof for something else.

But what about evidence?

There are some who think they are very “rational” and deride those who make assumptions. They claim that they don’t assume anything. They have “evidence” and “proof” for everything. But, this only proves the carelessness of their thinking. One should only question these characters on the proofs they have. Keep questioning the proof they have for everything they state. Keep moving them up their ladder of thinking, and you will find that they will come to a starting point, beyond which they cannot have “proof.” There, you will find out their intellectual hypocrisy. They will implicitly assume something, and explicitly deny it. They will assume something and act as though they don’t.

Like I said earlier, if you want proof for everything, you cannot have proof for anything. For proving A you will need B, and to prove that you will need C, and to prove that you will D, and thus, you will keep moving on and on into in an infinite regress. So, if you cannot start, how can you proceed, let alone finish? You say you will accept something only with proof and evidence. And when we question you and ask you proof for everything you state, you will soon land up with some assumptions for which you do not have “proof.” And you will scoff at those who “assume” something, as though you don’t. You assume that you do not have any assumptions. And you think you are “rational” and smart? It doesn’t take long to strip one of his intellectual hypocrisy and expose his double standards. He judges other worldviews based on some criteria and tries to protect his worldview from the very same criteria he is applying to other worldviews. If you have a sense of shame, you will acknowledge your duplicity rather than know about the inevitability of assumption, and then lie about it. Please go and stand in front of a mirror and congratulate yourself on your “rationality.”

Worldviews and objectivity

Now, there are those who say that having a worldview means that one cannot be “objective” when it comes to interpreting reality. That is, they say that if you have some prior presuppositions, then you will be “biased.” Let us think through this carefully. The word “bias” refers to the idea of personal preference in evaluating something as opposed to the “correct” interpretation of something. So, before you can complain that somebody is “biased” you should already know the “correct” interpretation. For unless you know the correct interpretation, you cannot state which interpretation is false. That is, before you can judge falsehood, you should know the truth. If I were to tell you two plus two equals thirteen, immediately you would immediately correct me. Why? You already know that two plus two is four, which is why you can immediately recognize the false statement. Therefore, for recognizing falsehood, you should already know the truth.

So, before you can say that someone is “biased” you should already know the truth. I can just as easily state that you are “biased” and stump your claim to “objectivity.” Usually when the word “bias” is used, it is set in opposition to “objectivity.” Objectivity is taken to refer to neutrality. But intellectual neutrality is not possible. Everybody has presuppositions based on which they interpret reality. It not about who has presuppositions and who doesn’t – everybody does. The real issue is who has the true presuppositions which will render correct interpretation possible. If an “objective” perception refers to true interpretation, then you need to have presuppositions anyway. You cannot avoid presuppositions. You cannot even think without presuppositions, let alone “objectively” interpret reality. Intellectual neutrality is sheer fantasy. It does not exist. If you have believed in it till now it’s about time you woke up.

Summing this up, every one has a worldview – a belief system – based on which one perceives reality. It is not possible to have a neutral perception – that is, without any presuppositions coloring their interpretation. It is not possible to have a “colorless” state. Even when you contemplate the term “colorless” you will think of white or something, which is a color in the first place. Presuppositions are inescapable. The real issue is who has the true presuppositions, and therefore, the true worldview.

Impact in life

Now, we should briefly mention about the importance of a worldview in a person’s life. A worldview is totalitarian – if affects the way one thinks about everything. Your worldview will control the way you think and make judgments regarding each and every minor and major decision in life – whether it is about the amount of oil to add in cooking, or the choice of a spouse. A worldview will affect the poet’s pen, the sculptor’s chisel, the artist’s brush, the doctor’s medicine, engineer’s design, and so on. A worldview serves as a compass, or a guide through which one navigates or “makes sense” of life. It orients you to the world, and shapes your perspective regarding what you find in it.

So, now the issue, finally, is not about whether you have a worldview or not. Rather, do you have the true worldview? Do you? If you do not have the true worldview then your whole interpretation of the world till now has been false. It’s scary to realize such a thing, especially if you have lived with false presuppositions all your life. It will strike at the heart of your ego, for nobody likes to have their fundamental assumptions challenged. Perhaps, you always thought you were right, until somebody came and told you otherwise. It might be hard for you to give up on your false presuppositions easily, considering the fact that you have grown old with them. But truth is not a matter of convenience or desire. Truth is independent of your affirmation or denial of it. Do you, my reader, have the true worldview? How do we know which worldview is true? Which worldview is built on true presuppositions? I will discuss this and more in the forthcoming essays.

Today, both within Christendom and outside, we can hear people rant that “experience” is the best way to learn. Many preachers and writers repeatedly tell us that the best way to know God is to “experience” Him. In my college fellowship, few months ago, somebody prayed saying “Lord, we cannot know and understand Your love, we can only experience Your love.” In secular academic circles, this will manifest in the educational philosophy and teaching method. One will be told that the best way to learn is to experience the object of interaction, that is, to actually “do it” (“it” referring to the relevant activity under consideration). From various angles, this idea is repeatedly heard, and if we are not careful enough, this can be drilled into our consciousness and become a part of the way we think and behave.

In this monograph, my aim is to explain and defend the Biblical view of learning and knowledge. This will stand in stark contrast with the “experience” based philosophy espoused by many. Just because some idea is popular (either within Christendom or outside) doesn’t automatically make it rationally sound or Biblically defensible. In fact, taking into account the reasoning skills of the majority of the populace, the more popular some idea is, the more skeptical I would be about its Biblical basis and rational coherence. I say this not to promote an “elitist” attitude, but to actually state the sad state of affairs within the church. That which is supposed to be the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) has become a whorehouse of ideological revelry after flirting with the world’s philosophies and traditions. I say this with anguish and despair, considering the extent of damage that has been done to the Church whenever she adopted non-Biblical standards of thinking. I myself was a victim of this “experience” mentality until quite some time ago, when God sovereignly lifted me out of the epistemological quagmire and set me upon His Revelation – His Word. As you read this, I ask you, the reader, to give careful thought to what is being said, weigh your thinking in the light of God’s Word, and ask Him to bring about the necessary changes in you which would be more harmonious with His Word.

As we discuss this topic, I will briefly delve into other issues which have a bearing on the main theme. As I always say, we cannot discuss any topic in isolation. Thinking should be systematic, and if you hate systematic thinking, please realize that its time to grow up. I never said that systematic thinking is easy. You need to work out your mental faculties, and many times to the extreme, to finally arrive at the answer. Ideas are inter-related and we need to understand how they fit with each other. We need to know how the parts fit within the whole. Thus, as and when necessary, I will make short detours into other topics of relevant concern which will impinge on our discussion.

My immediate concern (relative to this article) is to edify and encourage other Christians, so I will not spend excessive time discussing what happens in secular academic circles, though that too is an important issue. So, majority of the discussion will be focused towards the state of affairs in the church, and what should be done to rectify it, so that we can better glorify God and advance His Kingdom.

We will start off by examining why many Christians are obsessed with the idea that the best way of learning is by “experience.” There is one question which is logically prior: how do we learn? (Whether by experience or any other method). This is the basic issue, which needs to be answered first. If we rephrase this question, it becomes an issue of epistemology. Epistemology deals with the most fundamental question, How do you know? When we attempt to formulate a Biblical answer to this, we need to discuss anthropology. For unless we know and understand man the way God made him, we cannot discuss about how he gains knowledge. Next, we will see the pitfalls of learning by “experience.” A brief refutation of this will follow with few examples from Scripture to show why “experience-based” learning methodology is flawed. Then, we will discuss about teaching methodology in Scripture and finally wind up by presenting the Scriptural solution to repair the damage wrought in our minds.

“Experience” Is The Best Teacher?

Many say that we learn about God by “experience.” The less careless among them say that the best way to know God is by experience, hopefully, assuming there are other ways to know God. By “experience,” many of them refer to the events in our life – the ups and downs, highs and lows, trials and so on. According to them, only after we “experience” all this, we will get to know God. So it goes without saying, that unless one is old and “mature” in a chronological and biological sense, one cannot know God. They limit this not just to knowledge of God, but extend it to other spiritual disciplines such as prayer and evangelism as well. We are told that the best way to learn about prayer is to actually pray. The best way to learn about evangelism is to actually go into the world and evangelize. The thrust of this idea is this: if you want to learn about something, then just go and do it. That is the way you will learn.

What all of them want is immediate results. Hence the urgency to hurry and “do it” straight away. These are the ones who are considered to be “practical” and useful for the community. Because of the obsession with immediate results, they do not pause to take time and think through what they are doing. Of course, some kind of results will be there, and similar like-minded “practical” people will appreciate that. But whether or not those results have God’s approval is a different matter altogether. The main thing common to all these people is their raving for the ends (sometimes regardless of the means) and thus, the stress on the “practical” as opposed to the “theoretical.”

In educational circles this method of “learning” (if it can be called learning in the first place!) is called the theory of “learning by doing.” The student learns a subject by doing it. The subtle suggestion here is the elimination of any intellectual information prior to application. The student is supposed to interact with the object and from that derive principles which have to be applied. The student is not given any other verbal instructions prior to this. In other words, the principles for application have to be derived from the act of application itself. As mentioned earlier, the thrust of this educational philosophy is focused on application and result, sometimes, to the extent that theory is neglected or considered irrelevant. “Theory,” according to them, is a waste of time. They find theory boring and not “creative” enough. That is why you will hear them say things like “please be practical, and not theoretical.” They want to know about something only if they can apply it and gain something out of it in their lives. As you can see, this philosophy is closely related to pragmatism. I shall discuss that later on in the article.

First, one cannot even get started on any activity without having prior knowledge of what to do or what not to do. One needs prior intellectual information in the form of propositions before he or she can get started on any activity. I am a medical student, so I will restrict myself to examples from my field. You can think of relevant examples from your discipline. If someone were to tell me to operate on a patient’s brain tumor and remove it, the last thing I will do is to first open the skull and then think about what to do next! No. First, I would go to the library and read all the relevant material related to it, review journals, search on the internet, talk with my professors and then finally enter the operation theater to operate on the patient. That is why we spend four and a half years of basic medical school training before we even start one year of internship. After that, if one wants to specialize in a particular field, it will take quite a long time, depending upon the discipline (5 to 7 years, if it is neurosurgery). Learning by doing? That would be disastrous for both the patient and doctor. The patient might end up worse than the condition he was when he came in, and the doctor might have to pay through his nose to handle the cost of malpractice.

The Pitfalls of Learning by Experience

If “learning by doing” is the correct method of learning, then how about calling a car mechanic to treat your headache? SO WHAT if he doesn’t know anything about the human body and its working mechanisms? After all, we learn by doing, don’t we? Let him learn how to treat you by actually treating you. We derive principles for application from application, don’t we? Why don’t you give him a chance to learn, and a chance for you to get well (or otherwise)?

If your laptop is not working, why not give it to your four year old son to fix it for you? SO WHAT if the poor kid doesn’t know about programming and computer circuits? Let him learn by doing! Don’t you want to encourage your son’s creativity in learning? Why complicate things for him by asking him to grow old and then learn theory before can apply it? Please be practical.

Lets discuss just another “common” example which will finder broader application. If you want to try out to new recipe don’t you look it up in a cookbook or download it from the internet? Oh, some of you experienced ones might disagree. “I learnt the recipe by my experience. I didn’t need any external help,” you say. Hold on. Just think a little more patiently through this. Ok, let’s grant that you are a great cook. When you add in the individual ingredients to the dish you are cooking, you already know, or at least have some idea of the necessary effect that they will produce in end product. That is, you presuppose some theory before you even start your cooking. That’s what I am trying to drive through. Before you can even get started on anything practical, you need to have prior presuppositions or propositions telling you what to do and what not to do. This applies not just to cooking, but to every activity in life. Without theory, there is nothing for you to be “practical” about.

You should at least know that upon turning the stove knob in a particular direction, there will be ignition, let alone do the cooking after that. Some of you might be dull enough to say that you learnt that also by experience. You see, you needed to know that what is in front of you is a stove in the first place; that it is used for cooking; that it has a knob; that the knob should be turned in a particular direction, and so on. Somebody had to tell you all this, before you get started with cooking. Also, you need to know why to cook, what is healthy, what is tasty and so on. For learning that you need to go and read a book or some other intellectual equivalent. If you want to doggedly hold on the indefensible “learning by doing” theory in cooking, don’t be surprised if your husband jumps out of the window someday.

The examples I have used are not anything “heavy.” I have avoided delving into any examples related with the scientific discipline, so as to keep the discussion broad for people from all walks of life. Examples do not teach in and of themselves. They merely serve to illustrate a point. You see, philosophy affects every realm of thinking, whether it is household chores, or debates about epistemological methodology. You don’t need to stick your head under a truck wheel to “experience” the event and then learn that your head will get crushed. You might not even be there to learn it later on! Likewise, one doesn’t need to sit on a barbecue grill to “experience” the event and then discover what happens to his rear end.

Some of you might be shocked by the way I write. What I have done in the above examples is to merely “apply” the “learning by doing” theory to its logical extremes in various situations. It always hits us close to home and enable us to feel the weight of the situation when we read illustrations we are familiar with. I am not being rude. I am just being “practical.” After all, all that you care about is results, right? If you are so bent on being “practical” to the exclusion of theory, this is what you will land up with. “Don’t be theoretical. Please be practical.” Sure. If that’s what you want, that’s what you will get! You can always embrace these ideas and parrot some statements because everybody around you is doing so, without even knowing what you are talking about. But, praise God! Because of His mercy and redemption, few people realize that life is not a circus show. One needs theory before he can even get started with the practical side to it. You see, saying things like “we learn by doing” might make you sound cool in front of an ignorant audience. But, in front of a rationally sound gang, you are asking for trouble.

If “learning by doing” can wreck such damage when it comes to even mundane things, just imagine the depth of damage that will be done when people apply this theory to learning about the things of God! I will discuss this later.

So, How Do We Learn?

Some might still say that though we do not learn solely by experience, once we have a few propositions, after applying them, we learn by experience. However, many propositions can be inferred from any experience, and which one is retained depends upon the person’s worldview. That is, the prior presuppositions will influence the next step in the reasoning process, and determine which propositions are learned subsequently. You cannot avoid presuppositions. There is prior intellectual information in the human mind, and based on that we interpret our experience. We will look into this in more detail when we brush through Biblical anthropology. There is prior intellectual equipment in the human mind. In other words, the human mind is not a tabula rasa. It is not like a blank slate on which experience writes its interpretation, but rather, there are prior presuppositions in the mind which determine the way we will interpret any experience. In fact, without prior presuppositions one cannot even begin to think, let alone make sense of “facts.”

So, if experience by itself does not furnish us with propositions, how, then, do we learn? This is no place to discuss the various theories of education in detail, but I would like to briefly mention about the educational consequences of epistemology.

Learning is about the transmission of knowledge. Teachers are supposed to impart knowledge. Teachers not only give knowledge, but they also teach a process by which it is communicated. This refers to the educational methodology. The theory of knowledge espoused by the teacher will in turn determine the methodology that is used in the classroom. No one can claim philosophical neutrality in this area. And this is not limited to what happens in the classroom. This will find its application in parenting, preaching, teaching, discipleship, evangelism and other spiritual disciplines.

Since we are Christians we cannot embrace the world’s ideas of what is wise and good when it comes to knowledge acquisition and communication. God created man and He defines and dictates how we should go about gaining knowledge about Him in the ways He has ordained for us.

Remember we are discussing “how do we learn”? When we are talking about learning, we are asking how we gain knowledge. That is, what is the method or the process by which knowledge is instilled in our mind? So, if we rephrase the question, it would be, “how do we know?” This is the realm of epistemology, and to that we will now turn.

How Do We Know?

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of knowledge. It is derived from two Greek words: episteme, referring to knowledge and logos referring to study. Epistemology deals with the possibility, nature, source, scope, limits of knowledge and the methods of its acquisition. This is the defining element in any worldview. The most basic question to ask anyone is “how do you know”? For unless and until the validity or truthfulness of knowledge has been established and defended, we have no reason to believe the worldview or other ideas derived from it.  

There have been three major schools of thought in the history of philosophy which have tried to assert dominance in the secular arena. These are empiricism, rationalism, and mysticism. Are these words new to you? Please read on. It won’t hurt to learn few new terms once in a while. Gordon Clark, in his book Three Types of Religious Philosophy, offers a brilliant critique of these views and presents the Biblical answer to the problem of epistemology. If you are keen on delving into the depths of this, grab that book and read it. I can’t afford to discuss in detail about these views now, since I need to stick with the main theme of the article. Plus, I am not philosopher by profession. Clark’s writing is much more rigorous and technical which will interest students of philosophy and history. His book is worth the read. However, I will briefly critique these three schools of thought.

Empiricism states that knowledge is gained from the five senses. The major proponents include Locke, Hume, Berkeley, and Kant, who were no friends of Christianity. They assumed that the human mind is blank, and that all knowledge is gained as and when we experience something with our five senses. But how do you know that all knowledge is gained from sensations? Did you get that very idea from sensations itself? And do you know that senses are reliable? Did you discover that sensations are reliable by sensations itself? Do sensations have a self-justifying epistemological nature? Where is the syllogistically constructed argument to show that knowledge is instilled in the mind from sensations?

We know that mosquitoes bite and the water running between our feet in the beach sand feels good because we experience these events. However not everybody experiences this in the same way. People who have advanced leprosy will not be able to feel either a mosquito bite or the water running through their toes. People who are blind will not be aware that it is a mosquito which bit them. A thirty year old might not feel mosquito bite with the same intensity as a newborn. People who have had a spinal cord injury might not be aware that they have legs in the first place. And some people, who have had a limb amputated, might still feel that a limb exists (phantom limb phenomenon), and feel pain in that non-existent limb!

You see, the real feeling or sensation is impossible to settle upon on because there are wide varieties of individual factors which will vary from person to person and from time to time.  You cannot “know a thing as it is” on the basis of empiricism. The scientific discipline is subject to the same pitfalls. Scientists can observe the same set of data and come up with contradictory interpretations. I will reserve a lengthier discussion on this topic when I write about the philosophy of science.

Rationalism was a bold leap from the epistemological quagmire of empiricism. It began with Descartes (“I think, therefore I am”) and was carried over by Spinoza and Leibniz. They stressed the innate, a priori (independent of experience) ability of the human mind to know truth. Though it is a relief from the futility of empiricism, a priori categories by themselves, do not guarantee the validity of knowledge. This is because non-revelational rationalism (as opposed to Revelational Rationalism, which is the Biblical position) cannot choose first principles on a legitimate basis to construct its system.  The premises are chosen on an arbitrary basis and hence the rest of the reasoning will be haphazard.

Mysticism, better called Irrationalism, is the view espoused by Soren Kierkegaard. Though he claimed to be a Christian, he said that we should affirm contradictions. “Paradox” is the heartbeat of Kierkegaard and his disciples who include Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, and Emil Brunner. What one believed was not important. All that mattered was the sincerity of the person’s belief. His famous illustration was that a passionate Hindu idol worshipper is closer to God than an orthodox Lutheran who has the correct theology but not enough passion. The content of belief did not matter, what mattered was the attitude of the worshipper. I wonder by what definition, Kierkegaard was even considered to be a Christian. According to the Bible, what you believe can make the difference between heaven and hell. The Bible was not a historical account anymore. It was myths and fables which had to be peeled of little by little, like the layers of an onion, until we get to the truth. This was an attempt to “demythologize” the accounts of the Bible and come up with interpretations which would be obnoxious to orthodox ears. Kierkegaard and his followers avoided logic like plague. They wanted to “curb logic,” but had to use logic in the very attempt to do so. I need not say much more about this position, except that it is anti-Christian and irrational to the core.

So, how then, does man gain knowledge about God? For answering this question, we need understand the two things we are dealing with now – man and knowledge. We need to discuss about the nature of man and the nature of knowledge. Only after that, we can discuss the process by which man gains knowledge.

The Image of God

The Biblical doctrine of creation states that man is made in the “image and likeness of God.” Since man is made in the “image of God,” we should discuss about God before we discuss about man. That is the logical order. Anthropology presupposes theology proper and that is way the topics are arranged in any text of systematic theology. Just because man is made in the “image of God” does not mean that he mirrors God’s attributes in every way. God is omniscient. We are not. God is omnipotent. We are not. God is eternal. We are not. We need to know about God’s attributes and which of those has limited expression in man – in other words, God’s communicable and incommunicable attributes.

The Bible begins by stating about the act of creation and the method God employed in the process. Based on just this one chapter alone, we can come to some elementary conclusions about the image of God. The first act that God does is to speak, for “In the beginning God said….” God spoke the whole of creation into existence (Genesis 1: 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, and 26). Man was created “in the image of God” on the sixth day as the crown of all creation. Even if we do not look into the other passages in the rest of Scripture that throw light on this, we can come to some valid conclusions as to what the image is, based on the first chapter of Genesis alone.

First, we see that God spoke. We can at least expect that the image must include linguistic ability. And after God created man, He spoke to him and gave him a command – that is, words to obey (Genesis 2:16,17). This implies that Adam was created with faculties of understanding and reason, to process verbal information. He had to at least know the difference between obedience and disobedience to God’s commands. He did not learn this by experience. God instilled that in his mind when he created him.

God modeled clay and then breathed into it the breath of life, and then man became a living being – both body and spirit put together (Genesis 2:7). It is the image of God that separates us from the rest of creation. Let us look at some verses which throw further light on this:

“But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty that gives him understanding.” Job 32:8

“[God] who teaches more to us than to the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds of the air?” Job 35:11

“for God did not endow [the ostrich] with wisdom or give her a share of good sense.” Job 39:17

Thus, the “breath of the Almighty” is what gives man understanding, “teaches” him more and makes him “wiser” than animals. He was given “wisdom” and “good sense” as opposed to the Ostrich which was not endowed with these. Hence, it is not an exaggeration to say that the image of God refers to a rational mind. Some will say that the “image of God” refers to morality. But, what they fail to notice is that man is moral precisely because he is rational. Let me explain.

God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of life. They transgressed and Fall continued. Now for Adam and Eve to obey God, the needed to understand His commands in the first place. They needed to understand what is good and what is evil. They needed to discern the difference between obeying God and disobeying Him. Now all of that is a matter of rational thinking. In other words, morality presupposes rationality.

We don’t call a dog immoral because it mates with more than one female dog during mating season. We don’t speak about righteous cows or wicked horses. Animals are not moral because they are not rational. Moral judgments do not apply to animals because they are not rational. They cannot understand the commands of God, which is why they cannot obey them. On the other hand, man is a rational being. He can understand the commands of God, and is expected to obey them. Refusal to do so constitutes sin. Thus, in the most basic essence, sin is a lapse in rationality. And this is what happened during the Fall. The “image of God” was not destroyed, but distorted.

Since then, man’s ability to think correctly has been greatly hampered. This is referred to as the “noetic effects of sin.” He cannot think correctly about God, though God has made such knowledge clear to him, as explained in Romans 1:18-32. Men suppress the truth by their wickedness. God had already made things plain to them. Since creation, God’s divine attributes have clearly seen so that men who refuse to acknowledge God are without excuse. Their “thinking” was futile and their “foolish hearts” were darkened. They deluded themselves to be wise, when in fact, they were actually fools. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped created things rather than the Creator. Also, their rejection of the knowledge of God has caused them to indulge in reprehensive behavior which is morally deviant, violating God’s ontological status for sexuality.

Sin’s effect on the mind has been comprehensive. It has affected his whole thinking. Theologians call this “total depravity.” Before redemption, man is in spiritual darkness. “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 4:4). Because of this, he cannot think correctly about God, even though God has revealed true propositions to sinful man in his mind. This is called general revelation, because this is given to all men at all times, regardless of geographical and cultural boundaries. Psalm 19 and Romans 1 illustrate this point. God’s handiwork is seen in creation. Some people can try to smuggle in an empirical interpretation of this passage. They say that man can “see” God in nature. We earlier saw the futility of empiricism. Rather, the correct interpretation is that God has given the necessary presuppositions to man, so that when he sees God’s creation the appropriate response should be worship.

But this is not the case. Because of their wickedness, men deliberately suppress this knowledge and practice abominable things, thus inviting further divine judgment upon themselves. Thus, general revelation in itself does not have a salvific purpose. To attain redemption, man needs special revelation, that is, propositional content from the Bible which gives true statements about God, man, sin, salvation, and judgment.

Thus, as long as man is in this state of spiritual blindness, he cannot understand and believe true propositions about God. Ephesians 4:17-19 describes the spiritual state of man before conversion. Unbelievers live in the “futility of their thinking,” “darkened in understanding,” and separated from the life of God because of the “ignorance” that is in them because of their hardened hearts. Unbelievers are the way they are because they don’t think correctly, that is, Biblically, about God. And the cure to this also targets the mind. So, when God grants repentance, people are led to “a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 2:25).

Only Christ can lift the sinner out of the epistemological abyss and grant him “the light of the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). In Ephesians 4:23-24, we are told to be “made new in the attitude of our minds.” So, to not be like the unbelievers, we must no longer think we way we used to do, before our conversion. We have to put on the new self which is being “renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (Colossians 3:10).

Can you see the Scripture’s emphasis on defining the “spiritual life” in terms of intellect? Just because something is “spiritual” doesn’t automatically mean that it is mystical, or something esoteric. The Biblical model of spirituality is centered on the mind, and this should be the target in evangelism and discipleship. When man is born in sin, the “image of God” is in a distorted state, and at conversion, God begins to work on it restoring it gradually to conform it to the likeness of Christ.  

It takes a sovereign work of God whereby he converts sinful man’s mind and grants him faith. Since this article is not a treatise on soteriology, I cannot provide detailed exegetical arguments. Please refer any text on Reformed dogmatics (Grudem, Berkhof, Hodge, Calvin, to name a few) to understand soteriology comprehensively. God has given us everything we need for sanctification through knowledge of Him (2 Peter 1:3). The subsequent development as a Christian consists of growing in knowledge and grace (2 Peter 3:18), renewing the mind, which leads to transformation, so that we can know and do the good pleasing and perfect will of God (Romans 12:1-2).

In Psalm 32:9 God says, “Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.” Therefore, to despise rationality is to mock and insult God’s wisdom in the way He made us. If we shun knowledge, wisdom, and understanding of the things of God, we are not acting like “mature Christians” but like brute beasts which have no understanding.

The Biblical View of Knowledge

Now, we need to understand about the nature of knowledge. What is knowledge? What is the difference between knowledge and opinion? What is the link between knowledge and truth? Are they same or refer to something different? These are the questions that we will unwrap and answer.

Something is considered to be knowledge when the information is true. When we are talking about knowledge, there is a cognitive claim. That is, the idea of truth is implicit when the word “knowledge” is used. Otherwise that proposition is called an opinion or something else. Knowledge, is therefore, based on truth, and something which is not true cannot be reckoned as knowledge. Vincent Cheung defines knowledge as the “intellectual retention and comprehension of true propositions.” We can claim to have knowledge when the propositions we affirm are true.

But now, how do we know which propositions are true? Everybody believes some propositions or the other, the sum of which constitutes his worldview. When there are various worldviews, how does one judge which worldview is true? Answering this would require us to go into the fine details of apologetics and bibliology, and that is beyond the scope of this article. However, I will briefly state a few points which would present the answer in an embryonic form. Later, in another essay, I will elaborate on this.

John 17:17 says, “Thy word is truth.” Truth is defined as God’s Word itself. Notice that the verse does not say “Thy word is true.” This would mean that there is some higher standard of truth, and being “true” would mean conformity to that standard. Rather it says, “Thy word is truth.” This means that truth is God’s Word itself. There is no standard for comparison, since the Bible is the ultimate standard. Every other worldview is judged by the Biblical worldview. The Biblical worldview consists of all the propositions of Scripture and all propositions validly deduced from them. Every non-Biblical worldview is false since they do not start to reason from true premises. Any proposition in any worldview should be evaluated from the vantage point of Scripture. Since God is the ultimate reference point and authority for everything, He alone has the exclusive right to define truth and falsehood, right and wrong. To not believe His Word is rebellion and sin.

Now, we need to know about the nature of knowledge. As I mentioned earlier, for us to discuss about how man gains knowledge, we need to know the nature of man and the nature of knowledge. We have already examined Scriptural data and concluded that the “image of God” in man refers to a rational mind, endowed with understanding, with the capacity to process propositional content in a logical fashion. However, because of sin, man’s ability to reason syllogistically from true premises has been severely skewed. After regeneration, the Christian should start to work on thinking logically with all his premises taken from Scripture.

Now, knowledge refers to true propositions. And when we say that something is “truth,” we are referring to a particular proposition or set of propositions which are true. So, in that sense, knowledge and truth are synonymous. I will be using these terms in that sense from now on. In John 17:17 we saw that God’s Word is truth. The Bible contains the self-justifying claim that all it contains is the truth. Now we have to look study about the nature of truth.

I am stressing the importance of the “nature” of truth again and again because there are a lot of funny ideas floating around. Many say that truth is an experience, an encounter, an emotion, truth is pictorial (“A picture is worth a thousand words”) and so on. However, none of these are true, as we shall see shortly. Some of you might feel that I am delving too much into all this. But this is important. Wrong theory will lead to wrong practice. So, it is worth spending some extra time learning the correct theory, so that apply we can it appropriately and glorify God.  Here are some verses which throw light on the nature of truth.

Your righteousness is everlasting and your law is true. (Psalm 119:142)

Yet you are near, O LORD, and all your commands are true. (Psalm 119:151)

All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. (Psalm 110:160)

For the word of the LORD is right and true; he is faithful in all he does. (Psalm 33:4)

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. (Proverbs 30:5)

To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. (Revelation 3:7)

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. (Revelation 3:14)

Then the angel said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’” And he added, “These are the true words of God.” (Revelation 19:9)

He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” (Revelation 21:5)

The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.” (Revelation 22:6)

As the above verses state, it is the “words” which are true. We can now conclude that truth is propositional. A proposition, as defined in logic textbooks, refers to a sentence which can be either affirmed or denied. A sentence consists of a set of words connected in a meaningful fashion. A proposition is a “technical” term for a sentence. Words and clauses without context do not constitute a proposition. I am stating and explaining all this to the minute detail, because this has wide implications for what follows.

According to the Bible, truth is propositional, since only a proposition can be true or false. Truth is not pictorial. A picture is not worth a thousand words. Read Daniel chapter 2. King Nebuchadnezzar has a strange dream where he sees a lot of images and is deeply troubled by it. He calls in the courtiers to tell him the dream and interpret it. Nobody is able to do so. Daniel intervenes and God reveals the dream to him and the interpretation of it. The king did not understand the meaning of the image in gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay. The king did not understand what was meant by the stone striking the feet of the image and the image crumbling down. Both the image and event by themselves did not convey an iota of meaning to the king. Later on, Daniel, having been given the revelation by God, explains the meaning in propositions to the king and then it makes sense to him.

This proves that a picture is not worth a single word, let alone thousand words! If it is really so, that a picture is worth a thousand words, then why not convey that very idea through some picture? Why waste seven words to explain that idea when you can try to communicate that through a painting or some other pictorial equivalent? Obviously, it is impossible to communicate that idea through any picture. That is why they use words and not pictures to say that a picture is worth a thousand words! These statements might sound romantic but are stupid to the core. As children of the light, we should not parrot the clichés that the children of darkness repeat so very often. They don’t know what they talk about most of the time. In contrast with them, we should think before we speak.

I had mentioned that words or clauses without context do not constitute a proposition. In Daniel chapter 5, another king, Belshazzar sees the handwriting on the wall. There are four words, and the king is clueless as to what they mean. Daniel is called in, God reveals the necessary propositions to him, and then he makes sense of those words. This proves that single words, or phrases by themselves, without a context are meaningless and do not convey anything. After Daniel explains, the king knows and understands. Before that he was in an emotional frenzy. He was frightened, his face turned pale and his knees were knocking together. None of this emotional hype gave him truth. It was Daniel’s explanation in propositions that gave him truth. This also serves to reinforce that emotional excitement or fright will not convey any truth. Only propositions will convey truth.

In conclusion, it is worth quoting Vincent Cheung again: “knowledge is the intellectual retention and comprehension of true propositions.”

Biblical Epistemology

Having discussed the nature of man and the nature of knowledge, we are now fit to discuss about what the Bible teaches about how man acquires knowledge. The introductory chapters of 1 Corinthians provide an outline of Christian epistemology besides teaching other things. In 1 Corinthians 1:20-21, we learn that God has made the wisdom of the world to be foolish in His sight. God had determined that human ingenuity would not discover the truth about God, “for in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know him” (v 21).

Commenting on these verses, Mathew Henry says, “All the valued learning of this world was confounded, baffled, and eclipsed, by the Christian revelation and the glorious triumphs of the cross. The heathen politicians and philosophers, the Jewish rabbis and doctors, the curious searchers into the secrets of nature, were all posed and put to a nonplus. This scheme lay out of the reach of the deepest statesmen and philosophers, and the greatest pretenders to learning both among the Jews and Greeks. All the boasted science of the heathen world did not, could not, effectually bring home the world to God. In spite of all their wisdom, ignorance still prevailed, iniquity still abounded. Men were puffed up by their imaginary knowledge, and rather further alienated from God.”

In chapter 2:9-10, we learn about God’s plan. “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard (empiricism), no mind has conceived (unaided rationalism), what God has prepared for those who love Him – but He has revealed it to us by His Spirit.” Notice the contrast that is being drawn up here. Man, with his own effort, could not do anything to reach out to God. But God has taken the step to reach out to man and reveal knowledge to him.

Based on sensations (“eye has not seen, ear has not heard”) man could not learn or discover anything about God. We earlier saw how on the basis of empiricism, one cannot know anything truly, let alone know about God. On the basis of unaided rationalism, one cannot know the true premises (“no mind has conceived”), so the entire reasoning is arbitrary and haphazard. Empiricism and Rationalism cannot provide man with knowledge of God. So, what is the way out of this epistemological abyss? REVELATION!

Scripture continues and says “God has revealed it to us by His Spirit” (2 Corinthians 2:10). Empiricism and Rationalism (that is, unaided rationalism) have failed to provide humanity with the knowledge of God. Quoting Mathew Henry again: “all the boasted science of the heathen world did not, could not, effectually bring home the world to God.” In spite of all their meticulous efforts, “ignorance still prevailed.” With all the hype of civilization, men still had only “imaginary knowledge” and were “further alienated from God.” What pitiable state of affairs for those without the knowledge of God! But this was so, because God determined this is the way it ought to be (1 Corinthians 1:21). This was to frustrate human effort, pride, and wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:29). This was so that man could never boast.

The Bible says that we know about God because God has chosen to reveal knowledge about Him through the words of the Bible. “All Scripture is God breathed,” that is, (in the Greek) literally, from the mouth of God. Again, read the section on bibliology from any text on systematic theology to understand the doctrine of the Word comprehensively. God has given us knowledge about Him in His Word, the Bible. Theology is possible because God has revealed knowledge. If God did not reveal it, we would not know about it. “The secret thing belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and our children forever, so that we may follow all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Now, the Bible teaches that God creates, controls, and facilitates all operations in the universe, whether it is the death of a sparrow, or knowledge acquisition by man. When it comes to knowledge of God, though He has revealed truth about Him in His Word, not every person reading it can understand it or believe it. Because, even there, man is dependent on God for understanding and believing truth. Here are some verses which teach that.

All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27)

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. (Acts 18:27)

And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” (Romans 10:20)

If God decides to reveal knowledge to somebody He will do so, and if He decides to withhold knowledge from another person, He will do so. Knowledge acquisition by man is solely dependent upon the power and pleasure of God.

At the same time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and the learned and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was Your good pleasure.” (Mathew 11:25-26)

No other view of epistemology will be more humiliating and frustrating to human effort and pride. But this is precisely the reason, why God determined it this way – so that no man may boast before Him. Knowledge is possible because God reveals it to man through the Bible and reinforces it in his mind and makes him understand it when he sees or hears propositions from it.

However, some will say that one still has “see” the words that are written on the paper in the Bible or “hear” the words of the Bible when it is being read aloud. That is, they still want to hold on to empiricism. We have already refuted the futility of empiricism, and we need not repeat it here. They make this objection not because empiricism is defensible, but because the noetic effects of the Fall is strong in their minds, and they need Divine operation to blast the strongholds of empiricism. God have mercy on them.

Knowledge is conveyed and retained in the form of propositions. Knowledge is retained in the mind. God engraves knowledge in the mind of man. So what then, is the role of “seeing” and “hearing”? Are they the means of conveying knowledge? NO! That is what we refuted in the earlier part of the essay. To answer this, we again we turn to 2 Corinthians 2:9-10. Here we see that neither seeing nor hearing can provide us with knowledge of God. But “God has revealed it to us by His Spirit.” It’s God’s Spirit who imparts knowledge of God in the form of propositions to the mind of man. So, knowledge does not reach us through seeing or hearing. Sensations do not provide any means of knowledge. For example, when the eyes see words, God’s Spirit conveys the knowledge to the mind of man, the words acting as symbols. Verse 11 and 12 go on to explain that no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. And God conveys His thoughts to us through His Spirit, so that we may understand what God has given us.

Sensations are merely the occasions during which God conveys knowledge to the mind of man. That is, upon the occasion of reading the Bible, God directly conveys knowledge to the mind of man and causes Him to believe what is written. Upon the occasion of hearing the words of the Bible, God directly conveys knowledge to the mind of man and causes him to understand and retain it. So, knowledge NEVER came from sensations. The sensations are merely the occasions during which God directly conveys knowledge to the mind of man. This also explains why those people who are deaf and blind from birth can still understand the Bible using the special means of communication available for them. Hence, this view is also called occasionalism, which refers to the fact that upon the occasion of the concerned sensation, God directly and immediately conveys knowledge to the mind without any secondary means.

This is Biblical epistemology and it is consistent with the Biblical view of the nature of man and the Biblical view of the nature of knowledge. Biblical occasionalism is the only hope for finding the way out the epistemological darkness.

The Biblical Teaching Model

Now that we have studied the Biblical basis of learning, we now proceed to examine the teaching methodology taught by Scripture and its application in various contexts. As it is, this essay is becoming quite long, so I will have to skim through the passages which speak about this. Read some good commentaries on these verses to grasp the greater depth of insight that can be gleaned from them.

Parenting

In Deuteronomy 6:6-9, God commands parents how to teach their children. The commands are supposed to be on the hearts of the people and they ought to “impress them on your children” (v 7). See the force of the command – impress it upon their children. They are to talk about it when they are at home, when they walk along the road, when they lie down and get up. There are two things to be noted here.

First, parents are to talk to their children about the things of God. This is what God commands. Our children will know God when we teach them by talking to them about it. Don’t try to be more creative than God. Giving them a box of crayons and a coloring book about Noah’s Ark might hone their artistic skills, but will not teach them about God and His attributes. Likewise doing action songs might be a good way to make sure they have some physical activity, but that will not grant them any understanding of the things of God. That too, considering the shallow and sometimes even heretical theology found in many of these “action songs,” kids would be far better growing in grace by having their parents talk to them about God rather than any of these other gimmicks. This means that parents should have knowledge of God’s Word and also be skilled in communicating it.

Next, this should be done all the time in various contexts, both in the home and outside. Teaching the things of God to the children should not be reserved for some “prayer time” which lasts for around twenty minutes either before or after dinner time. Sound theology should be impressed on their minds throughout the day, as and when questions arise in the appropriate time related to the concerned issues. Of course, this means that the parents should know enough to relate the Word of God to any situation. They should know how to critique or evaluate any event or idea based on the Biblical worldview. Since the man is the head of the family, it goes without saying that he must be well versed in sound theology and apologetics to lead his family in the true worship of God and refute other false ideologies. Also, if the mother is a home-maker, she will spend most of the time with the children, since the father will be at work. This means that the mother too should have basic training in the same, if not have equal competence as her man. Motherhood is not just limited to changing nappies and singing lullabies, but also sound instruction, since the wife of noble character “speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction is on her tongue” (Proverbs 31:26). Of course, this won’t be easy. Nobody said it would be. The husband and wife should work together to help each other progress in sanctification. If they don’t care about each other’s souls and the souls of their children, they defeat the whole purpose of Christian marriage.

 Teaching in Nehemiah

In Nehemiah chapter 8 we are given another instance of Biblical teaching methodology when Ezra taught the things of God to apostate Israel, following which revival occurred.

“So, on the first day of the seventh month Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand. He read it aloud from daybreak till noon as he faced the square before the Water Gate in the presence of men, women, and all who could understand. All the people listened attentively to the Book of the law.” (v 2, 3)

“They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read. Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, “This day is sacred to the LORD your God. Do not mourn or weep.” For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law (v 8, 9).

These two passages describe the people who gathered in the assembly, the method of teaching, and the response in the people.

First, the people who gathered there were men, women, and “all who could understand.” This is important. It is mentioned twice for emphasis. The ability to understand on the part of the audience is a very significant factor for any teaching endeavor to be successful. Of course, the competence of the teacher is more important (and we will look at that shortly), but here we are discussing about the characteristics required in the audience. This fits in harmoniously with the Biblical view of man created in the image and likeness of God. The image of God in man refers to a rational mind, with the capacity to understand propositional content. The people “listened attentively” as the Book of the Law was being read. Concentration and singular focus of attention is needed for the audience to grasp what is being said.

Next, the method of teaching was by reading the Book aloud. It did not stop with that, though. Ezra read the book, “making it clear and giving the meaning.” That’s important and it should be done. Both the teacher and audience need clarity of thought and expression, the latter following from the former. The teacher should give the meaning, explaining the significance of the words which are being read. This was done so that the “people could understand.” Again we can see how the Biblical methodology of teaching fits in with Biblical anthropology and epistemology.

Finally, the response in the people was that they were “weeping as they listened to the words of the Law” (v 9). Many people object that teaching theology will deaden the affections of people. Most of the church members will find doctrine boring, so the pastor has to find some other gimmick to keep the members “entertained.” There is no limit to the extent of activities that can be done in today’s church to promote everything else but doctrine. In the end, the church resembles the state of the Temple at the time Jesus drove out the money lenders. It is like a “den of robbers” where people can comfortably make all the business profits, while true worship is neglected. If people find doctrine boring, the solution is not to go for picnics, or find better musicians to play during worship, but to keep teaching doctrine again and again. That was Paul’s advice to Timothy during the time when “men will not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2-3). Read the writings of men like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. It was so rich in theology. And because of their preaching, revival spread in places like America, England, Scotland, and Wales. As for the people who say that “theology is boring and lifeless,” let them examine their thinking and living to see whether they are Christians in the first place (2 Corinthians 13:5).

Jesus’ teaching

Here are a few verses which talk about how the crowd responded to the teaching of Jesus. Please read these verses in the larger context to see what Jesus taught and why the crowds responded they way they did.

When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority. (Mathew 7:28-29)

When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away. (Mathew 22:22)

When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching. (Mathew 22:33)

After three days, they found him in the temple courts, sitting among teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. (Luke 2:46-47)

All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. (Luke 4:12)

When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing. (Luke 13:17)

They were unable to trap him in what he said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.  (Luke 20:26)

Some of the teachers of the law responded, “Well said, teacher!” And no one dared to ask him any more questions. (Luke 20:39-40)

“No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards declared. (John 7:46)

As we can see, Jesus’ words had such an impact on the listeners. Interestingly we are not given any physical details of Jesus’ appearance anywhere in the gospels. The ability of a preacher to make the crowd be astonished at his teaching does not lie in his physical personality, but the clarity of his thought, depth of insight, and boldness in proclamation. Again, this teaching methodology squares with the Scriptural epistemology and anthropology we had outlined earlier.

Philip and the Ethiopian official

In Acts 8:26-40, we have the instance of Philip teaching an Ethiopian official. Philip runs up to the chariot and finds him reading a passage from Isaiah, and asks him whether he understands what he is reading (v 30). To this he replies, “How can I, unless someone explains it to me?” Philip, then, using that very same passage explains about the good news about Jesus. Following that, the same day, that official was baptized. Again, this teaching method is consistent with what the Bible teaches about anthropology and epistemology.

You see, for someone to understand Scripture, somebody has to explain it to them. Only after this, true spiritual transformation will happen. Genuine conversion will not occur unless there has been understanding of what the Bible teaches about God, man, sin, and salvation. People might feel very emotional during a crusade considering the huge crowds, bright lights, loud sound equipment, and excited preachers. But unless there has been an intellectual perception of truth, any “conversion” is just a farce.

Apostle Paul

Finally we need to look into the teaching and life of one of the greatest teachers in the history of the Christian church – Apostle Paul. We will look into the verses which mention about the method by which Paul taught, and again, please read up good commentaries.

Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living n Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 9:22)

As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from Scripture, explaining and proving that Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming is the Christ,” he said. (Acts 17:2-3)

So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day, with those who happened to be there. (Acts 17:17)

Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. (Acts 18:4)

They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. (Acts 18:19)

Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. (Acts 19:8)

From morning till evening, he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God, and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. (Acts 28:24b)

Paul “baffled” everybody by “proving” that Jesus is the Christ (9:22). His “custom” (Acts 17:2) was to preach through “reasoning from Scripture.” That is, rigorous argumentation based on Scripture. He tried to “persuade” (18:4), “argue persuasively” (19:8), and “convince” them about truth from “morning till evening” (28:24b). This is just the plain application of Biblical anthropology and epistemology in teaching methodology.

This is the way Paul went about teaching and building up the church during his time. Present day Christian leaders would do well if they embrace the Scriptural model, rather than conjuring up other methods in the name of “creativity.”

Also the advice he Paul gave to Timothy and Titus emphasizes the intellectual dimension again. In 1 Timothy 4:6, he mentions to Timothy that a “good minister” will be brought up in the “truths of the faith” and “good teaching.” A few verses later, he tells Timothy to “devote” himself to “public reading of Scripture, preaching and teaching,” telling him to be “diligent in these matters,” and giving himself “wholly to them” (1 Timothy 4:13-16). Later in chapter 6:3-4, he tells that those who “teach false doctrines that do not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching” are conceited and understand nothing. Again, the quality of doctrine plays a very, very, important role for the Apostle. In Titus 1:5-10, Paul gives Titus guidelines for appointing elders. Among other things, an elder must “hold firmly” to the “trustworthy message” so that he can encourage others by “sound doctrine” and “refute those who oppose it” (v 9). Paul does not mention anything about the elder’s ability to play musical instruments, or skill in organizing games for the youth. First and foremost, the elder should be competent in sound doctrine, and whether or not he has the other add-ons, is irrelevant to the task of feeding the sheep.

Neo-orthodoxy and Experience

Neo-orthodoxy refers to the heretical movement started by Soren Kierkegaard and popularized by his disciples Barth, Bultmann, and Brunner. They denied the historical nature of the Bible. The Bible was not the word of God in it content. It became the word of God only when a person “experienced” it. They said that the Bible contains contradictions, and that we must affirm both sides of the contradiction. This was considered as “maturity.” This affected every spiritual discipline. People denied the intellectual nature of the spiritual life and started chasing after experiences, feelings, emotions, and sensations. God’s Word was no longer central, but experience was.

In evangelism, they did not preach about sin and salvation, but rather about the “transcendent” needs in man. The emotional needs of man were considered more important than God’s diagnosis of his sinful condition. Christ was presented more as a massage therapist who would relieve the aches in our life, rather than as the Savior who will save our souls from God’s wrath. This movement gained a strong hold in the church and even now we see ripples if it everywhere. And for most of these people, it’s either their experience or ignorance which stands judge over Divine Revelation. If they don’t know about something, then God has not spoken about it. If they have not experienced something, then it’s not necessary for life. People wanted to learn about God by “experience” and at the end if it, the ideas they landed up with are anything but Scriptural.

Experience, Pragmatism, and Learning

A brief word about how obsession with “experience” has led people to be pragmatic and discard theological knowledge. Many times when people say, “please teach something practical, not theoretical” what they want is some knowledge which they can use in their lives and benefit from. Now, knowledge of God will always have benefit in our lives. It will always refine our soul more and more to the likeness of Christ. But that’s not what these people want. They want to have some knowledge of God so as to have greater comforts, monetary gains, or other privileges in life. Now, I am not at all decrying the need to take care of ourselves and enjoy God’s creation in legitimate ways that He has ordained. I am writing against the attitude people have, when knowledge of God interests them only if it serves some pragmatic end in their life. If it doesn’t, they don’t care. For example, studying about the Trinity will not enable one to make more money. So, that, for them, is “too theoretical.”  On the other hand, talk about how to be in the “right” place, how to marry the “right” person, or how to work in the “right” job, you will see that they give you their undivided attention. They want just enough knowledge to be happy in life, but not enough knowledge that will renew their minds and conform them more to the likeness of Christ.

You see, this the attitude that I am rebuking. We should seek to know and worship God because He is God. Period. Whether or not it leads to comfortable living should make no difference to us. We worship God because of who He is and what He commands. In the words of a song by Paul Wilbur: “We do not seek Your hand. We only seek Your face.” Knowledge of God is a worthy end in itself. Read Jonathan Edwards’ book The End For Which God Created The World. He shows how God’s glory is the reason for the creation of the universe, and that should be our pursuit in life as well.

This calls for a return to theocentric religion as opposed to man-centered religion. We should realize and understand that God is the center of the universe, not we. Since He created all of reality, He has ALL the rights and authority to demand from His creatures what He wills. John Piper wrote an excellent article titled “Is God For Us or For Himself?” In that article he brings out God’s concern for His own glory to be the primary, overarching motive for all His actions in history.

Another brief word about motive for studying theology. It goes without saying that knowledge of God will always edify us and others. However, you should not read theology to quote famous statements to others and then bask in the appreciation they give you. When one is gifted with teaching, it’s easy to get carried away by the appreciation of people. At such times, we should be very careful in guarding our thinking. We should work hard at studying and teaching because God commands it for our sanctification, and His glory. We should not study to impress others, but to edify them. We should constantly weed out any such thoughts where we congratulate ourselves on our achievements, always remembering that though we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, it is God who wills and works in us according to His pleasing.

Towards the end of his life, Paul penned 2 Timothy. He was awaiting trial before Caesar, and was under house arrest in Rome. He is aware that he has come to the end of his life. He mentions that he is ready to be poured out as a drink offering, and the time has come for his departure. He as fought the good fight, finished the race, and kept the faith (2 Timothy 4:6-7). He is aware that he has finished the task which God has given him to do. But notice what he tells Timothy in verse 13: “When you come, bring the cloaks that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.” Commentators say that the scrolls and parchments might refer to the Hebrew Old Testament, or the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of it. Here we can see the life of a true scholar who does not cease to learn even though death awaits him any time! Oh, that God would give us such a voracious appetite for His Word!

Application

We have seen that when “experience” becomes the cornerstone of our life, the result is everything but God glorifying. Also, closely related to experience is pragmatism where people want to know about God only when it can be used by them for some other ulterior ends. Knowledge of God becomes a means to some other higher end, when actually knowledge of God is an end in itself. They try to “use” God. But God is not mocked. He wont be treated like some waiter in a restaurant whom you can summon as you wish, order what you want, and expect him to bring it when you please. A person reaps what he sows. God is not mocked. You can’t think of God as you wish, independent of what He has revealed about Himself in Scripture. You will reap the consequences of your false belief, if not now, in eternity.  

In Hosea 4:6 God says, “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Not from lack of experience. Nowhere in Scripture are we encouraged to “experience” God. Of course, experience will confirm what we already know about God. I do not deny that. That is why we are quite often called to recall God’s faithfulness and mercy in the past. So without some prior knowledge about God, one cannot evaluate any experience. That’s why, in Scripture, we are repeatedly exhorted to know God.

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. (Ephesians 1:7-8)

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints (Ephesians 1:17, 18)

For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, (Colossians 1:9, 10)

Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (2 Peter 1:2, 3)

Experience does NOT have any epistemological authority. Only God’s Word does. Experience is not the best teacher. It is the worst teacher. In fact, experience cannot us teach us anything at all, since it is plagued by empiricism. In contrast, according to Scriptural epistemology, only God’s Spirit can convey knowledge to our mind as we read God’s Word where we have been given “everything we need for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness” (2 Peter 1:3). If you disagree, please consider calling your belief system anything but Christianity.

As always, we need to understand the context in which any statement is made, since without the context we run the danger of misrepresenting or misinterpreting what is said. To understand the context of the statement, “Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship” we need to understand popular evangelical consciousness. I had, earlier, in a previous article written about how mainstream Christianity followed popular culture rather than Scripture and thus was a victim of the world’s constantly fluctuating ideologies. Now we need to know about mainstream evangelicalism in order to analyze this statement.

Modern Evangelical Spirituality

To get the pulse of mainstream Christianity one needs to just listen to Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). Walmart might have to ban some of Vineyard’s songs in the future for their explicit lyrics. Some of the “worship” songs had saucy titles like “My Lover, My God,” “Naked Before You,” “Touch Me All Over,” I’ll Do Anything You Want,” and “You Make Me Hot With Desire.” In case you thought that these are not Christian songs and are a bit over the top, it just means that you aren’t exposed to or not listening to much CCM these days. Matt Redman sings “Jesus I am so in love with you, and I am madly in love with you.” Delirious, another popular Christian band sing “I am living just to fall more in love with you.” Some days ago, in my college fellowship, one girl prayed “Lord Jesus, it feels so good to fall in love with you over and over again.”

The reason I mentioned this is to highlight something very peculiar to the brand of Christianity that is widely accepted and practiced today. Today’s evangelical spirituality is heavily influenced by romanticism. And if you notice, this brand of spirituality is popular only among the youth, though some in the middle age group too are victims of it. Now, I am not a grey haired man ranting against youth. I am just in the early third decade of my life and was once upon a time very much into this sort of thing. But when I studied the Scripture I came to see the dangerous implications of this false piety.

The two culprits hiding behind the statement “Christianity is a relationship; not a religion” are romanticism and anti-intellectualism. We will deal with each of these, see the false foundations of these two attitudes and finally mention about what the Scripture has to say about true spirituality.

Romanticism and anti-intellectualism usually go together, since both are the result of abandonment of rational thinking. (Now, when I mean “rational thinking” I do not mean autonomous rationalism which has nothing to do with God or His revelation in Scripture. But, I am referring to logical thinking with all our premises taken from Scripture and the propositions derived from it by necessary inference.) Coming back, Romanticism can have two differing meanings depending upon the context in which it is used. First, in the literal meaning it refers to the sensual experience between a man and a woman. In the other context – the historical one – it refers to the rejection of rationality, and the stress on emotion and experience for happiness in life. We will be dealing with each of these separately.

First, we will briefly survey the present scenario among “Christian youth” and then we will delve into how the present situation came to be.

We are told today that the Christian life is all about a “love relationship” with God. Salvation consists of “falling in love,” and consequently, sanctification consists of “being in love” with God. This “God is my boyfriend/girlfriend” is very attractive to people whose hormones are raging their emotions. Offer spirituality in romantic package and they will swallow it instantaneously. The Bible is not the authoritative Word of God anymore; it is a “love letter” from God. Many seminars and retreats are organized on themes such as “Intimacy with God.” Passion, intimacy, desire, heart throb are the buzz words in the evangelical world today. The question today everywhere is “Have you fallen in love with Jesus?”

Now is that a bad thing? There are millions of people around the world (and I am one of them) who have found the love of Jesus to be the best love of all when compared with love for anything else. You see, the problem is not with Jesus or His love, but with the way many people approach the Christian life. Advocates of spiritual romanticism think that this state of “being in love” is what the Christian life is all about. And that is what they are absolutely and totally mistaken about. This is because this attitude seriously undermines what the Bible teaches about true spirituality and the Christian life.

The Bible and Romanticism

The Bible does have a say, or rather have the say on romanticism. The Scriptures present and explain the basis and reason for romance in a comprehensive manner. We should be careful to not equate or try to mix the Scriptural view of romance with pagan views. In Scripture, romance is always portrayed and glorified within the context of marriage, which itself was God’s plan. Right at the beginning of human history (Genesis 2:20-25) God ordained marriage and blessed it. In God’s sight marriage is a monogamous, heterosexual union for life, unlike the pagan ethic where people change partners (sometimes regardless of gender) the way they change clothes.

In the Old Testament, God frequently compares His relationship with His covenant people to a marriage. In Ezekiel (chapters 18-23) God illustrates His relationship with Israel through the picture of marriage, and Israel’s disobedience and unfaithfulness was considered adultery. The Scripture’s emphasis is always on the covenant love of a husband in choosing and remaining faithful to his wife regardless of her unfaithfulness. In the book of Hosea, God commands the prophet to marry a prostitute and remain faithful to her in spite of her promiscuity. This was intended to convey to the Israelites the faithfulness and love of God for His people despite their idolatry and disobedience.

In the New Testament, this image is magnified all the more since the church is considered to be the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5: 22-33). This is to use the intense marital love as a picture for understanding how Christ relates to us and how we should to Him. This also serves a model for husbands to incorporate in their marriages the need to assist their wives to progress in sanctification. It also means that husbands should be even willing to die in protecting their wives, if such a situation should ever arise. The Scripture’s emphasis on love and marriage is very much focused on the willingness to do and very little does it emphasize feelings and emotions as the main thrust and purpose of marriage. In 1 John 3:18 the love that we are to have has to result in concrete action and not just float about in some vague feeling which does not result in any constructive action.

Now that does not mean that the Scripture is silent regarding the emotional dimension in marriage. There is an entire book devoted to explaining the sensual and physical dimension in marriage. It is, obviously, the Song of Songs. There have been controversial interpretations of that song. It is not my intent to discuss in detail the hermeneutics and exegetical arguments for that book, since that would deviate from the purpose of this article. There are two main approaches to interpretation – allegorical and literal. The allegorical approach interprets the song as the relationship between Christ and his Bride. I guess those commentators who favored this approach were too shy to discuss sexuality within marriage and hence they allegorized almost every verse to have a corresponding “deeper” spiritual meaning. Some of their interpretations are hilarious and outright bizarre! (I will discuss that separately sometime, in another, future article.)

The other approach – the literal one – is exactly what it is: literal – in the fullest sense of the term. This is more faithful to the text and honors it than the previous one. Following the historical-grammatical approach of exegesis one would be forced to land up with this conclusion. This book serves to instruct husbands and wives about God’s approval of sensual pleasure in marriage. Nowhere in this book is there any reference to God and Israel and the covenant love existing between them. Even in the New Testament when there are passages speaking about the relationship between Christ and the church, there is absolutely no reference to this book or any quotation from it. This does not mean that his book does not have any spiritual value. It does. It was placed by God in the canon of Scripture to show husbands and wives how to understand and celebrate their marriages in the way He intended it to be – the way He made it in Eden before the Fall corrupted the human race. This book too is a part of “all Scripture” that God inspired (2 Timothy 3:16) which is profitable for instruction, reproof and training in righteousness.

Thus, this is what the Scripture speaks about romance. However, there is a distinction to be observed here. Whenever the Scripture speaks about the physical delights in marriage (which is also a spiritual thing to experience) as in the Song of Songs and Proverbs chapter 5, it does NOT equate or intermingle that with the divine love which God has for His people. This is very important to understand. The texts in Scripture which portray the relationship between God and His people (or Christ and the church) in marital terms do not contain sensual imagery or subtle innuendoes.

Love for God consists of obedience to his revealed commands (1 John 5:3). We should not spiritualize the sensual love which is to be enjoyed in an earthly marriage and apply it to our relationship with God. When I am using the word “sensual” I am not referring exclusively to the physical aspect, but also to the emotions that go along with it. Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to have “warm feelings” for God and since He is incorporeal, neither are we advised to take delight in His physical attributes, since He has none.

Romanticism and the Present Day Christian Experience

Sensual love is exalted and glorified in Scripture, but only within a context between a man and a woman in their marital union and not between God and His people. This is precisely the point where present-day evangelical piety has messed up in a big way. The attempt to relate to God in romantic and sensual terms is the colossal disaster in evangelical Christianity today.

Today’s worship songs wax poetic and sometimes even pornographic, when describing our relationship with God. Instead of meditating and celebrating God’s attributes, worship seems more like describing a high school romantic encounter. “Jesus, I am so in love with you” (Matt Redman). “I am living just to fall more in love with you” (Delirious). The worshipper seems to be “in love” with Jesus. Most of the lyrics focus on the experience the worshipper is having rather than on the characters and attributes of the beloved, who is supposed to be God. The frenzy everywhere is about “falling in love with Jesus.” Jesus is presented as more as a lover from a Shakespearean play than as the, pre-existent, eternal, sovereign Lord of the universe.

Contrast that with how the church in the New Testament time related to God. Read through the book of Acts and the Epistles. In all of them, there is not a single instance where one would find such language being used to relate to God. There is no reference of any apostle saying we ought to “fall in love with God” or enter into a “one-on-one love relationship” with God. The focus was always on God’s attributes and His works. Even in the portions of Scripture which contain doxology, the focus is always on God and not on the feelings (“I feel good/happy/great”) of the worshipper. All doxologies in Scripture are packed with theological concrete, and not some loose statements about experience of the worshipper.

Thus, today worship is not about declaring, celebrating and adoring God’s attributes. Rather, it is about expressing how the worshipper feels about the experience he or she is having. Such worship is man-centered rather than being God-centered. Christianity is about what God has done for His people in Christ by purchasing redemption for them. However, when this focus is removed and Christianity is considered to be an emotional thriller to maintain feelings and intensity, it loses the distinctiveness which characterized the New Testament church. One quote I read somewhere asked “Are we worshipping the Lamb or entertaining the sheep?” That captures the present pitiable situation perfectly.

Romanticism in History

In the history of philosophy, romanticism referred to the time when there was a violent rejection of reason and undue exaltation of emotion. The Industrial Revolution led to the Age of Reason, where religion was critiqued and dismissed off as meaningless. In reaction to this, another school of thought sprang up stressing emotion and experience as foundational to life. This consisted of men like John Keats, Schelly, Alfred Tennyson, Byron and so on. Their writings and poetry strongly betray the irrationalism which was so latent in their “thinking.” John Keats in a letter to his friend said, “O for a life of sensations, rather than a life of thoughts!” Can you see the implicit anti-intellectualism and contradiction in this statement? Of course, Keats had to think that a life of sensations would be better than a life of thoughts! Anyway, romanticism directly infiltrated the then existing evangelical world, and as a result theological studies were devalued and emotions and experience were exalted. The Charismatic movement followed close by and that added more soup to the already existing confusion in Christendom.

This was coupled along with anti-intellectualism and together they dealt a devastating blow to orthodoxy. The masses were brainwashed with such teaching and the preachers who played on emotions became icons in the average evangelical mind. Doctrine was degraded and experience was exalted.

Usually anti-intellectualism and romanticism are two sides of the same coin, since the fundamental attribute of these two movements is the rejection of the centrality of the mind. This finds wide appeal in many Christian churches today.

The Difference it Makes in Christianity Today

This makes a world of difference (if not all the difference!) in Christianity today. We have discussed two things till now: how romanticism and anti-intellectualism have exerted a big, but negative influence on Christianity. People are pre-occupied with their own feelings, emotions and excitement rather than the nature and attributes of God.

In contrast to this and contradicting the romantic nonsense, the Scriptures present the biblical model of spiritual growth and experience to be centered on the mind. The spiritual life consists of understanding God’s verbal revelation and not about kicking up feelings and emotions just for the sake of it.

The following verses deal with the nature of the spiritual life and growth.

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. (Ephesians 1:7)

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints (Ephesians 1:17, 18)

For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, (Colossians 1:9, 10)

Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (2 Peter 1:2, 3)

Take the time to read Psalm 119 sometime. Maybe later on, I shall offer a verse by verse exposition on that chapter. There, the worshipper is so much caught up with and obsessed by God’s word, statutes and ordinances. Of course, there is significant mention of the emotions that he undergoes, but that does not occur in mindless vacuum as in a mantra. His joy, delight, and pleasure lie in rejoicing in God’s word and works. He is not delighting in or exalting in his experience, but rather in God. This is the crucial distinction to be observed always in our worship. We must not worship our experience. We must worship God.

In Psalm 1:2 we read that the “blessed man” is the one whose “delight is in the Law of the Lord. And on it he meditates day and night.” Delight in the written Word of God….? Yes. And…”meditate” on it…? Yes. And, that too…”day and night”…..? Yes. Yes. Yes. This is the description of a “Christian mind”, if you so will call it. You see, the spiritual life is rooted in theological contemplation and not chanting “Jesus I love you/feel you/enjoy you” along with powerful musical accompaniment. Therefore, the less theology you know more shallow and hollow will your spiritual life be. I know this is quite a hard statement for many to digest. But this is the truth. If your mind is not filled with and structured systematically with biblical truth then your “spiritual life” is one BIG joke. I do not delight in hurting people, but I need to drive home some comments in a particular tone, so that people will feel the weight of the situation.

This is what A.H. Strong says in his textbook of Systematic Theology, published in 1906.

“Truth thoroughly digested is essential to the growth of Christian character in the individual and in the church. All knowledge of God has its influence upon character, but most of all the knowledge of spiritual facts in their relations. Theology cannot, as has sometimes been objected, deaden the religious affections, since it only draws out from their sources and puts into rational connection with each other the truths which are best adapted to nourish the religious affections. On the other hand, the strongest Christians are those who have the firmest grasp upon the great doctrines of Christianity; the heroic ages of the church are those which have witnessed most consistently to them; the piety that can be injured by the systematic exhibition of them must be weak, or mystical, or mistaken.”

On Loving God

As mentioned earlier, there is so much of hype created today about “falling in love with Jesus,” “being in love with God” and so on. These do not arise from the biblical teaching of what it means to love God, but rather expressions are driven by sensual desires which are masked under the pretense of spirituality.

So what does the Bible say about loving God?

“And this is love for God: to obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” (1 John 5:3)

“If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love; just I have kept my Father’s command and remain in His love.” (John 15:10)

Therefore, our love for God should be characterized by obeying his commands which He has given to us in the Bible. One cannot have a persistent antinomian attitude and claim to love God at the same time. One does not love God by floating in “praise and worship,” but by consciously fighting the sin within and without in order to obey God. We should be in constant vigilance on our souls. Of course, sinless perfection is unattainable in this life (1 John 1:10), but that is not an excuse for habitual lifestyle of sin. A true Christian will never abuse the grace of God and use it as a license to sin.

In order to obey God, we should know what He has commanded us to obey in the first place. We cannot obey God’s commandments, without knowing what these commands are. Therefore, the first step in loving God is to go and study your Bible. Putting it on other words, theology comes before the “practical” aspects of the Christian life. Creed comes before conduct. Theology is the necessary precondition for all Christian activity. Of course, this is an intellectual activity. Just because something is “spiritual,” it does not mean that it is mystical. According to the Bible, the spiritual is the intellectual. One cannot devalue the intellect and yet be spiritually mature at the same time. Abiding in Christ, means having His words to abide in us (John 15:7).

Religion or Relationship?

Now we finally come to address the question: “Is Christianity a religion or a relationship?” As always the terms must be clearly defined before we analyze any statement. Usually, when this statement is uttered it is made in the anti-intellectual spirit implying that religion (dogma and doctrine) is inferior, if not completely useless, when compared with relationship (emotions and experience).

We are told that what matters in our spiritual life is personal commitment and experience of a relationship and not doctrine and truth. Truth is hard to understand and doctrine is boring. So why bother with that? Instead this “relationship” thing sounds more cool and appeals much better to our emotions than doctrine.

Likewise, it is also said that it is not enough to believe the words spoken by Christ, but we must put our trust in Christ himself. Believing the words will not give us the “deeper/fuller” Christian experience. But believing Christ and having a personal relationship with him will only lead us to spiritual satisfaction. “Mere belief,” they say, is of no use; what matters is personal trust and commitment. Here, there is a sharp dichotomy assumed between believing the words spoken by a person and the believing and trusting the person himself. Though it appears to sound “profound” it is an easy way to avoid the intellect, and yet try to appear wise at the same time.

Believing in Christ means believing the words He spoke – that He is the only begotten Son of God, that He is the resurrection and the life, that he is the bread of life, that He is the way, the truth and the life, that He is going to come back in all His Father’s glory to judge the living and the dead and so on. You cannot not believe the words of Christ and say you believe in Christ at the same time. It means that you are a liar. Believing in Christ means believing in the words He spoke. Believing in God means believing in the words He has given to us in the Bible. No one can claim to believe in God and not believe the Bible at the same time, and call himself a Christian.

In any relationship, regardless of how “personal” it is, there has to be an exchange of information and intellectual content. Without this, there is nothing left to the “relationship.” It is impossible for two people to communicate with each other without the mutual transfer of thought between them. Thought is communicated in the form of propositions. It is fashionable nowadays, even in some intellectual circles to say that “truth is not just propositional, it is personal.” But this is just sophistry masquerading as scholarship. The one question to ask these characters who make such statements is, “What do you mean by ‘personal’?” And the next thing you will see in them is that they will be stroking their chin, or giving a “mature” smile while struggling to search for an answer. And they will cover up their ignorance with an air of attempted profundity by saying things like “The more you experience God, the more you will understand” or something to that effect. They will never accept that they don’t know what they are talking about.

Without propositions to go with the person, you have nothing left to know about the person. In getting to know a person, you get to know some propositions about the person. Without that there is nothing left for you to know.

I have in an earlier article critiqued this view about “personal relationship.” John Robbins, in his article “The Biblical View of Truth” says the following:

“The view, that truth is personal, not propositional, has led theologians to substitute the nebulous concepts of ‘commitment,’ ‘personal relationship,’ and ‘union’ for the clear and Biblical concept of belief, thus undermining the Gospel itself. The New Testament uses believe and its cognates hundreds of times, specifically with regard to believing the Gospel, believing Scripture, believing Christ, and believing God. (Incidentally, when Scripture uses the word believe followed by the name of a person or a pronoun, it always means believing the words spoken by or about that person. Using a noun or a pronoun is simply a shorthand way of referencing a proposition or collection of propositions. On the other hand, commit and its cognates are used much less frequently, and almost always with regard to committing sins. Donald MacKinnon commented on this shift from belief to commitment, saying that the analysis of faith ‘in terms of self-commitment to a person leaves unanswered (or even deliberately seeks to evade) the distinction between such commitment and that involved in a Fuehrerprinzip.’ To speak plainly, if commitment to a person is substituted for belief of propositional truth, then there can be no reason not to commit passionately to a demon.”

People who rant about “personal relationship” but avoid theology and doctrinal studies at the same time are hypocrites. Whenever doctrine is avoided or neglected and substituted with something else, the result is not spiritual worship but spiritual whoredom. The Israelites crafted a golden calf with their creativity, but God was not impressed with their sense of aesthetics. Tozer said it well that “an idol of the mind is as offensive to God as an idol of the hand.” Today, many in mainstream Christendom are fashioning a god of their own liking and thinking that they are some great “man of God” or “woman of God” because of the Christian activities they are involved in. Their knowledge of God and consequently every spiritual activity is not from Scripture. It is from their vain imagination. They belittle the word of God and call it “merely propositional.” They undermine the biblical teaching of belief and say that it is not enough, but something more – an “experience” – is needed. They don’t revere Scripture (or maybe pay lip service to it), but place their “experience” as a greater authority in spiritual matters. These self-declared, self-approved, and of course self-deceived clowns will be held accountable by God.

Have you been believing that Christianity is all about a romantic experience with God? Were you told that studying the Bible alone is not enough, but you need something more – an “experience” or encounter with God? Did you think that Jesus Christ is your divine boyfriend/girlfriend and that you could think of Him as you please? Have you been designing a custom-made religion to satisfy your sensual appetite, under the garb of “spirituality”? If you have answered at least one of the questions in the affirmative, then, it’s about time you woke up.

Get back to the word of God. This is what Jesus said about the words he spoke: “The words I have spoken to you, they are spirit and life” (John 6:63). You see, the “words” are “spirit and life.” If you ignore the words, that is, the propositional content of God’s revelation but keep playing on emotions, and thinking you are spiritually “mature,” its high time your see your folly and return back to Scripture. After Jesus’ teaching, when most of the disciples left Him saying it is “hard teaching,” Peter and handful of others decided to remain with Him saying “Master to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). Therefore, let God’s Word be the only focus and authority in our lives.

“It is written!” (Mathew 4: 4, 7, 10) – let that be the phrase that is constantly on our minds when we think of anything. Let us strive to think God’s thoughts after Him. We should also learn to eradicate statements from our vocabulary like “I think so,” “I feel so,” “In my opinion,” and so on. Well, who cares about what you think? I care about what God thinks about the issue at hand. We should work hard at getting rid of the subjectivity in our thoughts which is most often perverted due to the noetic effects of sin. Thus, the most urgent and important thing to do is to saturate our thoughts with Scripture. And this means exegeting the biblical passages we read and studying doctrine. The best way to study doctrine is to grab a text on systematic theology. This is important because systematic theology shows how various biblical doctrines are related to each other and enables us to fit in the parts within the whole.

If you ignore the words of Scripture, you are NOT a Christian, atleast according to biblical definition. Jesus said, “If you hold to my teachings, you are really my disciples” (John 8:30). A disciple is supposed to hold on to the “teachings.” Thus, if you don’t know the teachings, there is nothing left for you to hold on to, and it follows that you cannot be a disciple, according to Jesus. Of course, you can always call yourself a Christian. Anyone can do that. I can buy a dog from a pet shop and give it a “Christian” name, but that won’t make it a Christian. You can deceive yourself and others by sympathizing with and pampering yourself with all those romantic statements which are popular to say nowadays. But you wont get very far in the Kingdom, that is, if you manage to enter it in the first place. If you are shocked by what you read just now, and realize your folly and irreverence, then I pray that God will lead you back to His Word. It is the word of God which will outlast and outlive everything – not your emotions, not your feelings, not your experience. Only God’s Word is eternal. Let us, therefore strive to bring all our thoughts in confirmity to what God has revealed in His Word.

“How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” Psalm 119:103

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” Mathew 24:35

In this essay, I will critique in detail the false distinction some have brought up between knowing God and knowing about God. Though this sounds very pious-sounding, when we strip it rationally and analyze it from the vantage point of Scripture, we will see that it is nothing but intellectual laziness and irrationality masquerading as spirituality. We will do an exegesis of 2 Peter 1:2-3 and Romans 12:1-2 to build up our case.

Now, it is the duty of theology to systematize the knowledge God has revealed in the Bible. It is authoritative to the extent it reflects Scripture and does not contradict it. By theology, I am referring exclusively to the discipline which has the Bible (Old and New Testaments) and the Bible alone as its foundation. The content of its worldview (that is, the Biblical/Christian worldview) is the propositions of the Scripture and all those validly deduced from them. Every other system of thought which competes for attention in the philosophical marketplace is false since it is not based on revelation from the true and living God.

Since God has revealed Himself in the Bible, it is our task to diligently gain knowledge about Him. This is done by making meticulous efforts to study and understand Scripture. And this is hard work. It is not like reading a comic strip or flipping through a novel. When we study theology, our minds are consciously stretched to the limit; for what can stretch our thinking as much as the study of God? God has given us information about Him in the Bible. This is accessible to every Christian. So, to know God means to study Scripture. One cannot know God without knowing Scripture. This is important to understand. Thus, if one is bankrupt in biblical knowledge, he (or she) does not know God, no matter how emotionally they pray, how much they enjoy “action songs” or, how much excited they are about evangelism, “praise and worship” or something else. If you don’t know your Bible, then just SHUT UP. Stop deluding yourself thinking you know God when you do not know Scripture. Repent of your irreverence and return to being an obedient student of the Bible. You cannot know God without knowing His Word.

Theology defines, explains, and clarifies what God has revealed. Any professing believer can ignore theology at his or her own peril. Theology refers to the study of God from what he has revealed to us in Scripture. This involves rational thinking with God’s revelation as our foundation. That is, we reason based on revelation.

But, giving in to the unbiblical, anti-Christian attitude of anti-intellectualism, many professing Christians assert that there is a distinction between knowing about God and knowing God. To them, studying theology would mean that we would only know “about” God. And apparently, according to these characters, this is not enough. We must “actually” know God. Something more than just studying theology is needed. Theology cannot apparently bring one into a “personal relationship” with God. Theology is as dry as dust. Only a “relationship” with God is dynamic, active and real. Thus they deride and rant against theology.

Anti-intellectualism is such a phenomenon in today’s evangelical “Bible-believing” community that it is as familiar as the air we breathe. It is a rarity to find an evangelical who stresses the importance of the intellectual dimension in spiritual growth. If such a godly preacher is there, he will be persecuted and ridiculed by ignorant and immature Christians. At one point in time, Christianity was accused of being “too intellectual.” Today, it is synonymous with irrationalism and credulity. The church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). We are custodians of God’s truth and it is our most important duty and delight to study and understand it. We ought to preach and defend it to the unbelieving world. Many professing Christians are so excited about God’s love, mercy, patience, grace and so on, but are not at all bothered (let alone be excited) by God’s truth. Why? If God is not truth, then none of these things about Him would be true. Truth is the starting point. Gordon Clark says, “Since God is truth; hatred for truth is hatred for God.” It is as simple and sharp as that.

Coming back to the distinction between knowing about God and knowing God, what is the difference? Is it possible to know God without knowing about Him? And likewise, is it possible to know about God without knowing Him? What is the difference? A common example that is used to differentiate is about how well one “knows” a certain someone who is popular. A certain classmate in school mentioned to me about this: “I know about George Bush; but I don’t know him. On the other hand, I just don’t know about Nishanth. I know him.” So according to him, one can know about someone and not know him. Likewise, one can know someone and not know about him.

This is simply nonsensical. If you say you know me, it means that you know some facts about me. That I am a male; that I am passionate about Christian theology; that I am a medical student, and so on. You cannot know me without knowing something about me in the first place. Of course, you may not know me personally. You might have received this information from a second or third person, but it does not mean that the knowledge you have of me is any less real. You might not have met or talked with me, but that does not mean that what you know about me is false or unreal. I might not have shook hands with George Bush, have had breakfast, or played golf with him. But that does not translate into meaning that the knowledge I have about George Bush that he is a man, that his wife is Laura Bush, and that he is the President of the USA is false.

Some anti-intellectual characters say that “personal relationship” with God is what matters, and not studying theology. But without theology, one cannot know which God (?god) you are speaking about. Even the relationship with this “god” will remain undefined apart from theology. If this “personal relationship” is substituted for belief in propositional truth, there is no reason not to commit passionately to a demon. Even Satan has a very “personal relationship” with God. He hates God and his hatred is very personal. This “personal relationship” sounds very romantic and mushy-mushy, but it is plain silly and makes no sense until it is explained who we are having a relationship with and why.

If I were to ask you a question “Do you know X?” how would you answer me? You would begin by telling me facts about that person – even if X is your son or spouse. Yes, you know them personally – that is, you talk and interact with them first hand. You would be stupid if you say that you know them, but do not know something about them, for knowing someone means knowing something (if not everything) about them. One cannot know someone without knowing something (or knowing all that you can know) about them. In fact, a collection of facts about someone amounts to knowing someone. If you know someone, you have to know about them in the first place. You cannot know someone without knowing some facts about them. Thus, when it applies to our spiritual life, we cannot know God without knowing about God. If you do not know about God – by studying theology – you simply do not know God. Theology is the study of the Bible, and there is no better or “personal” way to know God than studying theology.

Let us now briefly analyze what the term “personal relationship” means. In any relationship, there has to be an exchange of information and intellectual content. Without this, there is nothing left to the “relationship.” It is impossible for two people to communicate with each other without the mutual transfer of thought between them. Thought is communicated in the form of propositions. A proposition refers to a statement. Even if it is non-verbal, that is when audible noise is not produced, communication still occurs since thought is transferred in the form of propositions from one mind to another. Communication refers to the transfer of thought between minds. It can be verbal or non-verbal. That is, audible effects may or may not accompany the communication process. But communication can never be non-propositional. Thought is always propositional. Thus, communication can still occur, even when not associated with verbal accompaniments, since it refers to the exchange of thought in the form of propositions.

Now we need to ask how personal is personal? For the sake of brevity, let us define “personal” as first hand knowledge and communication. That is, “direct” interaction with the person we are concerned about. When transferred to our spiritual life, we should know that the most “personal” way to know God is to receive information directly about him. The only way to receive this “direct” information from Him is to read Scripture and study theology. In other words, the best, direct and most “personal” way to know God is to STUDY YOUR BIBLE. Some say that we know God by prayer. But even prayer is undefined without theology. You cannot know whom to pray to, how to pray, and what to pray for unless you study theology. Some people say that you know God by “experiencing his love in your heart.” But, apart from theology one cannot know which “god” you are speaking about, how this “love” is defined, or whether the “experience” you have is true or not.

Some say that theology is a human task and not a divine one. It is very fashionable to for some to say “theology is a human task; my theology is the Bible,” thereby implying that theology has nothing to do with Scripture. This is ignorance of the worst kind. As I mentioned earlier, theology is all about systematically studying God’s verbal revelation – the Scripture. We are dealing with Scripture – the Bible – and not with some pagan texts. Theology is a human endeavor in the sense that humans are involved in studying it. Theology is also a divine study in the sense that we are dealing directly with God’s verbal revelation. Take for example, the doctrine of the Trinity. The word “trinity” does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Today, orthodoxy is defined by affirmation of the trinity. There are some heretical groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny this. How did we arrive at the truth of the trinity that “God is one in essence, but three in person”? This did not happen because somebody dreamed it up, or somebody else “felt” this was so. This happened because Bible scholars faithfully searched the Scriptures, found what it taught and framed the doctrine of the trinity. This is theology – it all about the study of doctrine that is taught in Scripture. There is good theology and bad theology, just like there is right doctrine and false doctrine. Correct or good theology reflects Scripture and does not contradict it. On the other hand, bad theology, or heretical theology does not reflect Scripture, but rather brings in unbiblical presuppositions and tries to harmonize them with Scripture. Heretical theology is a mish-mash of biblical and unbiblical presuppositions, which is why it contradicts itself and Scripture. Scripture on the other hand is perfectly coherent and does not contradict. People tend to see a “contradiction” when their unbiblical presuppositions do not agree with Scripture and not because the Scripture contradicts itself. Good theology will contain right doctrine and bad theology will contain heretical doctrine. Good theology, which conforms to Scripture, will lead to right thought and conduct. Bad theology which distorts Scripture will lead to heretical doctrines and wholesale practical disaster.

Now we turn to 2 Peter 1:2-3:

“Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.”

New Testament scholars contend that Peter wrote this epistle in his old age, just before he was to be martyred (2 Peter 1:13,14). This was his last letter to the believers to whom he had written the previous epistle. In this, he discusses about the necessity of Scriptural knowledge for our spiritual growth, the importance of being established in the truth of the gospel, false teachers and their destruction, and finally winds up with eschatology, teaching how God will consummate history. You can see that this is a very important letter since, this is his last testament to the flock he had shepherded and he writes with the expectation of how they will fare after he is gone (2 Peter 1:15).

He begins by stressing the necessity of knowledge. From Proverbs 9:10 we know that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of the Holy one is understanding.” The knowledge that Peter is referring to is very specific: it is biblical knowledge. Jesus made it clear that our spiritual life depends “on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). Thus, Peter when Peter mentions knowledge, here he is not speaking about “common sense” or something else. He is specifically mentioning about knowledge of God’s Word.

The Greek word used here for knowledge is epignosis. Thayer’s Greek Definition for this word is “precise and correct knowledge.” This is derived from another Greek word epiginosko which means “to know accurately and thoroughly.” Do you have this sort of knowledge of the things of God? If not, do you make conscious efforts to attain it? Are you seriously working on increasing in this knowledge? It is this knowledge which will give you “grace and peace in abundance” (2 Peter 1:2). It is this knowledge which will give us “everything we need for life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). Everything means everything – that is, everything about everything. The “victorious Christian life” is possible only because of KNOWLEDGE of God’s Word. Grace and peace will not come from singing “praise and worship” continuously for two hours, praying for three hours or being excited about action actions. Grace and peace will come from knowing and understanding God’s Word. Period.

The Greek word for knowledge, epignosis, which means “precise, correct, accurate, and thorough knowledge,” is used in the following passages as well.

For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. (Romans 10:2)

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. (Ephesians 1:17)

“….until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:13)

“…and having put on the new self which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its creator.” (Colossians 3:10)

“….who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4)

“Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

“…..always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7)

“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness…” Titus 1:1

“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left….” Hebrews 10:26

All the above mentioned verses are very “practical,” so to say, in the modern Christian sense of the term, since they are speaking about how this knowledge applies to our everyday living. But we cannot practice what these verses speak about if we are bankrupt in knowledge, in epignosis, of God’s Word. The urgent need of the church is not more musical equipment or creative ideas for youth games, but strong shepherds who would feed their flock heavily from Scripture.

Now we should briefly look at Romans 12:1-2:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing, and perfect will.

Paul writes the book of Romans to the church in Rome. This is the most comprehensive treatise ever written on the gospel and how it relates to God’s big picture for Israel and the church. The book of Romans is divided into various sections. The final section starting with chapter 12 begins with the word “therefore” which implies that what we read follows from what Paul had discussed before. Since this is not a study on the book of Romans, we cannot look into what Paul wrote about earlier. For the purpose of our study, we can look only into the current concern of the verse. The phrase “spiritual act of worship” in NIV is translated as “reasonable act of worship” in KJV. In NIV, a footnote will be given indicating that the word “spiritual” can also be translated as “reasonable.” Here in this context, “reasonable” does not mean “ok” or something that has a practical connotation to it. The Greek word used here for the word “spiritual” is logikos, and Thayer defines it as “pertaining to reason and logic.” This is derived from another Greek word logos, which the Greek philosophers considered to be the unchanging principle of reason, order and design in the universe. Logos is the Greek word from which the English word logic is derived. The Apostle John identifies Christ with logos. This is root word from which logikos is derived. That clause in Romans is best translated as “rational act of worship.” Thus, we can clearly see the heavy intellectual emphasis that is placed upon the believer’s life.

Paul also mentions that we should be transformed by the renewing of our mind. The Greek word for mind is nous, which Thayer defines as “the intellectual faculty related to perception and understanding.” If you ignore the intellectual dimension in your spiritual growth, then you have nothing left since the intellectual is the spiritual. They are not mutually exclusive, but are the one and the same thing. Theology is dry as dust to pagans and false converts, but to those whose one and only passion in life is to know and obey God, it is throbbing, dynamic and active. It is the very blood of our spiritual life.

Systematic theology is the most important topic any Christian can study in his or her lifetime. Every other study such as medicine, physics, economics, linguistics or geology cannot rank anywhere close to theology. Does such a statement surprise you? Are you shocked to hear that theology is the most important subject that could by studied by man? Have you been so much brainwashed and “fascinated” with the world’s wisdom, which is no wisdom at all (1 Corinthians 2:6), that God’s wisdom – that is, theology – seems “irrelevant” to you? Have you been digging so much into the world’s wisdom which amounts to dung in God’s sight (Philippians 3:8), that the fragrance of God’s knowledge – that is, theology – seems “boring” to you? Have you been brainwashed with the pragmatism of the world, which obeys “the ruler of the kingdom of air” (Ephesians 2:2) that theology does not seem that “practical” to you? Are you boasting of your secular accomplishments and so captivated by them (1 Corinthians 1:20), that you don’t care at all about growing in knowledge of the things of God by studying theology? Are you drooling and enjoying world’s thinking that theology seems too “lifeless” to you? Can you spend two hours with your surgery textbook making and memorizing elaborate notes, but hardly spend even twenty minutes studying God’s Word and understanding it? Do you refer up international journals and reference books for your once-in-a-blue moon presentation on some medical topic, but find it “too difficult” to read a text of systematic theology or a Bible commentary? Examine yourself to see if you are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5). Don’t be deceived about your spiritual condition. God defines the terms, not we. If we redefine His terms to justify our irreverent thinking and behavior, we will land up as cosmic buffoons. Make absolutely NO mistake about that.

Theology is central to all our thinking and living. If you claim to be a Christian and hate theology or think it is unimportant for your spiritual life, its high time you stop thinking like a pagan and looking like a fool in the sight of God. Repent of your stupidity and return to God with humility to know His Word and study it with all diligence, the way Ezra did.

“For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the LORD, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel.” (Ezra 7:10)