By Christopher on First Principles, Logic, Truth

The First Principles of Knowledge

Chapter Six of Norm Geisler’s book Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal (Bastion Books, 2013, 2022)

With clear citation and proper attribution to this work, quotations totaling fewer than 100 words will be considered to be “fair use.” Beyond that, no portion of this blog/book may legally be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form and by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, digital or analog recordings, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission.

Behind the Christian belief that God has revealed himself to us in Scripture (John 10:34-35) and nature (Rom. 1:19-20) is the conviction that knowledge about God is possible. With this the Christian as a believer is content. The Christian, however, also operates as a thinker, and so must ask the question: How do we know? Aquinas’s answer is that we know by means of basic principles of knowledge. There are certain fundamental axioms of thought by which thought is possible. For we cannot build a house of knowledge unless there is a foundation on which to erect it. Aquinas calls these foundational principles of knowing first principles.

The Importance of the First Principles

Aquinas believes that all knowledge is based on basic undeniable principles that provide the foundation for sure knowledge. Without these first principles there can be no true knowledge. As he puts it, “perfect knowledge requires certitude, and this is why we cannot be said to know unless we know what cannot be otherwise.”¹ That is, if there is to be certainty, then knowledge must be based ultimately on some principles about which there can be no question. This means that there can be no infinite regress in our knowledge, for “if there were an infinite regress in demonstrations, demonstration would be impossible, because the conclusion of any demonstration is made certain by reducing it to the first principle of demonstration.”² All knowledge, then, rests on certain undeniable first principles that we must study if we are to avoid ultimate skepticism.

The Meaning of the First Principles

In order to understand what the first principles of knowledge are, it is necessary to understand first what is meant by a principle. Then, the nature of first principles as “first” will be more readily understood.

The Definition of a Principle

According to Aquinas, “anything whence something proceeds in any way we call a principle.”³ That is, a principle is that from which something follows. A principle is to be distinguished from a cause, which is that from which something else follows in dependence. A cause, in distinction from a principle, has diversity of substance and dependence of one on another, which is not implied in the principle. For in all kinds of causes there is always to be found between the cause and the effect a distance of perfection or of power: whereas we use the term principle even in things which have no such difference, but have only a certain order to each other; as when we say that a point is the principle of a line.⁴

So, then, there are two basic differences between a cause and a principle. First, a cause is not part of the effect, whereas a principle can be part of that which proceeds from it. Second, a principle is merely that from which something follows; a cause is that from which something follows in dependence.

The Definition of a First Principle

A principle, by its very nature, is the first in its order, since all else within that order follows from it. “A first principle is, therefore, a first among firsts.”⁵ It may be first in the order of knowing, being, or becoming. That is, each of the various orders of knowledge or reality have their points of beginning; these are known as first principles if they have that irreducible premise upon which all else depends in that order. There may be other principles under this first principle, but the first principle is that from which conclusions may be drawn.⁶ Of course, a first principle “does not signify priority [in time], but origin.”⁷ It is logically (but not necessarily chronologically) prior to its sequent. It is the ultimate starting point from which all conclusions may be drawn in a given area of knowledge or reality. First principles are necessary constituents of all knowledge, but they do not supply any content of knowledge.

Kinds of First Principles

There are as many first principles as there are orders of knowledge and reality. Aquinas does not provide a complete list of first principles in any one place, but rather refers to the different principles by way of example.⁸ Since Aquinas is a realist, the realm of knowing is the realm of being. There is no disjunction between the rational and the real. Indeed, one cannot deny he knows reality without implying that he does. So then first principles will have both an epistemological and ontological dimension. Since a first principle is that from which everything else in its order follows, first principles of knowledge are those basic premises from which all else follows in the realm of knowing.

The most important first principles of knowledge are as follows.

The Principle of Identity. In the order of being (ontology) Aquinas states this principle in several ways: “being is being”; “every being is necessarily what it is”; “everything is identical with itself”; and “being and one are convertible.”⁹ Fundamentally, the principle of identity signifies the unity of things.

When this unity is applied in the order of knowing (epistemology), it takes on the form “being is intelligible.” For if it were not so, then “the human intellect is consigned to total absurdity, to the absolute inability to conceive anything whatever: every thought is unthinkable.”¹⁰

The Principle of Non-contradiction. The ontological aspect of this principle may be stated in several ways: “being is not nonbeing”; “it is necessary that being not be nonbeing”; and “it is impossible that being be nonbeing.” Epistemologically, there are at least two ways to express this principle: (1) it is impossible that contradictory statements be simultaneously true; (2) if one contradiction is true, the other is necessarily false.¹¹ Aquinas justifies this principle by pointing out that being is intelligible; nonbeing is unintelligible and whoever denies this uses it to make an intelligible statement.¹²

The Principle of Excluded Middle. This principle is the principle of either/or. Ontologically, something must either be or not be. It cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same sense.

Epistemologically, a proposition must be either true or false. It cannot be both true and false simultaneously in the same sense. “Whatever the subject, either affirmation or negation is true,” although we do not always know which is the case. In this sense “it is merely the logical consequence of the absurdity implied in a simultaneous yes and no about the same thing considered from the same aspect.”¹³

The Principle of Causality. Ontologically, the principle of causality is limited in its application to the realm of finite, contingent beings. In this regard, “everything which is capable of existing or not existing has some cause; because considered in itself it is indifferent to either alternative, and thus there has to be something else which determines it to be.” Therefore, “since there can be no process into infinity there has to be something necessary, which is the cause of all things capable of existing or not existing.”¹⁴ In general, then, causality says “everything contingent is caused.” Or “every efficient action, which is a passage from potency to act, is caused.” Since it is contingent, it is possible for it to not be, and therefore it is caused or dependent on another.¹⁵

Epistemologically, every proposition that is not self-evident depends for its truth on the truth of another. Whatever is not necessarily true is dependent on some other truth. Of course, not every proposition can depend for its truth on the truth of another. Hence, there must be some first, self-evident principles that are simply true in themselves.

The Principle of Finality. “Every agent acts for an end.” This principle of finality (or teleology) is the one Aquinas uses to develop many of his great metaphysical and epistemological theses. In its ontological form, finality states that “being as agent is finalized.” He wrote, “I answer that it is in the nature of every act to communicate itself as far as possible.”¹⁶ To act for an end is to communicate oneself.

Epistemologically, the principle of finality takes the following forms: every proposition has an end in view; it is necessary that every proposition communicate some meaning; and mind communicates what is intelligible.¹⁷

Priority among First Principles

All of the foregoing principles may be said to be “first” principles. The question is which principle is first among the first. As Aquinas says, “Not every principle is a first principle …. Nevertheless, it must be observed that a principle of movement may happen to be first in a genus, but not first absolutely.”¹⁸ That is, while all of the first principles are first relatively, only one can be first absolutely. Before a determination is made as to which principle is first among firsts, the qualifications for this high honor must be examined.

As Aristotle defines it, “the most certain principle of all is that about which it is impossible to be mistaken. For such a one must be the best known … and non-hypothetical.”¹⁹ He first sets down three conditions for the strongest principle. First, no one can lie or err in respect to it. Second, it is unconditional. Third, it is not acquired by demonstration or in another like manner, but it comes naturally.

It is important to note that Aquinas and Aristotle are speaking of the absolutely first principle of knowing, not of being. In this epistemological context there are two prime candidates for absolutely first principle: the principle of identity and the principle of non-contradiction.

Some contend that identity is first. Jacques Maritain insists that the principle of identity is first and that the principle of non-contradiction is only a negative form of it.²⁰ The reason usually offered in defense of the primacy of identity is that the positive must precede the negative. It is argued that first the mind has a concept of being. The first and most basic judgment, then, is that “being is being,” which is an assertion of identity.

Others object, contending that such a position confuses the order of judgments and concepts. The mind has a concept of being first; the next concept must be that of nonbeing, since that is all that is left. The first judgment, however, must be of the relation between being and nonbeing, which is one of contradiction and not of identity. “In short, the positive is prior to the negative only in the sense that a concept of the negative presupposes a concept of the positive; not in the sense that a positive judgment must precede a negative one.”²¹

Aquinas holds that non-contradiction is first among first principles. Whatever may be said of other philosophers, scholastic or non-scholastic, it seems clear that for Aquinas (and for Aristotle before him) the principle of non-contradiction is absolutely first in the order of knowing. Aristotle writes: “It is clear, then, that such is the most certain principle of all; and what this is, we state as follows. For it is impossible that the same [attribute] should at the same time belong and not belong to the same thing, and under the same respect …. This indeed is the most certain of all the principles. Wherefore all who demonstrate argue back to this ultimate proposition; for by nature this is the principle of all the other axioms.”²² Aquinas agrees with this assertion: “And hence the first indemonstrable principle is, that it is not [possible] to affirm and deny at the same time; which is based on the nature of being and non-being; and on this principle all others are based.”²³

Summing up, the primacy of the principle of non-contradiction is manifest since the principles of identity and excluded middle are dependent aspects of it. For if contradictions were possible, then a thing would not have to be identical with itself (identity) nor would opposites have to be different from each other (excluded middle). The principle of causality is also reducible to the principle of non-contradiction, for on inspection of the terms it would be a contradiction to affirm that a contingent (dependent) being is uncaused (independent). Likewise, the principle of finality rests upon the principle of non-contradiction, since otherwise being could communicate something other than being; intelligence would communicate something other than the intelligible.²⁴

Finally, then, if non-contradiction is the only principle that is strictly first, why are these other principles necessary at all? Sullivan explains that “it is because they also may be called first principles, not indeed in the sense that no principle is prior to them, but in the sense that each is first as the source of that particular branch of human knowledge at the head of which it stands.”²⁵

The Necessity of First Principles: Certainty and Certitude

There could be no certainty in knowledge if there were no certain principles of knowledge on which to build. But there are two sides to this issue: the objective certainty of the principles and the subjective certitude of the knower who knows the principles.

Objective Certainty

First principles are considered certain and infallible by virtue of their very nature. In this regard the adjectives used by Aquinas to describe them are illuminating. He calls them “necessary,” “indemonstrable,” and “non-discursive.”

First principles are necessary and indemonstrable because an infinite regress of knowledge is impossible. “For it is impossible that there be entirely demonstration of all things; for it would proceed into infinity, so that not even in this way would there be demonstration.”²⁶“For not everything can be demonstrated.” For “if everything were demonstrated, since the same thing is not demonstrated by itself but by another, there would have to be a circle in demonstrations. But this cannot be … or it would be necessary to proceed into infinity.” But, “if there were progress into infinity, there would be no demonstration; because every conclusion of demonstration is rendered certain by its reduction to the first principle of demonstration: which would not be if demonstration proceeded upward to infinity.” Therefore, it is evident “that not all things are demonstrable.”²⁷

Aquinas sheds further light on why an infinite regress in knowledge is impossible. “As in the intellect, when reasoning, the conclusion is compared with the principle, so in the intellect composing and dividing, the predicate is compared with the subject.” So “if our intellect were to see at once the truth of the conclusion in the principle, it would never understand by discursion and reasoning.”²⁸

Since we in our present state of knowledge must think discursively, it would be impossible for us to know anything if there were an infinite regress of terms in our syllogisms. “The identity of the first object with that represented by the middle term cannot depend on an infinite series of middle terms; for no matter how far back one might go, there would still be a premise left to be proved.” Hence, “one must come at last to a premise which is self-evident: i.e., in which the identity or diversity of the two objective concepts is immediately clear to the intellect from a simple inspection of the concepts.”²⁹“C. S. Lewis saw this clearly when he wrote: “But you cannot go on ‘explaining away’ forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things forever …. It is no use trying to see through first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see” (The Abolition of Man, 91).

Certainty in knowledge, then, depends ultimately on propositions about whose terms there can be no question; their truth is immediately known by inspection. These are often called “analytic“ principles. Aquinas defines first principles as those “whose predicates are of the nature of the subjects prime propositions of themselves; in order that they may be known of themselves to all, the subjects and predicates must be known to all.”³⁰ And again, “the intellect is always right as regards first principles, since it is not deceived about them for the same reason that it is not deceived about what a thing is. For self-known principles are such as are known as soon as the terms are understood, from the fact that the predicate is contained in the definition of the subject.”³¹

It should be noted that although the predicate is contained in the notion of the subject, this does not mean that this is immediately obvious. It may become obvious by inspection of the terms of the premise or by a reduction of the predicate to the subject. For example, it is not necessarily obvious that every contingent being needs a cause until, upon closer inspection, it is seen that contingent means dependent and dependent beings must be dependent on something else (i.e., a cause).

In summary, the mind is always right about first principles, for they are known to be true as soon as the terms are understood, from the fact that the predicate is contained in the definition of the subject.³²

Since first principles are self-evident, there is a sense in which it is absurd to attempt a direct proof or demonstration of them. Since some people deny their validity, however, there is an indirect sense in which some attempt to prove them. This is done by showing that first principles cannot actually be denied without absurdity. Aristotle lists several arguments of this kind in defense of the first principle of non-contradiction:

To deny it would deprive words of their fixed meaning and render speech useless.
Reality of essences must be abandoned. There would be becoming without anything that becomes, flying without a bird, accidents without substance.
There would be no distinction between things. All would be one.
It would mean the destruction of truth, for truth and falsity would be the same.
It would destroy all thought, even opinion, for its affirmation would be its negation.
Desire and preference would be useless, for there would be no difference between good and evil.
Everything would be equally true and false at the same time. No opinion would be more wrong than any other, even in degree.
It would make impossible all becoming, change, or motion, for all this implies a transition from one state to another, but all states would be the same, if contradiction is not true.³³

Despite the weighty defense given to this important principle, there are those who persist in denying its rational justifiability. Some insist that to defend the principle of non-contradiction by using the principle of non-contradiction is to argue in a circle. It is to argue against a position that denies contradiction by saying it is contradictory. But this is really to say nothing. It is simply saying that a denial of the principle of non-contradiction is contradictory.

But this objection confuses the issue. For the law of non-contradiction is not used as the basis of the indirect proof of its validity; it is simply used in the process of defending its validity. Take, for example, the statement “I cannot speak a word in English.” This statement is self-destructive, since it does what it says it cannot do. It uses English to deny that it can use English. So it disproves itself. The indirect proof for the law of non-contradiction is similar. We cannot deny the law of non-contradiction without using it in the very sentence that denies it. For the sentence that denies non-contradiction is offered as a non-contradictory sentence. If it is not, then it makes no sense.

In like manner, if I say “I can utter a word in English,” it is obvious that I uttered a word in English in the process of doing so. But there is nothing self-defeating about using English to say I can use English. There is only something self-defeating about using English to deny I can use English. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with using the principle of non-contradiction to defend the principle of non-contradiction. There is only something wrong about using the principle of non-contradiction to deny that principle.

The basic laws of thought are self-evidently true. They are known to be such by inspecting their terms to see if the predicate is reducible to the subject. The only direct “proof” of them is to state clearly their meaning, so that their self-evident nature becomes intuitively or immediately obvious.

First principles, then, are not only indemonstrable but are actually undeniable. That is, they are objectively certain, regardless of the subjective certainty we may have (or may not have) about them.

Subjective Certitude

Certainty and certitude are different. Certainty is objective while certitude is subjective. A principle is certain if it is self-evident, whether a person is sure about it or not. Certitude, on the other hand, involves a knower’s assent to that which is certain; it is a subjective response to what is objectively so.

According to Aquinas, once the terms of first principles are known the mind must assent. Assent to first principles, however, is not “free.” “Now the assent of science is not subject to free choice, because the knower is obliged to assent by the force of the demonstration.”³⁴ Assent is “natural“: “If, therefore, that which the reason apprehends is such that it naturally assents thereto, e.g., first principles, it is not in our power to assent to it or to dissent. For in such cases, assent follows naturally, and consequently, properly speaking is not subject to our command.”³⁵ In fact, Aquinas even speaks of a natural, unconscious inclination of the intellect to truth, a kind of “instinct for truth.” For “truth is the intellect’s good and the term of its natural ordination; and just as things without knowledge are moved toward their end without knowing it, so sometimes does the human intellect by a natural inclination tend toward truth although it does not perceive its nature.”³⁶

The reason for this natural predisposition to truth is as follows: “Everything that comes from God receives from Him a certain nature by which it is related to its final end.” But “it is also true that every power has a natural appetite … with respect to its proper good … and with the exception of the will all the powers of the soul are necessitated by the objects.”³⁷

Certitude about first principles, then, comes from the fact that the intellect is naturally determined to truth and we are not free to dissent. The reason the mind must assent to first principles is that they are reducible to the principle of non-contradiction to which the mind cannot dissent. “The first of all assents is stated as a modal proposition; on the other hand, all other immediate assents imply this first assent, and mediate assents can exist only insofar as they can be reduced to the principle of noncontradiction.”³⁸

Certainty is always accompanied by assent. That is, the mind always assents to propositions that are certain, provided that it understands them. Not all assent, however, is accompanied by certitude. We may assent to something as being only probable and not necessary, as is the case in our everyday life. “In the business affairs of men, there is no such thing as demonstrative and infallible proof, and we must be content with a certain conjectural probability, such as that which an orator employs to persuade.”³⁹ We may also assent to the conclusion of a probable induction but not with certitude. “For he who proceeds inductively through singulars to a universal, does not demonstrate, nor does he construct a necessarily conclusive syllogism.”⁴⁰

There are different kinds of certainty, which can be summarized as follows: “Assent with intellectual certitude is threefold: (a) metaphysical, wherein there is absolutely no possibility for the truth of the opposite; (b) physical; and (c) moral, wherein there is a remote possibility for the truth of the contrary, but we have no sufficient reason to think this possibility will be fulfilled in the situation at hand.”⁴¹Further, “a man can possess intellectual certitude about a proposition and still fail to possess subjective or emotional certitude. He can emotionally fear the opposite, even though he cannot think the opposite to be a possibility.” For example, “a man can be absolutely certain that God exists and still feel His absence. Subjective certitude often works in the opposite direction as well. A feeling of conviction can so invade the rational powers that the will moves the intellect to assent where there is no sufficient evidence or where there is no real evidence at all.”⁴²

Aquinas even acknowledges that a person may have certitude that something is true when in fact it is not. “Now certitude of adherence does not belong properly to the act of faith; first because it also belongs to the intellectual virtues of science, wisdom and understanding; then because it is common to both true and false faith … for men do not adhere any less firmly to truth than to falsity.”⁴³ It should be carefully noted, however, that Aquinas is not speaking here of intellectual certitude about first principles, about which there can be no error, but about matters of faith that are not rationally demonstrable. He is speaking of “certitude of adherence” or the tenacity of belief, not the veracity of it.

Nevertheless, Aquinas does admit that “error seems to be even more natural to men as they actually are than knowledge because men are easily deceived and because the soul is longer in error than in truth during its life.”⁴⁴ Frederick Wilhelmsen lists the causes of error as follows: “Diseased sensation, incomplete consciousness resulting from a lack of union between intellect and sensation, the drive of the will toward the good, the necessity to act without compelling evidence in the practical order—these are the causes of error.”⁴⁵ But whatever the causes of error, it is not a question of error with regard to first principles.

Although Aquinas speaks of an unconscious “natural inclination” to the truth, properly speaking the assent to certitude is a conscious activity. We can be certain if we know that the truth is a first principle or reducible to it, which necessitates a rational awareness. Accordingly, Aquinas makes it a prerequisite of assent that the relationship between subject and predicate be perceived as necessary:

Sometimes, again, the possible intellect is so determined that it adheres to one member without reservation. This happens sometimes because of the intelligible object and sometimes because of the will. Furthermore, the intelligible object sometimes acts immediately, sometimes mediately. It acts immediately when the truth of the proposition is unmistakably clear to the intellect from the intelligible objects themselves. This is the state of one who understands principles, which are known as soon as the terms are known …. In this case the very nature of the terms immediately determines the intellect to propositions of this sort.⁴⁶

So if we “understand” the principle and when the truth is “unmistakably clear” to the mind assent is necessitated and certitude is guaranteed. “Assent is a conscious discernment and commitment to the truth … assent is the mind’s ratification of the proposition formed.”⁴⁷

But if assent is always conscious, why does Aquinas refer to an “unconscious” inclination of a subject or agent to its divinely appointed object or end?⁴⁸ This point will be discussed more fully later, but here it might be observed that there is a difference between a natural “inclination” to truth, which may at times be unconscious, and a conscious “assent” to truth. It is when we consciously reflect on this natural inclination and the necessary nature of the proposition that assent comes “naturally,” albeit consciously.

Since certitude involves a conscious assent to the certainty of the truth for which we have an unconscious appetite, then the possession of this truth by the intellect is the reward of certitude. In short, “to reflection, certitude appears as the repose in the possession of this good, a sort of partial beatitude of the intellect caused by the presence of truths, of which nothing in the world could ever deprive it.”⁴⁹ The reward for the hunger for truth is the meat of certitude that we consciously enjoy when we perceive the certainty and necessity of the truth possessed.

The Ontological Basis of First Principles

Itis because first principles are self-evident and analytic that they are undeniable. For Aquinas, however, analytic does not necessarily mean a priori or independent of experience. First principles are known because the mind knows reality. In fact, these epistemological principles have an ontological basis in reality. For “a system of valid philosophy cannot be developed from a priori principles alone by pure deduction, as Spinoza tried to do. Trust must be attained by a combination of principles, sense judgments, and the conclusions derived by reasoning from either or both.”⁵⁰

For Aquinas it is sufficient that we know being (or that we know that we know being) and that in reality our knowledge of first principles is based in our most fundamental knowledge of being. He sees no need to justify this knowledge any more than we could directly demonstrate a first principle.

For thought is based in thing. That is, knowing is based in being. This does not mean, however, that there is a direct one-to-one correspondence between the thing-in-itself and the thing-as-known. In two clear passages, Aquinas spells out his view on this subject. “Whence, to the composition and division of the intellect there corresponds something on the part of reality; nevertheless, it is constituted in reality in a manner different from that in which it is in the intellect. For the proper object of the human intellect is the whatness (quiddity) of the material thing which falls under [the perception of] sense and imagination …. Nevertheless, the composition by the intellect differs from the composition in reality. For the things which are combined in reality are diverse; whereas the composition of the intellect is a sign of the identity of the things which are combined.”⁵¹ “So, since the true is in the intellect in so far as the intellect is conformed to the thing understood, the aspect of the true must needs pass from the intellect to the thing understood, so that also the thing understood is said to be true in so far as it has some relation to the intellect.”⁵²

According to Aquinas, being is the beginning of knowing. It is a given, undemonstrable fact that ultimately thought is based in thing and that what the rational knows is the real. This is why Aquinas sees no need to elaborate his epistemology before his natural theology. He begins with a knowledge of finite being and on that builds his knowledge of Infinite Being. Furthermore, as Eric Mascall pointedly observes, it is as unnecessary to expound one’s epistemology before beginning to talk about God as it is to understand human physiology before beginning to walk.⁵³

Aquinas does not ask how we know that we know reality. It is obvious that we do. That is a question philosophers have asked since the time of Kant. Aquinas’s followers respond in two basic ways to this question. There is the school of Neo-Thomists, like Cardinal Mercier, Leon Noel, G. Picard, and others at the University of Louvain, known as critical realists. They claim that although we are certain that there is a world of things beyond our thought, nevertheless we must subject this certainty to criticism and establish the truth that we really know being. They contend that even though the mind begins with things, in philosophy we must begin with the mind’s knowledge of things and not the things themselves. Epistemology is a critique and a critique is logically prior to a metaphysics.⁵⁴

Other Thomists feel that post-Kantian philosophy has made a gratuitous assumption in denying what is most obvious to the realist, namely, that it is something that we know and not nothing. Wilhelmsen, for example, says: “A Thomistic realist has no need to follow the fortunes of critical realism as it attempts to ‘bridge the gap’ between the mind and things. The Thomist refuses to admit any gap between mind and things. Therefore, he refuses to build a bridge where there is no need for one. He refuses to separate sense knowledge from intellectual knowledge because he finds them together, not separate.”⁵⁵

It is argued that to justify our knowledge of reality by anything other than reality itself is to base knowledge on non-reality. “But if the truth about being is not strong enough to act as the foundation of philosophy, if it is not evident, if it needs a prior truth to guarantee it, then the absolutely first principle of philosophy will not be the truth about being; it will be some other truth.”⁵⁶ Wilhelmsen continues: “It follows, therefore, that a ‘critical realism‘ is a contradiction in terms. Either the truth that ‘being exists’ is first among all evident truths, or it is not. If it is not, then realism is not realism …. The ‘critical’ swallows up the ‘realist’ in a philosophical comedy in which metaphysicians attempt to justify that what they say lies beyond all need of justification.”⁵⁷

As a realist, Aquinas himself would respond to the question of how we know first principles are based in reality by noting that it is undeniable. For one cannot know about reality that he cannot know anything about reality, unless he does know something about reality. For Aquinas first principles of all kinds, whether logical or ontological, are not directly demonstrable, but they are indirectly undeniable. If they were capable of being proved, they would not be first principles. The only possible way to defend them is indirectly, by showing that it is self-defeating to deny them, or better, by indicating that every denial that we can know reality itself presupposes and affirms a knowledge of reality. “Just as the first principles are indemonstrable insofar as they are first, so also any direct demonstration of the ontological validity of first principles is impossible.”⁵⁸

Garrigou-Lagrange argues that “this ontological validity cannot be demonstrated by a direct method, for, like the necessity of first principles, it is an immediately evident truth. The immediately connected subject and predicate do not admit of a demonstrative middle term.” Hence, “all that we can do is to explain the meaning of the subject and the predicate … for an attempt at demonstration would result merely in a vicious circle, since one would have to assume as true what remains to be proved, to wit, the ontological validity of first principles.”⁵⁹ First principles may not be directly demonstrable, but they are actually undeniable. And it is a first principle that being is that which is, and that which is can be known.

The Epistemological Origin of First Principles

In some ways this discussion is logically prior to the preceding, since we cannot discuss what we do not in some way possess. It is also true to the order of Aquinas, however, to discuss what we know before we know exactly how we know it. In a very clear and complete passage, Aquinas explains the whole psychological process of the origin of our knowledge of first principles:

So inquiry in all the speculative sciences works back to something first given, which one does not have to learn or discover (otherwise we would have to go on to infinity), but which he knows naturally. Such are the indemonstrable principles of demonstration (for example, every whole is greater than its part, and the like), to which all demonstrations in the sciences are reducible. Such too are the first conceptions of the intellect (for example, being, one, and the like), to which all definitions in the sciences must be reduced. From this it is clear that the only things we can know in the speculative sciences, either through demonstration or definition, are those that lie within the range of these naturally known principles. Now these principles are revealed to man by the light of the agent intellect, which is something natural to him …. So our knowledge of the above-mentioned principles begins in the senses and memory, as is evident from the philosopher [Aristotle, Posterior analytics, II, 19, 100a 3-9]. Consequently, these principles do not carry us beyond that which we can know from the objects grasped by the senses.⁶⁰

All Knowledge Begins in Sensation

All knowledge begins in sensation, but the mind’s ability to know is logically prior to sensation. That is, everything that is in the mind was first in the senses, except the mind itself. “But the human intellect … is in potentiality with regard to things intelligible, and is at first like a clean tablet on which nothing is written, as the philosopher⁶¹ says.”⁶² Again, “although the intellect is superior to the senses, nevertheless in a manner it receives from the senses, and its first and principal objects are founded in sensible things.”⁶³ Nevertheless, the mind has an innate, a priori capacity to know, otherwise it would be impossible for it to know even first principles. This ability rests in what Aquinas calls agent (active) intellect.

The Need for the Agent Intellect

In order to arise from sensation, which provides as such only a knowledge of singulars, to a knowledge of universal principles, it is necessary to have the action of something that is superior to sensation as the universal is superior to the individual. Such is the agent intellect. “Truth is not entirely from the senses. For the light of the agent intellect is needed, through which we know the truth of changeable things unchangeably, and discern things themselves from their likeness.”⁶⁴ Aquinas further describes the role of the agent intellect as follows: “The possible intellect cannot have actual knowledge of principles except through the active intellect. For the knowledge of principles is received from sensible things …. But intelligibles cannot be received from sensible things except through the abstraction of the active intellect.”⁶⁵

In summary, then, the whole process of knowing first principles is this: “For the first principles become known by the natural light of the active intellect itself; they are not acquired through reasoning, but only through this … that their terms become known. Which comes about by this [process]: memory is taken from sensible things, and experience is taken from memory, and knowledge of those terms is derived from experience; and when these [terms] are known, common propositions of this kind become known which are the principles of the arts and sciences.”⁶⁶

First Principles Arise from Judgments, Not Apprehensions

It should not be thought that the mind apprehends (first act of the intellect) first principles by abstracting their nature from sensible things. Properly speaking, first principles, as well as other knowledge, are to be found in judgments (second act of the intellect). “The human intellect must of necessity understand by composition and division [judgment].” It “does not acquire perfect knowledge of a thing by the first apprehension; but it first apprehends something of the thing, such as the quiddity, which is the first and proper object of the intellect; and then it understands the properties, accidents, and various dispositions affecting the essence. Thus it necessarily relates one thing with another by composition or division; and from one composition and division it necessarily proceeds to another, and this is reasoning.”⁶⁷

“For the perfection of the intellect is truth as known. Therefore, properly speaking, truth resides in the intellect composing and dividing; and not in the sense, nor in the intellect knowing what a thing is. But the intellect can know its own conformity with the intelligible thing; yet it does not apprehend it by knowing of a thing what a thing is. When, however, it judges that a thing corresponds to the form which it apprehends about that thing, then it first knows and expresses truth. This it does by composing and dividing.”⁶⁸

The intellectual knowledge of first principles rests in judgment made about the objects of sensible knowledge. First, by way of sensation and abstraction the intellect apprehends that things are and something of what they are. Then, by way of judgment the mind knows that being is and non-being is not. From these judgments arises the first principle of knowledge that “being is not nonbeing,” which is the principle of non-contradiction.

An Epistemological Problem

Out of a study of first principles, their certainty, and our certitude of them, there are posed several problems for a Thomistic theory of knowledge. Three of them will be briefly considered here.

How Can First Principles Be Known from Sensation?

“It may be objected that according to Aristotle [Posterior analytics, I, c. 13], the universal judgment from which all deductions proceed can be known only by an induction. And even St. Thomas might be thought to support this view [Posterior analytics, I, lect. 29].”⁶⁹ This is the problem that was later accentuated by Hume and the empiricists: if all knowledge begins in sensation, if the mind is a tabula rasa at birth, if we have no innate ideas, then how can our knowledge ever rise above the flux of empirical experience? Only flux can come from flux!

The answer, of course, is the agent intellect, which enables us to get more out of the data of sense than sense data. “In every man there is a certain principle of knowledge, namely the light of the agent intellect, through which certain universal principles of all the sciences are naturally understood as soon as proposed to the intellect.”⁷⁰ Although all knowledge begins in sensation, it is not limited to sensible knowledge.⁷¹ What the mind knows by sensation is not merely its sensations but the essence of things in and through the sensations by the activity of the agent intellect. In fact, “there is nothing in the intellect that has not first been in sense, except intellect itself.”⁷²

In What Sense are First Principles “Natural” Knowledge?

Aquinas refers to the knowledge of first principles as “natural“ and “not by acquisition.”⁷³ Yet if these general principles must be known first in order to know anything at all, and if ultimately they find their origin, like all knowledge, in the senses, are we not arguing in a vicious circle? Are we not driven to accept either the Platonic theory of innate knowledge or Locke’s argument that the principles are not known first at all and do not serve as the foundation of any other knowledge? As a matter of fact, Aquinas even uses the word “innate” of first principles. “The first principles of which we have innate cognition are certain likenesses of uncreated truth. When we judge about other things through these likenesses, we are said to judge about things through unchangeable principles or through uncreated truth.”⁷⁴

Elsewhere, first principles are said to be acquired by a “natural habit,”⁷⁵ a “natural inclination,”⁷⁶ as “divinely instilled in us by God.”⁷⁷ We are said to have natural knowledge of first principles⁷⁸ or an understanding of first principles that “follows human nature itself “⁷⁹ Aquinas speaks of the mind being “naturally endowed” with principles “not known by investigation” but which are “bestowed on us by nature.”⁸⁰

All of this stress on “natural“ and “innate” would seem to be quite contrary to the clear assertion that all knowledge begins in the senses. How can it be both a posteriori and yet innate? Gilson answers this problem by noting that “these pre-formed germs of which we have natural knowledge are the first principles …. To say that they preexist, does not mean that the intellect possesses them actually, independently of the action which bodies exercise on our soul; it simply means that they are the first intelligibles which our intellect can reach in starting from sensible experience. The intellection of these principles is no more innate than the conclusions of deductive arguments, but whereas we discover the former naturally, we have to reach the latter by an effort of search.”⁸¹

Other commentators are not so sure that this is all that Aquinas means by these statements on our natural inclination to truth. Sullivan suggests that “innate” and “natural” knowledge may also mean that first principles are regulative principles in all intellectual processes, and that they are in the mind when it begins to act.⁸² They do not precede consciousness but they are there in our nature when we begin to act and have God as their Exemplar Cause.

What Is the Precondition for Knowing First Principles?

The answer to the first two epistemological problems has given rise to a third, namely, if it is necessary to posit the agent intellect and a natural inclination to truth to account for the certitude about first principles, then how can we account for the agent intellect’s ability to recognize first principles or for our natural appetite for truth? Is this saying that the intellect unconsciously uses first principles (from the moment it begins to act) to come to a conscious knowledge of first principles? That is, are first principles the very categories of thought (to borrow a Kantian term) that are impressed upon our nature by God and with which we are able to think about things? There is a sense in which Aquinas gives an affirmative answer to this question. For first principles are the very structure of the rational by which the real is known and hence the intellect by virtue of its very nature is predisposed to truth.

Sullivan seems to make this point: “The person who makes the sense judgment is not explicitly aware of these principles at the time, but they may be easily and instantly elicited from him by questioning. Hence he may be said to possess principles virtually or habitually, from the beginning of his cognitive life. This is what is meant by saying that first principles ‘come by nature, and are known naturally.”⁸³

If we take seriously what Aquinas says about “natural inclination” he would seem to be holding a form of realism, somewhere between an intuitionism and a pure empiricism. He says, for example, “to say that a natural inclination is not well regulated, is to derogate from the author of nature …. In the same way, the truth of natural knowledge is of one kind, and the truth of infused or acquired knowledge is of another.”⁸⁴

Natural knowledge is neither “infused” a priori nor “acquired” a posteriori. It is known naturally because we have the natural capacity or “form” for it. Aquinas defines natural inclination this way: “Each power of the soul is a form of nature, and has a natural inclination to something. Hence, each power desires, by natural appetite, that object which is suitable to itself.”⁸⁵

Furthermore, this inclination is not voluntary but is impressed upon its very nature by God. “Every inclination of anything, whether natural or voluntary, is nothing but an impulse received from the archer. Hence, every agent, whether natural or voluntary, attains to its divinely appointed end, as though of its own accord.”⁸⁶ It is described as a “natural appetite,” which again shows that it is part of our very nature to tend to the truth of first principles. “Natural appetite is that inclination which each thing has, of its own nature, for something; wherefore by its natural appetite each power desires what is suitable to itself.”⁸⁷

Aquinas makes a significant contribution to epistemology. By a unique synthesis, he unites both the a priori and a posteriori elements of knowledge. Humans have an innate, natural capacity or form for the truth of first principles that is ingrained into their very nature by God. They have first principles in a kind of virtual and natural way as a precondition of all cognitive activity. And when this innate capacity is filled with the content of sense experience, we are able by conscious reflection to come to a knowledge of the very first principles, which as a fundamental part of our nature, enable us to have a consciousness of them.⁸⁸ That is to say, we can only know first principles if we are exercising first principles to know them, otherwise, we would have no means by which they could be known. We have them by way of operation before we know them by way of consciousness.

Notes

Thomas Aquinas, Peri Hermeneias, I, lect. 8.
Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, trans. John P. Rowan (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1961), 244.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la. 33, 1.
Ibid.
L. M. Regis, Epistemology (New York: Macmillan, 1946), 378.
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la2ae. 66, 5, ad 4.
Ibid., la. 33, ad 3.
James Bacon Sullivan, An Examination of First Principles in Thought and Being in the Light of Aristotle and Aquinas (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1939), p. 235.
Thomas Aquinas, Metaphysics, V, lect. 11, n. 912; WI, leer. 17, n. 1652; Sent., I, 19, 1, 1, ad 2.
Regis, Epistemology, 395.
Ibid., 388-89.
T. Aquinas, Metaphysics, IV, lects. 6-17; XI, 5-7.
T. Aquinas, Peri Hermeneias, I, lect. 11, n. 5.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, II, 15.
Aquinas never refers to the so-called principle of sufficient reason. According to some scholastic philosophers, however, he uses it in his “Third Way” when he argues from contingency to necessity (Sullivan, Examination of First Principles, p. 80). Others say that it is an epistemological aspect of the principle of contradiction. Regis, for example, says: “But the principle of raison d’etre, or sufficient reason, is nothing but the thing’s capacity to account for itself to human reason . . to be intelligible and understood …. However, the unintelligible has no raison d’etre, guarantees nothing, therefore is the foundation for no truth, however small” (Epistemology, p. 390). Leibnitz originated the phrase “sufficient reason” in his Theodicae (I, n. 44) and defended it, when challenged, in his Fifth Letter to Mr. Samuel Clarke (n. 125). Sullivan considers it to be broader than the principle of contradiction since the latter applies only to finite contingent being whereas “sufficient reason” applies to God. It says only that “everything must have a sufficient reason” (whether in itself or another). Causality, on the other hand, demands that every contingent being does not have a sufficient reason for its existence in itself but must find its cause in another. Sufficient reason, says Sullivan, tells us that there is a reason; causality shows us where it is (Examination of First Principles, pp. 80-83).
Thomas Aquinas, De potentia, II, I. c; Sent., II, 34, 1, 3.
Regis, Epistemology, p. 402.
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la2ae. 6, 1, ad 1.
T. Aquinas, Metaphysics, IV, c. 3, 10056.
See his Elements of Philosophy, vol 2.
Sullivan, Examination of First Principles, 58.
T. Aquinas, Metaphysics, IV, c. (1005b).
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I a2ae. 94, 2.
According to Sullivan, those scholastic philosophers who contend for the primacy of identity over non-contradiction “use quotations from St. Thomas favoring the primacy of the principle of Contradiction to confirm their contentions, and maintain that it is the same thing as the principle of Identity” (Examination of First Principles, p. 56). Sullivan traces the influence of the primacy of identity among philosophers to Sir William Hamilton (Lectures on Logic [1886]).

Regis observes that since Kant and the rule of the mathematic method, identity has had primacy. This is an exaltation rooted in a philosophical idealism that denies the concrete and makes existential being the starting point for philosophical reflection (Epistemology, p. 391). Along this same line Sullivan notes that even Descartes‘ cogito ergo sum depends on noncontradiction for its certainty because “consciousness can be doubted as well as any other source of knowledge. Moreover, even the judgment ‘I think’ presupposes the principle of Contradiction, for in making it one presupposes that one cannot at that time be not thinking; if one could, this judgment would be useless as a principle of further knowledge” (Examination of First Principles, p. 40).

Ibid., 96.
T. Aquinas, Metaphysics, IV,c.4 (1006a).
Ibid., IV, lect. 2.
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1a58, 4.
Sullivan, Examination of First Principles, 26.
T. Aquinas, Metaphysics, XI, lect. 4.
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la. 17, 3, ad 2.
See Regis, Epistemology, 374.
See Sullivan, Examination of First Principles, 121-22.
T. Aquinas, Summa theolagiae, la2ae. 2, 10, ad 2.
Ibid., la2ae. 17, 7.
T. Aquinas, Physics, lect. 10, n. 5.
T. Aquinas, Sent., III, 27, 1, 2, c.
T. Aquinas, Peri Hermeneias, I, lect. 8, nn. 11, 15.
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la2ae. 105, 2, ad 8.
Cardinal John Newman speaks of a series of converging probabilities that can yield certainty and demand assent (Grammar of Assent [London: Longmans, Green, 1987], 72), butAquinas does not speak of rational certitude in this sense.
Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Man’s Knowledge of Reality: An Introduction to Thomistic Epistemology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1956), 171.
Ibid., pp. 172-73.
T. Aquinas, Peri Hermeneias, I, lect. 8, nn. 8,19-21.
T. Aquinas, De anima, III, lect. 4, n. 624; cf. Summa contra Gentiles, I, 4.
Wilhelmsen, Man’s Knowledge of Reality, 179.
T. Aquinas, De veritate, XIV, 1, c.
Wilhelmsen, Man’s Knowledge of Reality, 157.
T. Aquinas, Physics, lect. 10, n. 5.
Wilhelmsen, Man’s Knowledge of Reality, 419.
Sullivan, Examination of First Principles,30.
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la. 85, 5, ad 3.
Ibid., la. 16, 1.
Thomas Aquinas, Existence and Analogy (New York: Longmans, 1945), 45.
See Fernand Van Steenberghen, Epistemology (New York: Wagner, 1949), for further elaboration of this view.
Wilhelmsen, Man’s Knowledge of Reality, 40.
Ibid.
Ibid., 41.
Sullivan, Examination of First Principles, 98.
R. Garrigou-Lagrange, God: His Existence and His Nature (St. Louis, Mo.: Herder, 1945), vol. 1, 117.
T. Aquinas, De Trinitate, V, 4, c.
Aristotle, De anima, III, 4 (430a 1).
T. Aquinas, Summa theologise, la. 79,2.
Ibid., la. 84, 8, ad 1.
Ibid., la. 84, 6, ad 1.
Aristotle, De anima, III, 4, ad 6.
T. Aquinas, Metaphysics, IV, lect. 6, c 599.
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la. 85, 5.
Ibid., la. 16, 2.
Sullivan, Examination of First Principles, p. 21.
Regis, Epistemology, 376.
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la. 84, 6, ad 1.
Etienne Gilson, The Unity of Philosophical Experience (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965), 308.
T. Aquinas, Metaphysics, IV, lect. 6, 2 (476B).
T. Aquinas, De veritate, 10, 6, ad 6.
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la2ae. 51, 1.
Ibid., la. 103, 8; 80, 1, ad 3; 77, 3; 78, 1, ad 3.
T. Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, I, 7; III, 47; Summa Theologiae, I, 105, 3.
T. Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Job, lect. 3.
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la2ae. 5, 4, ad 3.
Ibid., la. 79, 12.
Etienne Gilson, The Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (St. Louis, Mo.: Herder, 1937), 246.
Sullivan, Examination of First Principles, 136.
Ibid., 33.
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la. 60, 1, ad 3.
Ibid., la. 80, 1, ad 3; cf. 77, 3; 78, 1, ad 3.
Ibid., la. 103, 8.
Ibid., la. 78, 1, ad 3.

By Christopher on Uncategorized

How do we know the Bible is the Word of God?

Christians claim the Bible is God’s Word. That means that they believe the Bible is a verbal revelation from God that makes it unique from every other book. But how can such a claim be verified?

First, we would expect certain things to be true about a book from God. Such characteristics might also be true about humanly-authored books, but we would expect that, at the very least, they would be true about God’s book. Such characteristics would include the following:

It would claim to be God’s Word.
It would be historically accurate when it speaks on historical matters.
Its authors would be trustworthy.
It would be thematically unified and without contradictions.
We would have received accurate copies of the original manuscripts.

Second, because God is unique, His book would bear characteristics that could be true of it alone. Such characteristics would distinguish God’s book from all other books in such a way that it could not be counterfeited. These characteristics would include the following:

It would make statements that would reveal knowledge about the way things work beyond the knowledge of its day.
It would make predictions about the future that could not be known through natural means.
The message would be unique.
The messengers would be confirmed by miracles.
The words would have a transforming power.

Now let’s look at the characteristics listed to see if they are true about the Bible.

Characteristics That Must Be True of God’s Word, But Could Also Be True of a Human Book

1. The Bible Claims to Be God’s Word

The Authors Claimed to Speak God’s Words Much of the Bible was written by prophets of God. The prophet was someone who was to say exactly what God told him to say, no more and no less. Jeremiah was commanded:

“This is what the LORD says: Stand in the courtyard of the LORD’s house and speak to all the people…Tell them everything I command you; do not omit a word” (Jer. 26:2). The prophet was to speak “everything the LORD had said” (Ex. 4:30).

Throughout the Scriptures, moreover, the authors, whether they were called prophets or not, claimed to be under the direction of the Holy Spirit: “Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21; cf., 2 Sam. 23:2; Matt. 22:43).

The Bible Claims to Be “Breathed Out” By God Writing about the entire Old Testament, the apostle Paul declared: “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16; emphasis added). Jesus described the Scriptures as the very “word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4; emphasis added).

C. The New Testament Was Seen As Being Revealed Scripture As Well

When the New Testament authors used the word “Scripture” they usually had the Old Testament in mind, since the New Testament was still in the process of being written. Nevertheless, they were also well aware that Jesus had told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would continue the process of inspiring new Scripture (John 14:26; 16:13). Paul, for example, understood that his writings were “words taught by the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:13; see also Gal. 1:11-12; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 3:15-16), and he taught that God was continuing the process of revelation in others as well (Eph. 3:4-5).

What the Bible Says, God Says, and Vice Versa Another way the Bible claims to be the Word of God is expressed in the formula, “What God says, the Bible says.” This is manifested in the fact that often an Old Testament passage will claim God said it, yet when this same text is cited in the New Testament it asserts that “the Scriptures” said it. The reverse is true as well: What the Bible says, God says. The chart below cites only two of many examples.

What God Says…	The Bible Says.
“The LORD said to Abram, ‘…all peoples on earth will be blessed through you’” (Genesis 12:1, 3).	“The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you’” (Galatians 3:8).

What the Bible Says…	God Says.
“Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?” (Psalms 2:1, written by David).	“You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: ‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?’” (Acts 4:25).

The Biblical Writers Claim “Thus Said the Lord” Phrases like “thus says the Lord” (Isa. 1:11,18; Jer. 2:3,5; etc.), “God said” (Gen. 1:3,6; etc.), “the Word of the Lord came to me” (Jer. 34:1; Eze. 30:1; etc.) and other similar phrases occur hundreds of times in the Old Testament. Their significance is that the writer is claiming to be giving the very Word of God.

The Bible is also spoken of as being “the Word of God.” For example, Jesus told the Jews of His day: “Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:6, emphasis added). Paul speaks of the Jews as having “been entrusted with the very words of God” (Rom. 3:2, emphasis added; see also Heb. 4:12).

F. The Bible Claims to Have Divine Authority in All Its Parts

The Bible claims to be divinely authoritative with respect to all that is written within it (2 Tim. 3:16). That includes its very words (Matt. 22:43; 1 Cor. 2:13; Gal. 3:16), the tenses of the verbs (Matt. 22:32; Jesus draws significance from the present tense of ‘I am’) and even to the smallest parts of the words (Matt. 5:17, 18). Even though the Bible was not verbally dictated by God to the authors, nevertheless, the result is just as perfect as if it had been. For the biblical authors claimed that God is the source of the very words of Scripture, since He supernaturally superintended the process by which they wrote but still used their own vocabulary and style: “but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).

G. Christ Testified That the Bible Is from God Jesus had an extremely high view of Scripture. For example,

He said, “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4).
He said that the Bible is imperishable (Matt. 5:17-18).
He asserted that the Bible cannot be broken, or fail in its purpose (John 10:35).
He affirmed the ultimate supremacy of the authority of the Bible over human tradition (Matt. 15:3,6).
He considered the Bible to be without error (Matt. 22:29; John 17:17).
He considered the Bible to be historically reliable (Matt. 12:40; 24:37-38).

2. The Bible Is Historically Accurate

The Bible is not merely a book containing theological teachings that are unrelated to history, but the theological statements of Scripture are closely linked to historical events. For example, Paul maintained that if Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead was not an historical fact, then our faith is futile (1 Cor. 15:17). Scriptural characters, like Paul, were not a group of gullible religious people who were ready to believe anything that came along.

The history given in the Bible has been confirmed by archaeology to a remarkable degree. Noted archaeologist,

Nelson Glueck, states,

It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.
Glueck, 31, emphasis added

Archaeologist Millar Burrows notes that “more than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine” (Burrows, 1, emphasis added).

William Ramsay is one such example of an archaeologist who went from believing that the Bible contained fabricated myths to believing that the Bible was not only accurate historically but that it was the Word of God.

Earlier in his life Ramsay had been influenced by a liberal theology, which taught that the writers of the Bible were more interested in promoting a biased theological perspective than in accurately recording history. In the course of his studies, however, Ramsay was surprised to find extensive archaeological evidence for the accuracy of the biblical narratives. One thing that impressed Ramsay about Luke, the writer of Acts, was his accuracy with respect to ostensibly insignificant details. For example, Luke accurately names the rulers of Thessalonica “politrarchs,” Gallio the “Proconsul of Achaea,” the official in Ephesus a “temple warden,” the governor of Cyprus a “proconsul” and the chief official in Malta “the first man of the island.” Such titles have since been confirmed in numerous Greek and Latin inscriptions.

What Ramsay began to realize was that the Bible was not mythical, but that it was a document that recorded history with extreme accuracy. He wrote, “Luke is an historian of the first rank” (Wilson, 114). And if the Bible was accurate in its historical details, then he considered there to be a good chance that the biblical authors could be trusted to accurately relate the spiritual significance of the historical events as well.

3. The Trustworthiness of the Biblical Authors

As we saw in point 1, the biblical authors claimed to be receiving their messages from God. Now, if the biblical writers were known perjurers, there would be no reason to accept their claim. But they were honest men of integrity, which lends support to the credibility of their claim of having been inspired by God. Their honesty and integrity is evident by the following things.

First, they taught the highest standard of ethics, including the obligation to always tell the truth: “Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor” (Eph. 4:25; see also Ex. 20:16; Ps. 15:2; Rev. 22:15).

Second, the writers of the Bible paid a high price for their truthfulness. For example, Peter and the eleven apostles (Acts 5), as well as Paul (Acts 28), were all imprisoned. Most were eventually martyred for their witness for Christ (2 Timothy 4:6-8; 2 Peter 1:14). Indeed, being “faithful, even to the point of death” was an earmark of early Christian conviction (Revelation 2:10).

People sometimes die for what they believe to be true and isn’t. But few are willing to die for what they know to be false. Yet the biblical witnesses died for the truth they proclaimed, believing that their message had come from God. While not being proof, such evidence is an indication that the Bible is what the biblical writers claimed it to be—the Word of God.

4. The Testimony of the Amazing Unity of the Bible The Bible is amazing in its unity amid vast diversity. Even though the Bible was composed by many persons of diverse backgrounds and different time periods, nevertheless it manifests a unity that would indicate there was one Mind behind its writing.

Consider the diversity of the Bible. The Bible:

was written over a period of some fifteen hundred years or more (from at least 1400 B.C. to nearly A.D.100), • is composed of 66 different books,
was written by some 40 different authors,
was composed in three languages—Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic,
contains discussions on hundreds of different topics,
was written in a variety of different literary styles, including historical, poetic, didactic, parabolic, allegorical, apocalyptic, and epic,
was composed by authors of many different occupations.

Yet in spite of all this vast diversity, the Bible reveals an amazing unity. First, it is one, continuous unfolding drama of redemption from Genesis to Revelation; from paradise lost to paradise regained; from the creation of all things to the consummation of all things (Sauer, The Dawn of World Redemption and The Triumph of the Crucified).

Second, the Bible has one central theme—the Person of Jesus Christ (Luke 24:27). In the Old Testament, Christ is seen by way of anticipation; in the New Testament by way of realization. In the Old Testament He is predicted, and in the New Testament He is present (Matt. 5:17-18). The Old Testament expectation of Christ came to a historical realization in the New Testament.

Third, from beginning to end the Bible has one unified message: humanity’s problem is sin (Gen. 6:5; Rom. 3:23), and the solution is salvation through Christ (Luke 19:10; Mark 10:45).

Such incredible unity amidst such great diversity is best accounted for by a God who stands outside time and history and who was therefore able to direct the writing of the Bible. The very same Mind that the writers of Scripture claimed to have inspired them also appears to have superintended them, weaving each of their pieces into one overall mosaic of truth.

To highlight the incredible unity of the Bible by way of contrast, suppose that a book containing family medical advice was composed by 40 doctors over 1500 years, in different languages, on hundreds of different medical topics, etc. What kind of unity would it have, even if all the succeeding authors knew what the preceding ones had written? One chapter would say all disease is caused by demons that need to be exorcised. Another would claim that disease is in the blood, which needs to be drained out. Still another would claim disease is psychosomatic—mind over matter. Such a book would lack unity, continuity, and no one would seriously consider it a definitive source to answer what is the cause and cure of disease.

Yet the Bible, with even greater diversity in the topics addressed, is the world’s perennial best seller and is sought by multiplied millions as the solution to humanity’s spiritual problems. It alone, of all books known to humankind, needs the Deity to account for its amazing unity in the midst of such diversity.

5. The Documents We Possess Are Accurate Copies of the Originals

In 1948, Bedouin shepherds discovered Old Testament manuscripts in the Qumran caves near the Dead Sea. These manuscripts had been hidden for 2,000 years. They serve as a control by which to gauge the accuracy of the manuscripts that had been copied during the time that they were hidden in the caves.

What did the scholars find when they compared the Qumran manuscripts with the present-day copies? Millar Burrows, who wrote a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls, said,

It is a matter of wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration.
Geisler, 1986, 366-367

Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer wrote concerning the two copies of the book of Isaiah found in the caves,

“[they] proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text. The 5% variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling” (Geisler, 1986, 367).

Thus, we can say with assurance that those who copied the text of the books of the Old Testament did so with great care.

What about the textual accuracy of the New Testament? The degree of accuracy of the New Testament exceeds 99%, which is greater than that of any other book from the ancient world (see Geisler, 1986, ch. 22). The reasons for this amazing accuracy are that, with respect to the Bible, the number of New Testament manuscripts that we have is greater than for other books from the ancient world, and the biblical manuscripts are much closer in time to the originals than those of other works from ancient times. Consider the chart below.

It must be clarified that Christians claim that God inspired, or “breathed out,” the text of the original manuscripts, not everything in the copies. The copies are without error only in so far as they were copied correctly. It is nevertheless true that the copies were copied with great care and a very high degree of accuracy. Christians believe that God in His providence preserved the copies from all substantial error.

There are, however, some minor copyist variants in the biblical manuscripts. It is important, though, to note of these copyist variants that:

Such variants are relatively rare in the copied manuscripts;
In most cases we know which one is wrong from the context or the parallel passages;
In no case do the variants affect any doctrine of Scripture;
The variants actually vouch for the accuracy of the copying process, since the scribes who copied them knew there were variants in the manuscripts, still they were duty-bound to copy what the text said;
The variants don’t affect the message of the Bible.

In fact, one must make a distinction between the text and its message, for one can receive a text with variants and still receive 100% of the message. For example, suppose you receive a message from Western Union as follows:

#ou have won seven million dollars.

No doubt you would gladly pick up your money. And if the telegram read this way, then you would have no doubt at all about its message:

Y#u have won seven million dollars.
Yo# have won seven million dollars.
You #ave won seven million dollars.

Why are we more sure of the message when there are more variants? Because each variant is in a different place, and with each new line we get another confirmation of every other letter in the original message.

Three things are important to note:

Even with one line—variant and all—100 percent of the message comes through.
The more lines, the more variants. But the more variants, the more sure we are of what the intended message really was.
There are hundreds of times more biblical manuscripts than there are lines in the above example. And there is a greater percentage of variants in this telegram than in all the biblical manuscripts combined.

Characteristics That Could Be

True Only of God’s Word

1. Scientific Knowledge Before Its Time

One of the amazing things about the Bible is that it makes scientifically accurate statements about the body, the earth, and the heavens that predate their discoveries by usually 2,0003,000 years. Moreover, such scientific statements were made in the midst of cultures that were largely superstitious and not scientific in their approach.

A. The Body

In the 1840s, there was a one in six rate of a pregnant woman dying from “childbirth fever” after entering a particular hospital in Vienna, Austria. Ignaz Semmelweis, one of the doctors, noticed that their deaths were not random, but that the patients had been examined by doctors who had just autopsied victims of “childbirth fever.” So Dr. Semmelweis implemented a policy that all doctors must wash their hands after doing autopsies. As a result, the mortality rate among pregnant women dropped dramatically to one in eighty-four. But instead of Dr. Semmelweis receiving accolades, the other doctors failed to see the connection, and considered the constant washing of hands to be a bother. Dr. Semmelweis was ostracized and eventually left Vienna to practice medicine in Budapest, where the same story repeated itself (Cairney, “Prescience 2,” 137-142).

What is significant about Dr. Semmelweis’s story is that the cleanliness laws set down by God through Moses predated by 3,500 years the principles of washing to prevent the spread of disease. Moses wrote:

“For the unclean person [someone who has touched a dead person or animal], put some ashes from the burned purification offering into a jar and pour fresh water over them…. The person being cleansed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and that evening he will be clean” (Num. 19:17,19).

Such a statement assumes a knowledge about how that which is unseen to the naked eye—germs and bacteria—are responsible for spreading disease. But such knowledge was not discovered until the 1800s! Moreover, washing was not a common practice in the surrounding cultures at the time of Moses (Cairney, “Prescience 2,” 129).

B. The Earth

The following are physical phenomena mentioned in the Bible that not only went against the wisdom of the surrounding cultures at the time but that also predate the earliest scientific discoveries of such phenomena by usually 2,000-3,000 years:

The ocean floor contains deep valleys (2 Sam. 22:16; Job 38:16; Ps. 18:15) and towering mountains (Jonah 2:6). The ancients thought the ocean floor was “flat, sandy, and bowl-like” (Barfield, 170).
The ocean contains underwater springs (see Gen. 7:11; Job 38:16; Prov. 8:28). The other civilizations believed the ocean was fed only by rain and rivers (Barfield, 171).
Moses wrote, “For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused” (Ex. 23:10). Allowing the ground to lie fallow every seventh year was not a custom in the nonbiblical cultures. It is a practice, however, that scientists have since discovered was way ahead of its time (Cairney, “Prescience 1,” 134).

C. The Heavens

One of the amazing things about the Bible, when it comes to statements about the heavens, is the errors that the biblical writers did not make, even though such errors were common beliefs in the surrounding cultures. The biblical writers…

Did not consider the stars to be near us and fixed in their positions. Genesis 1:8, 14-17 speaks of the heavens as an “expanse,” which literally means “spreading out.” Jeremiah implies that the heavens cannot be measured (31:37; Barfield, 102).
Did not consider the heavens to have existed from eternity, but taught that they had a beginning (Gen. 1:1).

The biblical statements about the heavens are common assumptions today, but they were anything but common in the days when the books of the Bible were penned.

2. The Supernatural Predictions of the Biblical Prophets

Unlike any other book in the world, the Bible is the only one to offer specific predictions hundreds of years in advance that were literally fulfilled. In some cases very different prophecies were made—and then fulfilled—about cities that were relatively close to each other. The following is only one of several possible examples.

A. Memphis and Thebes:

The prophet Ezekiel wrote in the sixth century B.C.:

“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: ‘I will destroy the idols and put an end to the images in Memphis…I will…inflict punishment on Thebes. I will…cut off the hordes of Thebes”
Eze. 30:13-15

Both Memphis and Thebes were destroyed hundreds of years after Ezekiel’s prophecy. What is most significant, though, is that the idols were removed entirely from Memphis but they were not removed from Thebes, just as Ezekiel had predicted. (Bloom, 179-181).

B. The Coming Of Christ

Many of the Bible’s predictions center around the coming of Christ. Consider the following predictions, made centuries in advance, that said the Messiah would:

be from the seed of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 22:18; cf., Matt.

1:1; Gal. 3:16),

be of the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10; cf., Luke 3:33; Heb.

7:14),

be of the house of David (2 Sam. 7:12f; cf., Matt. 1:1),
be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14; cf., Matt. 1:21f),
be born in the city of Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2; cf., Matt. 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7),
be anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isa. 11:2; cf., Matt. 3:16-17),
perform miracles (Isa. 35:5-6; cf., Matt. 9:35),
be rejected by the Jews (Ps. 118:22; cf., 1 Peter 2:7),
die a humiliating death (Ps. 22; Isa. 53:3; cf., Luke 9:22) at about 33 A.D. (Dan. 9:24f),
be rejected by His own people (Isa. 53:3; cf., John 1:10-11;

7:5, 48),

be silenced before His accusers (Isa. 53:7; cf., Matt. 27:12-19),
be mocked (Ps. 22:7-8; cf., Matt. 27:31),
be pierced in His hands and feet (Ps. 22:16; cf., John 20:25),
be put to death with thieves (Isa. 53:12; cf., Luke 23:33),
pray for His persecutors (Isa. 53:12; cf., Luke 23:34),
be pierced in His side (Zech. 12:10; cf., John 19:34),
be buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isa.53:9; cf., Matt. 27:5760),
have people casting lots for His garments (Ps. 22:18; cf., John 19:23-24)
rise from the dead (Ps. 16:10; cf., Acts 2:31; Mark 16:6).

Note several unique features about the biblical prophecies, in contrast to all other examples of attempted predictions today. First, unlike many psychic predictions, many of these prophecies were very specific, giving, for example, the very name of the tribe, city, and time of Christ’s coming.

Second, unlike the forecasting found in the tabloids at the check-out counter, none of these predictions failed.

Third, since these prophecies were written hundreds of years before Christ was born, no one could have been reading the trends of the times or just made intelligent guesses.

Fourth, many of these predictions were beyond human ability to force a fulfillment. For example, as a mere human being, Christ had no control over when, where, or how He would be born, how He would die (considering others were responsible for His death), or rise from the dead.

The best explanation for the fulfillment of such predictions made hundreds of years earlier is the existence of a transcendent God who knows all things, including “the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10).

Skeptics sometimes claim equal authority for predictions from psychics. But there is a quantum leap between the fallible human prognosticators and the unerring prophets of Scripture. Indeed, one of the tests of the false prophets was whether their predictions came to pass (Deut. 18:22). Those whose predictions failed were killed by stoning (v. 20)—a practice that no doubt caused serious pause in any who were not absolutely sure their messages were from God! Amid hundreds of prophecies, biblical prophets are not known to have made a single error. By comparison, a study made of top psychics revealed that they were wrong 92% of the time (Kole, 69-70)! Jean Dixon, for example, predicted that Jacqueline Kennedy would not remarry, but she married Aristotle Onassis the next day (Kole, 70).

3. The Uniqueness of the Biblical Message

Romans 6:23 encapsulates the uniqueness of the biblical message: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

A. Spiritual Death

The Christian Gospel begins with the message that the spiritual condition of humanity is hopeless in that humanity is spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1). In this, Christianity is unique.

Other religions acknowledge that there is something spiritually wrong with humanity, but they also hold out the hope that we are somehow fixable through some form of human effort. According to the Bible, however, we are not fixable through our own effort. Just as physically dead people can’t give life to themselves, so there is no way we who are spiritually dead can give life to ourselves (Eph. 2:8-9).

Our being spiritually dead, moreover, is related to God being absolutely holy. God will not allow sin in His presence: “with you the wicked cannot dwell” (Ps. 5:4). The problem is that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23).

B. Eternal Life

Even though the news about humanity’s spiritual condition is terribly bad, God has given us tremendously good news. That good news is that we can have the assurance of eternal life. Such eternal life is not merely some continued existence after death on a spiritual plane, but it is fellowship with God Himself (John 17:3). No other religion promises to draw us as close to God as does the Gospel of Christ (Heb. 4:16). Such fellowship with God, moreover, can begin now.

Plus, no other religion can confirm the hope of eternal life like Christianity, because Jesus Christ is the only founder of a religion who has bodily risen from the dead.

C. A Gift

The Christian Gospel is also unique because the gift of eternal life is entirely free. A gift is not a gift if it is earned; it can only be received. The means by which to receive God’s gift is, first, to acknowledge our need for life, since our sin has caused our spiritual death; and, second, to trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ, who paid the penalty of sin—death—on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21).

The offer of the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ is the core message of the Bible, and it sets the Bible apart from all other books in all of history.

4. The Miraculous Confirmation of the Biblical Witnesses

The biblical prophets claimed to receive their message from

God. Of course, as even the Bible admits, there are false prophets (Matt. 7:15). This is why the Bible exhorts us: “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). One of the sure ways a true prophet can be distinguished from a false one is by miracles (Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3-4). A miracle is an act of God, and God would not supernaturally confirm a false prophet to be a true one. When Moses was called of God, for example, he was given miracles to prove that he spoke for God (Ex. 4:1f).

Miracles were an earmark of Jesus’ ministry (Acts 2:22), as they were of other prophets and apostles (Heb. 2:3-4; 2 Cor. 12:12). When asked by John the Baptist if he was the Messiah, Jesus cited his miracles, such as making the blind to see, the lame to walk, the lepers to be healed, the deaf to hear, and the dead raised to life (Luke 7:20-22). Nicodemus, one of the Jewish religious leaders, acknowledged such miracles (John 3:2).

Miracles, then, are a divine confirmation of a prophet’s claim to be speaking for God. But of all the world’s religious leaders, only the Judeo-Christian prophets and apostles were supernaturally confirmed by genuine miracles of nature that could not possibly have been psychosomatic or trickery. For example, they turned water into wine (John 2), instantaneously cured organic sickness in people (John 5), multiplied the number of loaves of bread for a huge crowd (John 6), walked on water (John 6), immediately cured one who had been born blind (John 9), and raised the dead (John 11).

Significantly, even though Muhammad acknowledged how the prophets before him were confirmed by miraculous signs (Surahs 3:184; 17:103; 23:45), he refused to perform similar miracles when challenged by unbelievers (Surahs 2:118; 4:153; 6:8, 9, 37).

Only the Bible has been supernaturally confirmed to be the Word of God by special acts of God (see Geisler, 1994, chs. 8-9).

5. The Testimony of the Transforming Power of the Bible

The writer of the book of Hebrews declared,

“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).

There is indeed something “living and active” and “penetrating” about the Bible that is different from any other book. The Bible rings with the chords of truth, and it speaks to the hearts of men and women. It has changed the lives of millions of people. Of course, whether or not the Bible speaks to one’s heart is a personal matter, but that does not make it any less significant.

Our challenge to you is, if you have not read the Bible, try it. A good place to begin is with the book of John, which is in the New Testament portion of the Bible. The book of John was written “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ …and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).

Conclusion

We have seen that the Bible has met the criteria that supports its claim for being the Word of God. With respect to the criteria that could also be said about a humanly-authored book, the Bible claims to be the Word of God, it is historically accurate, its authors were trustworthy, it is unified amidst an amazing diversity, and accurate copies of the original manuscripts have been passed down to us. With respect to the criteria that could be said only of God’s Book, the Bible contains scientific statements that predate their discoveries by 2,000-3,000 years, it made predictions that were fulfilled hundreds of years later, its message is unique, its messengers were confirmed by miracles, and the words have a transforming power.

There is no other book like the Bible!

Bibliography and Resources

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1982).

Barfield, Kenny. Why the Bible Is Number 1. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1988).

Bloom, John. “Truth Via Prophecy.” Evidence for Faith. John W. Montgomery (ed.). (Dallas, Tex: Word, 1991).

Burrows, Millar. What Mean These Stones? (New Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941).

Cairney, William. “Biomedical Prescience 1: Hebrew Dietary Laws.” Evidence for Faith. John W. Montgomery (ed.). (Dallas, Tex: Word, 1991).

Cairney, William. “Biomedical Prescience 2: Pride &

Prejudice in Science.” Evidence for Faith. John W. Montgomery (ed.). (Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991).

Geisler, Norman L. Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1994).

Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, William E. General Introduction to the Bible: Revised and Expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986).

Geisler, Norman L., ed. Inerrancy. (Grand Rapids, Mich.:

Zondervan, 1980).

Glueck, Nelson. Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev. (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Cudahy, 1959).

Kole, Andre. Miracle and Magic. (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1984).

McMillen, S.I. None of These Diseases. (Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1961).

Ramsay, W.M. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen.

(3rd ed.) (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1949).

Sauer, Erich. The Dawn of World Redemption. (G.H. Land, trans.) (London: Paternoster, 1951).

Sauer, Erich. The Triumph of the Crucified. (G.H. Land, trans.) (London: Paternoster, 1951).

Sherwin-White, A.N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963).

Warfield, Benjamin B. Limited Inspiration. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1961; originally published in 1864, Baker reprint, n.d.).

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1948).

Wilson, Clifford. Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1977).

Scripture references, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the

Written by Dr. Norman L. Geisler, the author/co-author of A General Introduction to the Bible (Moody, 1978, 1986), From God to Us: How we got our Bible (Moody, 1978, 2012), The Big Book of Bible Difficulties (Baker, 2008), Explaining Biblical Inerrancy: The Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Application with Official ICBI Commentary (Bastion Books, 2013), Preserving Orthodoxy: Maintaining Continuity with the Historic Christian Faith on Scripture (Bastion Books, 2017) and dozens of other books.

By Christopher on Arminianism, Calvinism, Molinism, Neo-Theism, Open Theism, Process Theology, Theism, Theology, Thomism tagged Arminianism, Calvinism, Middle Knowledge, Mild Calvinism, Molinism, Thomism

What did Norm Geisler say about Molinism?

What did Norm Geisler say about the Middle-Knowledge, Molinism, and the thought of Luis de Molina?

Click Here to read as a PDF

This post is a compilation of six sources of Norm’s comments on Molinism:

Geisler, Norman L. “Molinism,” in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999) pp. 493–495.
Geisler, Norman L. Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, 2^nd edition (Bethany House, 1999) pp. 51-55
Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology, Volume II: God, Creation (Bethany House, 2003) pp. 206-207
Geisler, Norman L. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker Books, 1995), p. 450-446
Classroom lectures by Norm Geisler on God’s Immutability in the course TH540 (“God and Creation”) at Veritas International University, circa 2013. Class #3 – http://vimeo.com/72793620
Four private emails answered by Norm

By Christopher on Uncategorized

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE (A.D. 1844 – 1900)

This was excerpted from Norman Geisler’s The History of Western Philosophy, Volume II, (Bastion Books, 2017) for normangeisler.com with permission from bastionbooks.com.

Introduction

By the middle of the nineteenth century, the problem of human existence was focused on him being a stranger to himself to the point that he must discover or rediscover who he is and what his meaning in life was going to be. Kierkegaard suggested that he return to Christianity as it was with the first disciples (as compared to the organized Christendom). Nietzsche, however, suggested an even more ancient return—a replication to the archaic past of the Greeks. He will consider the characteristics and livelihood of the god Dionysus in order to bridge his inner warring divide that plagued his being. He thought that if the Dionysus was revived, this savior-god might rescue the whole of mankind which seemed to him to be in fatigue and decline. However, this god was also known as the “the horned one” or “the bull” to the Greeks, and according to mythology, was torn to pieces by the Titans. The fate of Dionysus overwhelmed Nietzsche who himself was also ravaged by the dark forces leaving him at the age of twenty-five in psychosis—perishing with the god, a solutions of his own devices.

It has been said that Kierkegaard painted Christianity is such stringent terms that it drives some people to atheism, and that Nietzsche painted such a sorrowful view of atheism (a person without God) that it drove some people to Christianity. Yet both came from similar backgrounds, namely, 19^th century European Lutheranism. Both experienced an early loss of their father, and both learned to detest the Lutheran Christianity in which they were reared.

The Life and Works of Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche was born 1844 in a little town of Rocken, in Prussian Saxony. His father was a Lutheran pastor in Saxony and later died of insanity (softening of the brain) when Friedrich was young. He was his mother, sister, two aunts, and grandmother dominating his life. They had moved to Naumburg where he attended the gymnasium. He was given a strict religious training, and he lost his faith in college. These women hoped the boy would grow up to be a brilliant preacher like his father and grandfather before him. From age fourteen until twenty, he attended the famous school of Pforta which provided a firm foundation in German literature and the Greek and Latin classics. He later studied under the famous liberal thinker, Friederich Ritschl and focused on philology. In Leipzig, he became acquainted with Schopenhauer’s philosophy, enjoyed music, and made inquiries about Erwin Rohde’s conception of the psyche. He observed the naïve faith of his mother and grandmother and, after reading Schopenhauer, he became an atheist. He served in Prussian medical corps where he contracted dysentery. He recovered but always had a headache and indigestion. Though he was a mild, kind, and gentle man, yet nervous and irritable at times. He idealized his friends until he became acquainted with their faults. He kept the course of that which he believed was right—the overthrow of modern Christian culture and democratic morality. In its place, he attempted to bring a revival of the ancient Greek aristocratic ideal of life. He increased loneliness and alienation from friends led to final his madness. Living in isolation, he wrote book after book until his mind was gone.

The Works of Nietzsche

Nietzsche wrote The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music (1872) where he spoke of his humanistic ideal as a combination of Dionysus (the Greek god of music) and Apollo (the Greek god of the plastic arts). His obsession against Christianity shows up in several works: The Wagner Case: The Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche contra Wagner, The Ant-Christ, Ecce Homo (“Behold the Man”). His ethical position can be identified in Beyond Good and Evil (1886) and Toward a Genealogy of Morals (1887). His Untimely Considerations (1873—1876) was against the materialism of the post 1870 Germany. His works The Dawn and The Gay Science, appearing between 1878 and 1882, discussed the issues regarding Christian morality as life-denying. Ecce Homo, an autobiography written near the end of his life (1900). It was published 1908. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is his greatest work whose message is “the death of God” Vol. I-II (1883); III (1884); IV (1885). Beyond Good and Evil (1886), The Genealogy of Morals (1887), Anti-Christ (1895).

Philosophical Influences on Nietzsche

Like most others in the modern world, Nietzsche was influenced by Immanuel Kant’s agnosticism. He was also affected by Schopenhauer’s atheism, particularly his stress on the will. F. A. Lange’s History of Materialism was also an important factor in forming his thought. From the ancient world, Heraclitus’s philosophy of becoming was important. And from the modern world Voltaire’s anti-Christian, anti-supernatural views contributed to Nietzsche’s thinking.

Nietzsche’s position on morality and modern culture is a variation Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer, However, Nietzsche deplored the idea of society determining personal conduct, the ‘rule of the flock’ mentality. This went against his idea that man was still and unfixed animal. He leveled severe criticism against Christianity and states that it is an enemy of life and betrays mankind. His viewpoint is quite atheistic and deterministic where the elite, based upon their physical, intellectual, and social prowess, are the only ones who are able to further man’s existence. All men have the power to develop their own norms based on the exclusion of God and any standards associated with good and evil.

Influence of Nietzsche on Others

Like other great thinkers, Nietzsche had a significant influence on many of his successors. Sigmund Freud’s profound introspective psychology is an example. The existentialist Martin Buber acknowledges being impressed by Thus Spoke Zarathustra as a teen ager. Jean Paul Sartre’s atheistic existentialism was also affected by Nietzsche. Wittgenstein linguistical mysticism owes a debt to him as well: “One should speak only where one may not remain silent, and speak only of that which one has overcome – everything else is chatter” (Nietzsche –Human , All Too Human). Jacque Derrida and Post-modernism find roots in Nietzsche as well.

Nietzsche denied God. The fire for this negation was Schopenhauer’s philosophy. Nietzsche resembles Marx by his refusing to put forward arguments for God’s existence based on rational review, and in its stead, basing it on broad cultural judgments undermining any belief in God.

An Overview of Nietzsche‘s Philosophy

Nietzsche’s view involves a critique of 19th century culture. He said Europe is sick and cannot be healed by prosperity or technology. Culture has no unity of outlook, is too eclectic. Man has lost his dignity since he lost faith in God and now has lost faith in himself. Christianity has lost its authority and is merely humanistic. We have lost our stability, and evolution has proven that all is flux. He criticized anti-culturalism of the State which encourages conformism. He opposed democracy and socialism. His view was used by some Nazis to support Nazism, though Nietzsche did not support it. He praised individual heroes. We can improve human nature to become a superman. He opposed Hegel’s view of history as a necessary unfolding of the Divine. We must get superhistoric view of man by “Know thyself” and organizing the chaos within. The decline of dogmatic faith at the time it was needed most led to paralysis of culture. So, God is dead, and must be replaced by a voluntaristic metaphysics of becoming.

It is Nietzsche’s pathological path that makes his philosophical meaning of atheism understandable as he tried to live it out. Up to this time in history, man was living under the childhood shelter of God (or the gods). Now that the gods were dead, could mankind likewise meet this challenge and too become godless? Nietzsche thought the answer to this timely question was yes; man, as a courageous animal was able to survive even the death of God. Man is to live with no religious or metaphysical safety nets. If mankind was to become godless, Nietzsche was to be its prophet.

Three Central Themes is Nietzsche

The Will to Power

In Zarathustra it is man’s basic nature and is found in all living things (conatus, elan vital). This is probably not a metaphysical doctrine of unusual significance (as Heidegger interpreted it). Nor is it protofascist as Heidegger agreed. It was a psychological theory that involves: 1) the power of self-control in art and philosophy not so much subjugation of others; 2) The power of the slave to live free of resentment of his master. It is rooted found in Greek contest (agon), viz., triumph over others, power over audience, language, and self. In the pinnacle of power one is perfectly self-possessed, self-sufficient man, (Socrates in prison is better than Nero on the roof); but Goethe is better than Socrates– self-mastery. It is a man of intelligence and passion who passionately mastered his passions and employed them creatively. It is the illuminator of most (if not all) behavior but is not the only motive for human action.

Superman (Overman, Ubermeunsch).

Lucian (2nd century) used the word, as did Goethe in Faust. Nietzsche never applied to an individual, except in one ironic self-critical passage (“on poets” in Zarathustra). It is always intended as a this-worldly antithesis of God. “A human being (Mensch) who has organized the chaos of his passions, has given style to his character, and became creative.” Mankind involves mixed types. Nietzsche does not claim to be a superman. One who renounces God and supernatural dignity of man and recognized. There is no meaning in life except the meaning man gives his life…. One who rises above flux of creatures and becomes a creator and ceases being human, all too human. A superman is one who can willingly accept suffering and misery and prove their worth by overcoming them. He is not the one who thinks of himself as superior but who demands more of himself.

Eternal Recurrence

Since there is no God or objective meaning in life, man must will his own meaning. This Nietzsche does in willing the eternal recurrence of the same state of affairs. He presupposes absoluteness of time and flux and finite space. Upon destruction, our universe will be reconstructed and repeat previous patterns and events identically (so Nietzsche will be born 1844, etc.). What has been will be innumerable times at immense intervals. This is Greek in origin but struck Nietzsche like a revelation in 1882. He recognized it was a gruesome doctrine unless one can joyfully affirm one’s existence and say: “Abide, moment – but if you cannot abide, at least return eternally!” Eternal Recurrence is set against Christian linear doctrine that history is progressive, ending in an eternal Goal. Nietzsche believed that Eternal Recurrence is the most scientific of all hypotheses because finite power quanta in finite space in infinite time will produce only a finite number of configurations that will repeat over and over. However, George Simmel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (1907, pp. 250) rejected this, claiming that three wheels rotating at different speeds never line up again if one is one-half the speed of the first and another twice the first. Nietzsche did not attempt to prove the doctrine but stressed its ethical and psychological impact, namely a) horror of all-too-human life without it and joy felt by the exceptional person who believes it. Eternal Recurrence is not superior to God, but belief in other world cheapens this world. Eternal Recurrence is the “Religion of religions” (Jaspers, Nietzsche, 363-365).

A Comparison of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard

Both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard had Lutheran backgrounds. Both were trained in post-Hegelian Germany. Each manifested an introspective psychological methodology with literary genius (poetic philosophy). They both demonstrate the meaninglessness and nothingness of human life apart from God. Both stressed death of God and vital Christianity in Western Society. They also accepted Kantian disjunction of appearance and reality and inability of man to know reality by reason. Further, they acknowledged the need to suffer in the overcoming life. They admitted that all absolute and eternal values must be rooted in a transcendent God. And both men had an implicit Post-Hegelian dialectic in their thinking. They also stressed individual, passionate, and volitional nature of man. They believed truth to be a matter of life not of philosophical thought. Both men held critical view of Christian evidence. Both believed ultimate responsibility goes beyond good and evil. In addition, both stressed the significance of human solitude.

There were, of course, some other important differences. Nietzsche denied God and Kierkegaard affirmed Him. Nietzsche believed that reason is man’s only hope and Kierkegaard held that revelation is. While Nietzsche held that the overcomer wills eternal recurrence, Kierkegaard affirmed the eternal God. Nietzsche held that Man is self-sufficient and must deny God, but Kierkegaard insisted that Man is insufficient and must submit to God. For the former, the movement of history is circular, but for Kierkegaard the movement of history is circular. Nietzsche believed the Bible is full of myths, lies, and errors, but Kierkegaard held that it is a record of truth and revelation from God. For Nietzsche, self-denial is a sign of weakness, but Kierkegaard believed it was a sign of spiritual strength. Nietzsche believed man is only finite and fallible, but Kierkegaard affirmed that he is finite and sinful. Nietzsche was not to bring peace to the world, but instead, carried and used the sword to divide, shock, and perplex his audience. His fate though is one of the many lessons that can be learned in man’s striving to ‘know thyself.’ Man cannot be understood from the zoological perspective, but it is Nietzsche who illustrates that man does indeed have a problem in determining his nature. Hence the contrast between these two influences—Kierkegaard loving his native Copenhagen while Nietzsche was in a state of utter homelessness cut off from his community thus festering in a land of loneliness.

Nietzsche claims that the existence of God and Christianity either stands or falls on the present social order. Nietzsche rejects Christianity because as a total system it must rest on the standards set by Christianity delegating standards of culture and morality to the public—if the culture does not prove it out, then reject it and the existence of God. However, Kierkegaard saw that the problem lay in the confusion between the eternal God and the traditions of men. He also saw a breakdown in the structures that watered-down Christian requirements. Kierkegaard warned that Christianity could not endure unless it detaches itself from “Christendom.”

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard differed in their notions about being and becoming. Nietzsche believes that it is self-evident that the transcendent and immutable being is incompatible with the world of becoming and that any notions of piety associated with this being must be discarded. Kierkegaard on the other hand suggests that man should forget the idea of themselves as gods. Kierkegaard posits that man does not look for a lasting city here on earth because he is a pilgrim to the Absolute. Neitzsche counters by declaring that the entire world is the lasting city thus denying the existence of the transcendent being.

Nietzsche understood God as well as Kierkegaard. For one who rejects the absolutely binding obligation of God on his life understands God as well as the one who accepts it. Ironically, Kierkegaard drove men to atheism; Nietzsche drove them to theism.

Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Hegel Compared

HEGEL	NIETZSCHE	KIERKEGAARD
Opaque	Clear	Paradoxical
Objective	Subjective
Optimistic	Pessimistic	Optimistic
Only a Philosopher	Philosopher and Poet	Philosopher and Writer
Said God is Dead	Believed God Dead	Believed God is Alive
Reinterpreted Christianity	Rejected Christianity	Reaffirmed Christianity
Eternal found through time	Eternal recurrence of time	Eternal is in time

An Evaluation of Nietzsche

Nietzsche was misunderstood by many philosophers. Though he was unsystematic in his approach, he did deal with his subject matter, albeit, in a more indirect and dramatic aphoristic prose. He approached his philosophy through the vein of art, never denying the artist within. However, there were those like Heidegger who did think he was a systematic thinker considering him the last metaphysician of the West.

Although he was an atheist, even a theist can agree with some of what he said. For example, when God dies, all value dies too. He provided a profound analysis of post-Christian European culture. He stressed the meaninglessness of life without God. However, Nietzsche basis for rejecting God was volitional not rational (see Paul Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless). His substitution of the eternal recurrence of the same state of affairs for God demonstrates that even atheists cannot avoid the Transcendence (i.e., God). Of course, he provided no evidence for eternal recurrence. Further, the negation of all value (called Nihilism) is self-defeating. For it implicitly affirms the value of negating all values. Nietzsche showed the need for God in his poem to the “unknown God” in which he bemoaned his need for God.

As noted, Nietzsche accepted Schopenhauer’s pessimistic notion of Christianity—a world denying, asceticism promoting emphasis on a narrow and restricted life. The Christianity that appeals to most twentieth century folks is not this kind. Today, it is seen as manly, self-reliant, and world affirming seeking to have each individual experience a richer and fuller life for himself and others as well. However, the Christian church should take into consideration Nietzsche’s severe criticisms and allow it to foster honest self-examination. Even though most would conclude that the church has been mostly right and Nietzsche mostly wrong, the church can learn something even from its most severe critics.

By Christopher on Uncategorized

Twelve Things from Doctor G for His Students

by Doug Potter·Wednesday, July 3, 2019

Originally posted at http://www.facebook.com/notes/doug-potter/twelve-things-from-doctor-g-for-his-students/2301144449921509/

Forgive me, my heart is still heavy, and my eyes still cry. I will tell my Norm stories later, but for now I just lost my teacher, boss, colleague, and friend. All and all, sometimes more and sometimes less, I studied under, worked for and with him for 25 years. I miss him. He meant so much to me, and I know he did to you too. But don’t fret, as you know we will see him again in the flesh, with the Lord, but for now never forget what he left behind, something the world can’t get rid of. I see it in your own words . . .

Ravi is right: “After graduation, he remained a mentor to me and became a very dear friend. I owe more to him than anyone else for teaching me how to do apologetics for the Christian worldview. His death is a loss beyond words.” http://www.facebook.com/ravizacharias/posts/10156123766976813

Joe is right: “Dr. Geisler loved to teach and loved his students! . . . Though his accomplishments are powerfully influential, he is best known for his uncompromising defense of the Christian worldview, love for his family, humility, sacrificial love for all, and tireless work ethic.” http://viu.ves.edu/geisler/

Tom is right: “He is all these things to me; a mentor, an example, an aspiration. But, what is most important to me is, he is my friend. . . . but who could be in such a class, except of course Aquinas and Billy. I do not use the past tense, because he is still all of these things, and much more than we can imagine.” http://www.facebook.com/pat.devrieshowe/posts/10218686786110423

Frank is right: “There is no one from whom I’ve learned more about Christianity and the defense of the faith.” http://www.facebook.com/drfrankturek/posts/1596171613847689

Bill C. is right: “I bear his imprint. He gave me a strong appreciation for the history of philosophy, which has served me well. Most importantly, however, he convinced me of the need for a robust natural theology. This emphasis was and continues to be somewhat out of the “norm” (no pun intended) for Christian philosophers, but those of you who know my work will realize how indelibly Norm Geisler stamped me with his mark.” http://www.facebook.com/drwilliamlanecraig/posts/10219360647837687

Harold is right, “He was much more to me than a teacher. He was more to me than a mentor. He was a friend. . . . He has had more influence on me than anyone else. I will truly miss him.” http://www.facebook.com/gfigurelli/posts/10157240042679780:11

Paul is right “While it is true that we gained a wealth of knowledge sitting inside his classroom, we learned the most by what Dr. Geisler taught us outside the classroom.” http://www.facebook.com/TheistApologist/posts/10214342212568827

Marcie is right: “I can’t think of anyone in academia who matched him in contemporary times for intellect, knowledge, service to the cause of Christ, and dedication to his students.” http://www.facebook.com/dr.normangeisler/posts/2100634760048788

Bill R. is right: “The mark of a great leader is found in their ability to live beyond the grave and pass the baton to the next generation. Dr. Geisler has now joined the great host of witnesses that have gone before us and he has passed the baton onto each of us.

Therefore, it is now our responsibility to say during this time in history: I am put here for the defense of the gospel.” http://williamroach.org/2019/07/01/i-am-put-here-for-the-defense-of-the-gospel-the-legacy-of-dr-norman-l-geisler/

Steve is right: “His teaching, training, and writings have left behind an incredible wake of tens of thousands of Christian leaders across the planet who have taken his beautiful balance of grace and truth and applied it to building up the Kingdom of God. He had an unstoppable drive and passion and work ethic. Retirement was not even in his vocabulary, determined to use his final breath to defend and advance the gospel. Only in eternity will we know the true measure of his influence. To the great man we called “Stormin’ Norman” (behind his back of course!), we will miss you!” http://normangeisler.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Five-Profound-Memories-of-Stormin-Norman-Geisler.pdf

Tim is right, “Now it’s time for you [Norm] to rest. Your students will take it from here.” http://www.facebook.com/tim.barnett.585/posts/10214202491287004

Unlike you, no one will or can personally experience teaching and mentoring from Doctor G. again. So, remember . . .

1) “Put the cookies on the bottom shelf.”

2) “The world view glasses can come off.”

3) “There is no such thing as a relative truth” (No one ever got the $10 in his pocket.)

4) “A bad methodology always makes for bad theology.”

5) “Only one book, the Bible, I read to believe, all other books I only consider.”

6) “Either this book (Bible) will keep you from sin, or sin will keep you from this book (Bible).”

7) “Garbage in Garbage out.”

8) “There is Thomism . . . and false” “Don’t throw out the philosophical baby–Aquinas with the Roman Catholic–bath water.”

a) “God never bypasses the mind on the way to the heart.”

b) “Be aware of philosophy . . . by knowing it”

c) “Immanuel Kant has influenced your life more than Jesus Christ!”

9) “The body is just as important as the soul, balance your scholarship with manual work or exercise.”

10) “Everyone’s cup in eternity will be overflowing, but not everyone’s cup will be the same size”

11) “Don’t be a saved soul with a wasted life. . . .You’re going to be dead a whole lot longer than you will be alive.”

12) “Go and do likewise . . . ”

Watch out wild world, there is an army of Christian soldiers Doctor G. left behind . . . Never to be heard about in the news or the movies, they don’t wear fatigues or berets and the world rejects them and what they say, but demons shudder, here we come . . .

By Christopher on Uncategorized

What Norm Looked Forward to Most About Heaven

What did Norm most eagerly look forward to in heaven? You can see it in some of these poignant quotes out of Norm’s Systematic Theology (Volume Four) about Heaven!

THE FINAL STATE OF THE SAVED (HEAVEN)

The biblical words for “heaven” (Heb: shamayim; Gk: ouranos) are used in several different ways. There are three heavens: The first is the sky above us (earth’s atmosphere—Matt. 6:26), the second is the stars (the realm of space—24:29), and the third is the very abode of God, called “the third heaven” or “paradise” (2 Cor. 12:2, 4). It is in this third sense that “heaven” is used in this chapter, namely, as God’s dwelling place, the final destiny of the righteous.

THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF HEAVEN

The Bible is filled with references to heaven. Though many questions are left open, making heaven the subject of a wide range of speculation, there are also many truths we do know about it.

Heaven in the Present: A Place of Bliss for Departed Spirits

Heaven now is a real place of departed spirits, the place of bliss in God’s presence where believers go when they die. Enoch entered heaven when “God took him” to be with Himself (Gen. 5:24). Elijah also “went up to heaven in a whirlwind” (2 Kings 2:11). Jesus went there at death after saying, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.”1 A repentant thief did also after Jesus said to him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Paul referred to it as being “absent from the body” and “present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8 NKJV).
Heaven is God’s home; Jesus spoke of “Our Father in heaven” (Matt. 6:9; cf. 5:16) and said it was an actual place, reminding His disciples:

In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. (John 14:2–3)

Jesus said He came from heaven and would return there: “No one has ever gone into heaven [bodily] except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man” (3:13);2 “The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all” (v. 31); “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he wll live forever” (6:51).
Jesus told Mary Magdalene, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’ ” (20:17). This He did at His ascension, when the angels said He would return the same way He’d just departed.3
Angels also are said to be “in heaven” (Matt. 18:10), to come “from heaven” (28:2), to dwell “in heaven” (Mark 13:32), and return to heaven (Luke 2:15). In heaven is God’s “throne” (Matt. 5:34), where Christ sits at His “right hand” (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 1:3), where angels surround Him in praise and adoration (Rev. 4–5), and where the seraphim sing the tersanctus: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty” (Isa. 6:3).
That God dwells in heaven does not mean He is localized and not omnipresent.4 Solomon prayed: “The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you” (1 Kings 8:27). God is everywhere, as the psalmist revealed: “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there” (139:7–9). The reality of heaven as God’s dwelling simply means that there is a place (like the old covenant tabernacle and temple) where God is manifested in a special way, a center or “throne” from which He rules the universe. Whether heaven is within the physical universe or in another physical dimension, it is an actual place where the righteous will “see his face” (Rev. 22:4).

Heaven in the Future: The New Heaven and the New Earth

According to Revelation, after the resurrection, after all believing human spirits have been reunited with their bodies, heaven will descend to earth5 in the form of the New Jerusalem:

Then I [John] saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. (21:1–3)

Heaven has foundations, gates, and dimensions:

One of the seven angels … came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel.… The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia in length, and as wide and high as it is long. He measured its wall and it was 144 cubits thick, by man’s measurement, which the angel was using. (vv. 9–12, 14–17)

The Constituents of Heaven

The innumerable occupants of heaven, in addition to the triune God, include angels and the great multitude of the redeemed from all ages.

The Triune God

At the heart of heaven is the throne of God, which John described:

After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne. (4:1–3)

Not only is God the Father in heaven, but so is God the Son: “The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals” (5:5). Paul spoke of “Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—[and] is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us” (Rom. 8:34). John added, “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1). In heaven Jesus lives forever, with a permanent priesthood: “He is able to save completely those who come to God through him because he always lives to intercede for them” (Heb. 7:25).
The blessed Holy Spirit of God is likewise in heaven. John described Him symbolically as “the seven spirits before his [God’s] throne” (Rev. 1:4). This is the “sevenfold Spirit” of Isaiah 11:2: “The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord.”6
When we get to heaven, we will see Christ in His physical glorified resurrection body with our physical eyes, and we will see the essence of God with our spiritual eyes. This is called the Beatific Vision.7

Good Angels

Further,

Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads. From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God. Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. (Rev. 4:4–6)

Redeemed Humans

In addition to God and a great multitude of angels, there are incalculable redeemed human beings:

After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. (7:9)

The writer of Hebrews added,

You [believers] have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect. (12:22–23)

Indeed, John “heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them” (Rev. 5:13) singing in heaven to the Lamb.

The Duration of Heaven

Heaven will endure as long as God does, and God is eternal; heaven is where we will experience eternal life in its fullness.8 Further, heaven is the fulfillment of God’s promised everlasting life to believers, “the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time” (Titus 1:2). Jesus said, “The righteous [will go] to eternal life” (Matt. 25:46), and John declared, “I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!’ ” (Rev. 5:13).

The Nature of Heaven

The following is some of what is known about heaven from Scripture’s extensive witness.

Heaven Is a Place Far Better Than Earth

Paul wrote, “I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (Phil. 1:23); “we … would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8).

Heaven Is a Place of No Sorrow

John foretold, “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev. 21:4).
Paul added,

[God] comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows. (2 Cor. 1:4–5)

Heaven Is a Place of No Curse

In Genesis, God said that by Adam’s sin the world was cursed:

Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, “You must not eat of it”: Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. (3:17–19)

But in the paradise to come, “No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him” (Rev. 22:3).

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. (Rom. 8:18–21)

Heaven Is a Place of No Darkness

People of this sinful world love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil (John 3:19). By contrast, John said of heaven, “The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.… On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there” (Rev. 21:23, 25).

Heaven Is a Place of No Sickness

“He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more … mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (v. 4). “On each side of the river [of the water of life] stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations” (22:2).

Heaven Is a Place of No Death

“There will be no more death” (Rev. 21:4).

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor. 15:53–54).

Heaven Is a Place of Perfect Bodies

Paul declared that by “the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, [God] will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (Phil. 3:21)—immortal, imperishable, and glorious:

We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. (1 Cor. 15:51–53)

These perfect bodies will never degenerate, decay, or die:

Those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. (Luke 20:35–36)

Heaven Is a Place of Completed Salvation

As we have seen,9 salvation comes in three stages: justification (salvation from the past penalty of sin), sanctification (salvation from the present power of sin), and glorification (salvation from the future presence of sin). This last stage, glorification, is heaven.
John described it this way:

How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!… Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:1–2)

Paul said, “Those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30), for “when Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory” (Col. 3:4).

Heaven Is a Place of Many Mansions

Listen to these words of Jesus:

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. (John 14:1–3)

Sing the wondrous love of Jesus,
Sing His mercy and His grace;
In the mansions bright and blessed
He’ll prepare for us a place.10

There will be heavenly homes, magnificent mansions, and palatial palaces—all prepared for those who follow the Lord.

Heaven Is a Place of Perpetual Worship

Eternity is described as a heavenly temple (Rev. 21:3) where the angels worship (Isa. 6:3), where “the living … creatures … do not rest day or night, saying: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” and where the elders “fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever” (Rev. 4:8, 10 NKJV; cf. 5:13–14).

Heaven Is a Place of Everlasting Service

John’s vision declares: “The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him” (Rev. 22:3). Believers will not be idle in heaven; like the angels, we will be engaged in ceaseless activity for God.

Heaven Is a Place of Abundant Life

Jesus said, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10 KJV). Paul told Timothy that “godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:8 KJV). Indeed, John says that in the paradise to come there is a tree of life and a river of life:

He shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (Rev. 22:1–2 KJV)

Heaven Is a Place of Overflowing Joy

Here on earth we are given a foretaste of what is to come because we serve “God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment” (1 Tim. 6:17; cf. Ps. 16:11). Jesus said that the angels already rejoice in heaven because of what God is doing for us: “There is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10).

Heaven Is a Place of Grand Reunion

Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words. (1 Thess. 4:13–18)

Christians never say a final good-bye; rather, it’s “So long—I’ll see you there.”

Heaven Is the Place of the Great Heavenly Wedding

People love weddings, as well we should—every earthly wedding is a picture, a temporal reflection, of the great heavenly wedding to come. Paul said of marriage, “This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:32 NKJV). There will be no earthly marriage in heaven (cf. Matt. 22:30), but there will be something far better—the heavenly marriage of the Lamb.

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. (Rev. 21:2–3)

Heaven Is a Celestial City

“None of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone” (Rom. 14:7). We shall all be together as residents in a heavenly city, in “Mount Zion … the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God.” We will be with “thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, [in] the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven” (Heb. 12:22–23).

Love divine, so great and wondrous,
Deep and mighty, pure, sublime!
Coming from the heart of Jesus,
Just the same through tests of time.

He the pearly gates will open,
So that I may enter in;
For He purchased my redemption
And forgave me all my sin.11

Heaven Is a Place of Incredible Beauty

In regard to what we have here, Paul said, “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:9). How much greater will heaven be? The Old Testament speaks of “the beauty of holiness” (1 Chron. 16:29 NKJV), of which heaven is the apex. John described heaven as the jewel-studded, golden-paved city of God (Rev. 21:18–21). This veritable cornucopia of aesthetic delight is literally beyond description.

Heaven Is a Place of Moral Perfection

The present world is laden with layers of evil; even the apostle Paul considered himself the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). In heaven, though, every believer will be made absolutely perfect, for “when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears” (1 Cor. 13:10; cf. 1 John 3:2).
“Nothing impure will ever enter it [heaven], nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Rev. 21:27). Therefore, we are to “make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). Heaven is a place of ultimate and complete sanctification.

Heaven Is a Place of Eternal Rest

Ever since the Fall, life has been filled with toil (Gen. 3:17–19)—even the spiritual life is a struggle (Eph. 6:11–12). Jesus said, “As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work” (John 9:4). On earth, we are the church militant; in heaven, we will be the church at rest. Hebrews says, “There remains … a Sabbath-rest for the people of God” (4:9), and the Spirit said to John, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.… They will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them” (Rev. 14:13).

Heaven Is a Place of Eternal Reward

We are not saved by works, but we are saved for good works:12

By grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph. 2:8–10)

If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. (1 Cor. 3:12–14)

Jesus promised, “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done” (Rev. 22:12). Those who have followed will hear Him say, “Well done, my good servant!” (Luke 19:17).

Heaven Is a Place of Perfect Knowledge

[Now] we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1 Cor. 13:9–12)

Heaven Is a Place of Indescribable Glory

Paul said, “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18). Trying to describe his vision of heaven’s glory, he wrote:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man … was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. (2 Cor. 12:2–4)

In a passage that narrates the Transfiguration,

[Jesus] took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.… While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” (Matt. 17:1–2, 4–5).

Ezekiel described a dazzling display of the divine: “The appearance of the living creatures was like burning coals of fire or like torches. Fire moved back and forth among the creatures; it was bright, and lightning flashed out of it” (Ezek. 1:13).
When Moses experienced only a passing glimpse of God’s glory, the Israelites had to cover his head because of the blinding brightness of its glow (Ex. 34:29–35); to them “the glory of the Lord looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain” (24:17).

Heaven Is the Place of the Beatific Vision

The Beatific Vision is the blessed vision that Moses sought, God forbade, Jesus promised, and John described—seeing God face-to-face.

Mortal Man Cannot See God

“No one has seen God at any time,” wrote John in his gospel (1:18 NKJV). When Moses pleaded, “Show me your glory,”

The Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.…
Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen” (Ex. 33:18–23).

Immortal Man Will See God

However, immortal human beings will see God face-to-face; John declared that in heaven “they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads” (Rev. 22:4). Again, Paul explained, “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12). The psalmist added, “In righteousness I will see your face; when I awake, I will be satisfied with seeing your likeness” (17:15). As John said, “When he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).
The term Beatific Vision, this face-to-face experience with God, comes from the word for beatitude, meaning “blessed” or “happy.” This vision is the ultimate fulfillment of all divine aspirations—it will be a direct, complete, and final revelation of God in which the believer will see the divine essence. Of the many who have declared this vision of God, Thomas Aquinas spoke repeatedly of the glory of this ultimate experience;13 Benedict XII (r. 1334–1342) said that the divine essence would be seen by direct intuition (face-to-face); and the Council of Vienne (1311–1312) insisted that since it transcended a human’s natural capacity, the Beatific Vision is only possible by a supernatural act of God (see Cross, ODCC, 146).

There are several important characteristics and consequences of the Beatific Vision that we can derive from Scripture and reason.

The Beatific Vision Brings Direct Knowledge of God

Paul said our present knowledge of God is indirect (1 Cor. 13:12); now, God is not known directly but through His creation, “for since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Rom. 1:20). However, in heaven we will see and know fully (1 John 3:2); what is now dim for us will become bright; what we now know indirectly we will know directly.
All we know now about the infinite God is known through finite images, which is why our knowledge is analogous.14 In the Beatific Vision’s unmediated knowledge, the divine essence will inform our finite minds; we will have a full and direct knowledge of God Himself.

The Beatific Vision Brings Perfect Knowledge of God

This ultimate knowledge of God will be perfect (1 Cor. 13:9–10); our partial knowledge will turn into whole knowledge; our incomplete understanding will be transformed into complete understanding. Whatever we can know about God, we will know, and we will know it perfectly.
This does not mean we will know God infinitely. Because we will always be finite, so will our knowledge be finite. Only God has an infinite knowledge of the infinite;15 even in heaven our knowledge will be finite. We will perfectly apprehend God, but will never completely comprehend Him. God will always be ineffable.16

The Beatific Vision Brings Perfect Love of God

Jesus said, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matt. 22:37–38). This kind of love is never fully attained in this life, but it will be in the next:

We are told that our final destiny consists in beholding God immediately, face to face, and as He really is … even as He knows Himself; that it [the Beatific Vision] consists also in loving Him even as He loves Himself. (Garrigou-LaGrange, P, 379)

“God is love” (1 John 4:16), and to know Him is to know His very essence. To know perfect love is to be able to love perfectly, and “we love Him because He first loved us” (v. 19 NKJV).

The Beatific Vision Makes Sin Impossible

Knowledge of God is knowledge of an infinite good;17 once one directly sees infinite good, it will no longer be possible for him to do evil,18 for to be directly informed in one’s mind by absolute good is to become completely conformed to it. Hence, the Beatific Vision makes sin impossible. Just as seeing absolute beauty will spoil one forever from longing for anything ugly, likewise, beholding the absolutely holy will overpower any attraction to or desire for the unholy.

The Beatific Vision Fulfills Our Freedom

Though heaven makes sin impossible, it does not destroy but instead fulfills our freedom. Heaven completes our freedom to completely love God, just as (analogously) marriage here on earth frees us to love the one to whom we belong. True freedom is not the freedom to do evil, but the freedom to do good. The essence of free will is self-determination, and if one’s self chooses to do only the good, then the fulfillment of it in a place where only good can be done is not the destruction of freedom, but the completion of it.19
God is both free and unable to sin; it will be likewise for us when we become most godlike, for the perfection of our freedom is the freedom from sinning, not the freedom of sinning. The best freedom is the freedom to do the best; beholding and loving the absolute best (which makes sin impossible) is the best thing we can ever do.20

The Beatific Vision Is Given Only to Believers

It is important to note that the Beatific Vision is not forced on anyone against his will: Only those who seek God will see God (Heb. 11:6). It is those who choose to fall in love that are overwhelmed by it; no one can be forced to love another. Love, like God’s saving grace, is irresistible, but only on the willing,21 for irresistible force on the unwilling is not grace but assault. Once again, as C.S. Lewis aptly stated:

The Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His [God’s] scheme forbids Him to use.… Merely to override a human will … would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. (SL, 46)

The Beatific Vision Brings a Permanent State of Perfection

Just as God is changeless perfection,22 even so the perfection of beatified saints will be changeless. Salvation from the presence of sin (glorification) will save us from the damage and distortion that sin wreaks in our lives. Our present growth in perfection (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18) is due to our not yet having reached the ultimate state of perfection. One no longer needs to be changed into what he has ultimately achieved; heaven (and the Beatific Vision it brings) will make permanent (by glorification) what is only in process in this life (through sanctification).23 The more we become like God, the more unchangeably we become like His moral attributes.24

The Beatific Vision Brings a Dynamic State of Perfection

Being in an immutable state of perfection (in heaven) is not to be confused with being in a static state. God is immutable but not immobile;25 likewise, in heaven we will be immutably (though finitely) perfect without being immobile (static). God is the Unmoved Mover,26 but He is not an Unmoving Mover. In fact, as Pure Actuality,27 He is the most active being in the universe (He is Pure Actuality, having no potentiality). God is active in sustaining everything in existence,28 in His sovereignty (governance) over the entire world,29 through His providence in the world,30 and by His miraculous intervention in human affairs.31 God also interacts with the prayers of all the saints and saves all sinners who repent.32 Note, though, that while God is interactive, He is not reactive but proactive; as Isaiah said, before we call, God answers (Isa. 65:24).
Likewise, when we reach the most godlike state of absolute perfection possible (via the Beatific Vision), we do not become less active but more active. We will not be God’s frozen chosen—we will be His mobile millions, actively worshiping and serving Him (cf. Rev. 4–5). Nevertheless, our action will not be that of striving but of enjoying, not of seeking but of treasuring what was found. Our minds will be active, not in searching for truth but in rejoicing over the infinite truth discovered (1 Cor. 13:12). Our intellectual and spiritual action in heaven will not be that of desiring God but of delighting in Him.
The hymnist said it eloquently:

Face to face with Christ, my Savior,
Face to face—what will it be
When with rapture I behold Him,
Jesus Christ who died for me?

Face to face—O blissful moment!
Face to face—to see and know;
Face to face with my Redeemer,
Jesus Christ who loves me so.

Face to face I shall behold Him,
Far beyond the starry sky.
Face to face in all His glory,
I shall see Him by and by.33

One day, while meditating on this topic, these words came to me:

In That Great Day …

The mountains shall be lowered
  And the crooked things made straight
When we see the Lord of glory
  And pass through the open gate.
The Lord Himself will tell us:
  “I have saved you by my grace.”
And all we once-lost sinners
  Will see His wondrous face.
The angels up in glory
  Will shout with ecstasy
For ne’er in all the ages
  Ere this sight did see.
We’ll have the glory of Jesus;
  Our bodies will be the same;
In that great Day
  When the Lord of Hosts shall reign.

ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT HEAVEN

As with other ultimate truths, when it comes to heaven there are more questions than answers. Many queries are not addressed in Scripture and must await the final reality itself; in the meantime, we must be content that “the secret things belong to the Lord our God” (Deut. 29:29). Even so, there is nothing to hinder theological speculation, provided it contradicts neither Scripture nor sound reasoning.

Will Those Who Die in Infancy Remain Babies in Heaven?

Probably not. Heaven is a place of maturity and perfection, and babies stunted in their growth, short of maturity, would not reflect a state of perfection.34 It seems to better befit God’s nature and plan for those who were not granted earthly maturity to attain it in heaven.

Will Everyone Be Equally Blessed in Heaven?

The evidence seems to support a negative answer. Everyone in heaven will be fully blessed, but not everyone will be equally blessed. Every believer’s cup will be full and running over, but not everyone’s cup will be the same size. We determine in time what our capacity for appreciating God will be in eternity.35 Different persons can listen to the same musical performance and have varying degrees of appreciation because they have developed different capacities for enjoying it; similarly, different people can be in the same heaven and yet have different degrees of enjoyment due to developing different abilities for enjoying God here on earth.
By our temporal obedience we determine our reward in eternity (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10), as Paul clearly explains:

No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor. 3:11–15).36

How Can Heaven Be a Place of Glory to God and Yet of Reward for Us?

The Bible seems to present contradictory motifs: (1) the worship of God, and (2) rewards for us. How can we be working for rewards and yet doing all things for God’s glory (1 Cor. 10:31)?
The answer lies in the nature of the reward: If the reward is the capacity to love and serve God more, then these two elements are not contradictory. This seems to be the case in Jesus’ parable of the stewards (Matt. 25:14–30); those who invested their talents were given more, and their master said, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”
Indeed, the elders mentioned in Revelation do not strut their crowns on the corner of Glory Street and Hallelujah Avenue:

They lay their crowns before the throne and say: “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being” (4:10–11).

There is nothing selfish about working for a crown if it is for the privilege of casting it at the feet of Jesus.

Will Believers Have Physical Bodies in Heaven?

Yes.37 Jesus’ resurrection body was the same physical body in which He died, crucifixion scars and all (cf. Luke 24:39–40; John 20:27). The empty tomb, the scars, the physical touching of His body (cf. Matt. 28:9), calling it “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39), and His statement that it was the same body that died (John 2:19–21) all demonstrate that His resurrection body was physical. Our resurrection bodies will be like His (Phil. 3:21), and, like Him, we will leave behind an empty grave (John 5:28–29).

Will We Eat in Heaven?

Yes,38 but for enjoyment, not for sustenance—for pleasure rather than necessity.39 The physical resurrection body is supernaturally rather than naturally sourced (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4; 15:44); God will have incomparably rich enjoyment for us in heaven even as He has given us great pleasure here on earth.40 Jesus said to His disciples, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29).

Will We Recognize Loved Ones in Heaven?

Yes. Moses and Elijah were recognized when they appeared from heaven on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3); Peter even acknowledged them by name (v. 4). There seems to be a personal identity by which we will recognize each other in heaven, as is at least implied in Paul’s comfort of the bereaved among the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 4:13–18) and in Jesus’ response to the Sadducees’ question about the resurrection (Matt. 22:28–30).

Can We Be Married in Heaven?

No, there will be no marriage ceremony or marriage relationship in heaven. This ends at the time of physical death:

By law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. (Rom. 7:2–3)

How Many People Will Be in Heaven?

Everyone whom God can bring there without violating the free will that He gave them.41 God desires all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4), but we cannot know how many will be. Augustine speculated that it would be the same percentage as the angels who fell (one-third; see Rev. 12:9), but the Bible nowhere says this.
Many believe that only a small fraction of all the people who ever lived will be in heaven, based on passages like Matthew 7:13–14:

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

However, B. B. Warfield (1851–1921) argued that this is taking such verses out of context (“ATFTBS” in BTS); he maintained that they refer to the immediate and local response to Jesus’ message, not to the ultimate and universal statistics of heaven. Indeed, granting that all who die in infancy go to heaven,42 that life begins at conception,43 and that the mortality rate before the age of accountability44 down through the millennia has been roughly half of those conceived, it would seem to follow that there will be more people saved than lost. This is to say nothing of much of the world’s population since the time of Adam being still alive at this time;45 a great revival before Christ’s return could sweep even more souls into God’s kingdom.
Finally, by analogy with the angels, two-thirds of which did not rebel against God (Rev. 12:4), one could reason that perhaps two-thirds of all humans will be saved. This also is merely speculative, but we do know that “the Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9; cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Once again: There will be as many people in heaven as God can get there without violating the free choice that He freely gave His creatures.46

Is Heaven a Place or a State of Mind?

Liberal theologians have long insisted that heaven is a state of mind, not a place; thus, those in the right state of mind are in heaven now—here on earth.
However, while it’s true that unless one enters the right state of mind and heart—a state of belief in God47—he will not go to heaven, it is untrue that everyone in this state of mind is already there. Heaven is much more than a state of mind: It is a real place. Jesus used the word place three times in regard to heaven in John 14:2–4;48 He also taught us to pray to “our Father in heaven,” and that His will would be accomplished “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:9–10). Heaven is a different place than earth (cf. Rev. 21:9–27).49

Where Is Heaven Located?

Presently, before the final resurrection, heaven is the abode of righteous human souls and angelic spirits in God’s presence (2 Cor. 5:8; Heb. 12:23), where Christ sits on the right hand of God’s throne (1:3). This may be somewhere in a far corner of the space-time world, shrouded from human view behind a cloud of God’s glory, or in an entirely different physical dimension.
In favor of heaven being in the space-time world, some have cited Job’s reference to God coming from the north (Job 37:22; cf. 26:7). Plus, Jesus ascended bodily into the sky and off into space (Acts 1:10–11), and He will return to the same place (the Mount of Olives), in the same physical body, from which He left (Zech. 14:4).
In favor of heaven being in another dimension, others have noted that Jesus seemed to step in and out of this space-time dimension when in His resurrection body (Luke 24:31; John 20:26). Further, contemporary science presents a multidimensional universe that allows for many dimensions beyond the customary three.
Eventually, after the Second Coming,50 heaven (the Holy City) will descend to be part of “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21:1–2). Peter exhorted believers:

Look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. (2 Peter 3:12–13)

This will be the eventual fulfillment of the prayer that Jesus taught His disciples to pray (Matt. 6:10): In that day there literally will be heaven on earth. For He asks us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Will We Continue to Learn and Morally Improve in Heaven?

Christian theologians have held both views.
Those who hold to eternal human process cite texts like Ephesians 3:10–11:

His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Also, 1 Peter 1:12 states:

It was revealed to them [the prophets] that they were not serving themselves but you [later believers], when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

From such passages it is inferred that even heaven is a great university wherein we continue to learn about (and grow in) God.
On the other hand, those who deny heavenly spiritual progress point to several factors.
First, heaven is a place of perfection, not progress (cf. 1 Cor. 13:2). Heaven represents rest and attainment, not striving (cf. John 9:4; Rev. 14:13).
Second, heaven is a place of receiving, not working for, rewards (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11ff.; Rev. 22:12).
Third, the sense of urgency and finality about this life (cf. Heb. 9:27) supports the conclusion that heaven completes and finalizes what is done here and now. As Jesus said to Peter, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19; cf. 18:18).
Fourth, and finally, the very nature of the Beatific Vision as the ultimate and final state of perfection and sinlessness suggests that once we have it, we will no longer be learning;51 instead, we will be engaged in the eternal experience of resting in, delighting in, and reveling in the incredible and unsurpassable knowledge provided by God’s infinite nature.
The one thing heaven will not be is a place of boredom, which results from falling short of perfection rather than from attaining it. The following chart illustrates the difference:

Moral Perfection on Earth Moral Perfection in Heaven
Changing Unchanging
Growing Matured
Striving for Resting in
Seeking Enjoying
Desiring of Delighting in
Our goal Our reward
Our aim Our attainment

Paul wrote,

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.… I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 3:12–14)

Will We Be Able to Explore the Universe in Heaven?

Yes, but in an infinitely higher way than space travelers could. The nature of the Beatific Vision grants this: We will know everything our finite capacity will allow us to know directly through the infinite mind of God. As He knows the entire universe in and through Himself,52 so will we know the universe by virtue of knowing everything directly in and through His Mind (essence). Hence, with effortless ease, we will be able to explore the entire universe, insofar as it is finitely possible. Such exploration will not be that of ceaseless discovering, but of endless delighting in what we have already discovered in God.

Will We Experience Time in Heaven?

Here again, there are two views held by orthodox Christians.
The first position says yes, we will experience time in heaven, a conclusion based on passages that speak about eternity being described as, for instance, “day and night” forever (e.g., Rev. 4:8; 7:15), though these could be figures of speech for an endless eternity.
The second view emphasizes that heaven is the abode of the eternal (nontemporal) God.53 We, the beatified, will have reached a state of changeless perfection in which the timeless God directly informs our minds. Because time is a measurement of change according to a before and an after, we cannot be temporal in heaven; if we were temporal, then we would still be changing; however, we will be perfect, and what is perfect does not need to change.54 If perfection changed, it would have to be either change for the better (we cannot be better than being absolutely perfect) or change for the worse (we cannot get worse in heaven). Since humans in heaven cannot be in time, nor, as finite,55 can we be absolutely changeless like God, the medieval theologians gave another name to this state: aeviternity. Our state of aeviternity will be one like that of the angels, who are not in time by nature but can be related to it by activity.56

THE THEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF HEAVEN

Like every other major biblical doctrine, heaven is rooted in the very nature and will of God. Particularly, heaven is based in God’s omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnisapience, and omnipotence. As the place of ultimate good, heaven was desired by God’s omnibenevolence, was conceived by His omniscience, was planned in accordance with His omnisapience, and will be achieved by His omnipotence.

Heaven Follows From God’s Omnibenevolence

God, by nature, is all-loving.57 He does not want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9) but desires “all men … to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4 NET). “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16 TLB), who is the sufficient sacrifice for the sins of “the whole world” (1 John 2:2).58 The love of Christ is manifest in that “one died for all” (2 Cor. 5:14); that is, “He might taste death for everyone” (Heb. 2:9 NLT). If God loves everyone and wants everyone to be saved, then there must be an eternal place for them. This is why Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2). In the Bible, this place is called “heaven” (Matt. 6:9).

Heaven Follows From God’s Omniscience

Of course, it would be useless for God to prepare a heaven unless He knew in advance that someone was going to be there. Only an omniscient being with infallible foreknowledge of human freedom59 could know with certainty that any free creatures would accept His offer of salvation.60 Paul confirms,

Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Rom. 8:29–30)

Peter wrote to those “who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood” (1 Peter 1:2). In accordance with God’s foreknowledge of those who would receive Him (cf. John 1:12) and thus be saved, He provided an eternal heaven for their happiness.

Heaven Flows From God’s Omnisapience

God is not only all-knowing, He is also all-wise;61 He not only knows who will be saved, but He also knows how to get them there. This requires omnisapience: Wisdom chooses the best way to obtain the best end.62 Since humans were created free, the infinitely wise God ordained the best means to keep them on the track to heaven. Needless to say, this was no small task, since He willed not to violate our choice and yet also assure our ultimate destiny.63

Heaven Flows From God’s Omnipotence

A plan that transforms sinners and makes them saints cannot be accomplished by natural powers—only the efficacious grace of God can do this.64 As such, it is God’s omnipotence that can guarantee the end from the beginning: “What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do” (Isa. 46:11). It is with this assurance that we can know heaven will have occupants, the exact ones whom God has foreordained will be there.65 Because of God’s omnipotence, Peter was compelled to speak of those “who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:5). The surety of heaven is a confident expectation, not only because God is all-loving and wants to achieve it, but also because He is all-powerful and can do it.66

Geisler, N. L. (2005). Systematic theology, volume four: church, last things (pp. 294–318). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

By Christopher on Uncategorized tagged Paige Patterson, SBC, SBWTS

The Untold Truth about Paige Patterson

Click here to open this article as a PDF.

The Untold Truth:

Facts Surrounding Paige Patterson and his Removal from SWBTS

By Sharayah Colter

May 2018

“The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.”

Proverbs 18:17 (NASB)

When I received news that Paige Patterson had been fired from his role as president emeritus, I was standing under a sunny sky listening to my toddler son squealing with pure delight as he chased his dog around my legs. It struck me how oblivious he was to the sobering news, and I felt the weight of the realization that the history we write today is the future he lives tomorrow. In the spirit of writing a truthful history, I’d like to offer a more complete picture of what has transpired over the past month in regard to Patterson and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I believe we are all better served operating with the truth, and since I am aware of these truths, I feel I need to share them.

The first fact I’d like to offer in full disclosure is that I have had a front row seat to observing Paige Patterson during my time at Southwestern as a student and most recently as wife to his chief of staff, Scott Colter. I have been in his home, ridden in his car, passed him on the sidewalk, been a student in his class, sat through his chapel sermons, emailed with him and shared meals with him. I’ve observed him in large groups and small family gatherings.

Second, I want to be clear that I have compiled this account of the truth completely of my own volition. Paige and Dorothy Patterson have not asked me to write on behalf of or in defense of them, and my words are my own.

Third, the fact is, Southern Baptists deserve to know the whole story. Thus far you’ve heard one side of it, and that is because Patterson holds the conviction not to defend himself personally, following the example of Christ. However, this story has spiraled out of control to a point that demands a balanced and truthful response. The facts below will characterize a man who — while a sinner with feet of clay like each us — is not guilty of all of which he has been accused in recent days.

Please allow me to address the accusations against him here.

Accusation # 1: Patterson encouraged a female Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary student not to report an alleged rape to police.

This accusation was outlined in a Washington Post article published May 22 while the trustees of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) were meeting. In the article, a student who in a Tweet later identified herself as Megan Lively (Megan Nichols during her time at Southeastern), alleges that Patterson met with her along with four male seminarians and encouraged her not to report the alleged rape to police. The article states that she was placed on probation but that she did not know why.

Truth: Patterson says he does not recall meeting with Lively, which appears in keeping with a letter Lively sent to Patterson dated April 15, 2003 (see attached letter and response in the PDF version).

“Finally, thank you for the accountability and for putting me on probation. Even though Dr. Moseley has handled this, I think it is great that the school enforces discipline,” Lively wrote in the letter. “At first, I was humiliated and embarrassed. But I know now this is from my own actions and the consequences of those.”

In the letter, Lively apologized and admitted what she recalled then as sin.

“I just wanted to write you and first of all apologize,” Lively wrote in the April 15 letter. “I know that you have been made aware of the sin that was in my life. While I have confessed this to the Lord, repented and sought accountability in my own life, I feel that I have disgraced the school.”

In July 2003, Lively sent a handwritten notecard to Patterson again offering her gratitude and appreciation to him (see attached notecard and response).

“I just wanted to take the time to thank you for the difference you have made in the life of our seminary and in my personal life,” Lively wrote in the notecard. “We will be praying for you and support you 100 percent. The faculty and students at Southwestern have no idea how blessed they are to have you as their new president.”

If a rape had indeed been alleged in 2003, and Patterson had known about it, he would have reported it to authorities, as he demonstrated in a different scenario involving a Southwestern Seminary student when he called police even when the student asked him not to do so.

This brings me to the second accusation against Patterson.

Accusation # 2: Patterson did not handle appropriately an alleged case of sexual assault against a SWBTS student.

Truth: Patterson immediately called police in response to a female student claiming she had been raped. The accused man admitted to having sexual relations with the woman, but said it was consensual. The man also produced evidence to the police to that effect.

Southwestern’s chief of police can confirm that the Fort Worth Police Department was called and responded. Patterson expelled the male student accused of rape. However, because the female student refused to press charges, Patterson had done all he could by calling the police, expelling the student and encouraging the woman multiple times to press charges.

Assistant Professor of Theology in Women’s Studies Candi Finch, who also served as assistant to Dorothy Patterson during her time as first lady at Southwestern, was in one of the meetings where Patterson met with the female student and her family members.

“I personally sat in a meeting with Dr. Patterson and this female student and two of her family members,” Finch recalled. “Dr. Patterson opened and closed the meeting with prayer for this young lady. He encouraged her in my presence to press criminal charges against the young man, but she said she wanted to think and pray about it more.”

Finch said to her knowledge the woman has not pressed charges to date.

Accusation # 3: Patterson says an abused wife should return to an abusive husband.

Truth: Fifty-four years ago, a woman in Patterson’s church told him she was feeling spiritually abused because her husband would not let her go to church or tithe. After the woman emphatically assured Patterson her husband had never hurt her physically and would never hurt her, Patterson advised her to go home and pray for her husband. Surprisingly to the woman, the husband did hurt her. They both came to church, and the man was saved, about which Patterson said he was happy. Contrary to the narrative spun through social media, Patterson was not happy the woman was hurt. Patterson has apologized for not expressing himself clearly in the retelling of this story giving the impression he condones abuse. As one who has risked his life to remove wives from domestic violence, nothing could be further from the truth.

Many Southern Baptist leaders have condemned Patterson by explaining their stance on abuse and setting it up in juxtaposition to Patterson’s portrayed beliefs. Patterson has offered multiple statements clarifying his stance on abuse. “I utterly reject any form of abuse in demeaning or threatening talk, in physical blows, or in forced sexual acts,” Patterson stated in “An Apology to God’s People,” posted on Southwestern’s website on May 10, 2018. “There is no excuse for anyone to use intemperate language or to attempt to injure another person.” For Patterson, those are not just hollow words; they are strong beliefs which he has demonstrated by physically removing women from abusive husbands on more than one occasion.

“I was the one being hit and Dr. Patterson never suggested to ‘stick around and get smacked.’” tweeted Angie Brock on May 4. “What he did was bring the authorities, remove my violent husband and encourage me in the Word. Not recommending divorce does not mean approval of abuse.”

Accusation # 4: Patterson objectified a 16-year-old girl in conversation with a woman and her son.

Truth: Patterson, upon hearing a teenage boy say to his friend that a girl passing by was “built,” commented to the boy’s mother that the boy was just being biblical, meaning that he was using the same language the Bible uses to describe Eve in the creation account. In the retelling of this story during a sermon illustration while preaching on Genesis 2, Patterson said that the “young co-ed” who had passed by the boys, was “nice.”

Patterson has issued a statement saying he regrets any hurt his words have caused.

“[A] sermon illustration used to try to explain a Hebrew word (Heb. banah “build or construct,” Gen. 2:22) [has] obviously been hurtful to women in several possible ways,” Patterson said in his May 10 statement “An Apology to God’s People.” “I wish to apologize to every woman who has been wounded by anything I have said that was inappropriate or that lacked clarity. We live in a world of hurt and sorrow, and the last thing that I need to do is add to anyone’s heartache. Please forgive the failure to be as thoughtful and careful in my extemporaneous expression as I should have been.”

Accusation # 5: Patterson fired student employee Nathan Montgomery in retaliation for Tweeting an article calling for his retirement.

Truth: When Montgomery’s Tweet was shown to Patterson, he instructed that the employee not be fired. Vice President of Communications Charles Patrick, however, had already fired Montgomery. The matter was taken out of Patterson’s hands when Montgomery appealed directly to the board of trustees instead of appealing to Patterson.

Remaining truths

The last few remaining truths that Southern Baptists should know is the way in which the Southwestern board of trustees has handled the social media crisis and ensuing termination of Patterson. While many godly men and women comprise the board of trustees, the manner in which the matter was handled was disappointing at best, especially in light of the many bylaw infractions and violations of trustee confidentiality.

Trustee violations

The executive committee of the board of trustees worked outside the bounds of its bylaws by not giving the required 10-day notice before holding meetings.

Trustee confidentiality was violated by the release of information from the executive session of the board’s May 22 meeting to people outside the room and not on the board during the 13-hour meeting. Confidential seminary information which was only shared with the trustees appeared both on Twitter (@eyesonSBC) and in a blog.

May 22, 2018 meeting of the board of trustees

Despite the fact that Patterson requested the meeting to have a hearing from the full board, only a fraction of the time was allotted by the trustees for him to address the group. His time was limited and he was only allowed to answer specific questions posed by the board. On the second brief occasion when he was summoned to speak to the board, he was not allowed to bring his cabinet with him, as he desired.

Then, after waiting into the wee hours of the morning while the board met in executive session and upon offering Patterson the position of president emeritus, Patterson returned to a side room down the hall from the trustees’ meeting room to discuss the board’s solution with his cabinet. After about 20 minutes, when Patterson was nearly ready to return to the board’s meeting room in reply, a Southwestern employee noticed the trustees were returning to open session and rushed down the hall to let Patterson and his cabinet know so that they could return to the meeting.

I personally walked down the hall to hear what the board would announce in open session, since they had not waited for Patterson to return. When I arrived at the room, trustees and media were pouring out, having already ended the meeting after only a couple of minutes, if that, in open session. I had to ask a reporter what the board had announced and then returned immediately to deliver the news to Patterson that they had removed him as president and named him president emeritus.

May 30, 2018 action of the executive committee of the board of trustees

After midnight in Germany, while Patterson was sleeping, the chairman of the board of trustees, Kevin Ueckert, ordered Scott Colter to wake Patterson for a phone call. On the call, Ueckert told Patterson he was fired effective immediately, with no salary, no health insurance and no home. He then relayed that Patterson would receive instructions for vacating Pecan Manor upon returning to Fort Worth.

Before the phone call, both Pattersons’ and Colter’s email accounts, including personal contacts and calendar, were shut down without notice and while the three were traveling in Germany on behalf of Southwestern, leaving them without access to itineraries, train tickets, local contact information, hotel confirmation and flight boarding passes.

Also at some point before the phone call, the locks were changed without notice to the room on Southwestern’s campus housing Patterson’s private and personal archives containing ministry materials and documents from Criswell College and the Conservative Resurgence. No notice was given, and the Pattersons had no knowledge that this was being done and had not given permission for such. Despite accusations that the archives were mishandled, the attached correspondence from 2004 from Patterson to Southeastern’s librarian and president indicate he believes all was handled properly.

It is regrettable that the trustees did not contact Patterson during their May 30 executive committee meeting to hear any explanation of these accusations before his immediate termination. I wish to reiterate that the purpose of sharing the details of what has transpired over the past month is the hope that Southern Baptists, who own Southwestern Seminary and control its work, have a fuller picture of what actually occurred.

So why was Paige Patterson actually terminated? Was it for …

– encouraging a female student not to report to police an alleged rape at Southeastern?

We now know that he does not recall meeting with her and that she thanked him and sang his praises.

– not handling appropriately an alleged case of sexual assault against a SWBTS student?

We now know that he called the police, urged the woman to press charges and expelled the male student.

– telling an abused wife to return to an abusive husband?

We now know the wife assured him that her husband had not and would never physically harm her.

– objectified a 16-year-old girl in conversation with a woman and her son?

We now know Patterson has apologized for using a sermon illustration that misconstrued his heart and beliefs.

– fired student employee Nathan Montgomery?

We now know Patterson did not fire Montgomery and instructed that he not be fired.

We serve a God of truth. I have written in the spirit of that truth, and I pray you will receive it in that spirit as well.

Carroll instructed Scarborough,

“Lee, keep the Seminary lashed to the cross. If heresy ever comes in the teaching, take it to the faculty. If they will not hear you and take prompt action, take it to the trustees of the Seminary. If they will not hear you, take it to the Convention that appoints the Board of Trustees, and if they will not hear you, take it to the great common people of our churches. You will not fail to get a hearing then.”

– B.H. Carroll – Founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

2 Jun

By Christopher on Ethics, Tribute tagged 1stCor.7, Paige Patterson, SBC, SWBTS

Why Firing Paige Patterson from the Presidency of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary was a Serious Mistake

Why Firing Paige Patterson from the Presidency

of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

was a Serious Mistake

by Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D.

May 28^th, 2018

First of all, it was done at the wrong time. Dr. Patterson was close to retirement age. They should have waited and allowed him to retire honorably and properly.

Second, it was done to the wrong person. He did nothing worthy of being fired. No biblical grounds were given, let alone seriously considered. There are numerous Christian leaders who have committed sins worthy of discipline. Patterson is not one of them; he hasn’t committed any such sins. On the contrary, he has done many things worthy of exaltation. In fact, he is one of the top conservative Christian leaders of our day. Indeed, I have long contended that a bronze statue should be erected in his honor in Nashville. I still do.

Third, it was done the wrong way. It was done too quickly—within hours. This did not give proper time for reflection, interaction, and thoughtful action.

Fourth, it was done on the wrong grounds. The vote was a mere majority of the Trustees present. For a significant event like this it should have been at least a two-thirds or more majority vote.

Fifth, it was done in the wrong spirit. Many who opposed Dr. Patterson were apparently caught up in winds of the #MeToo movement of the day. But no doctrinal or moral charges were even offered, let alone proven by two or more credible witnesses against him. Rather, personal opinions about isolated cases were offered.

Sixth, it was done without proper forethought. Patterson is one of the great evangelical leaders of our day. His departure in this manner will send a strong and wrong signal, namely, one of encouragement to the less-conservative movement in the country.

While only Jesus has an impeccable record, Patterson has one that is highly commendable. The Southern Baptist Trustees have made a tragic and influential mistake.

[Also see The Untold Truth about Paige Patterson.]

Norman Geisler (Ph.D., Loyola University) has taught theology, Christian apologetics, and ethics on the graduate level for over fifty years. He is the Chancellor and the Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Theology at Veritas International University in Santa Ana, California. He is also the Distinguished Senior Professor of Theology and Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. He has written on the ethical considerations of marriage and divorce in Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues & Options, Second Edition (Baker Academic, 2010).

By Christopher on Tribute

A Tribute to Dr. Stuart Hackett (2012)

Dr. Stuart Hackett, long-time professor of philosophy at Wheaton College and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School just went to be with the Lord. He was one of the greatest Christian philosophers of the 20^th century. I was influenced by his book, The Resurrection of Theism, which we used as a text at Wheaton College in 1958. Later, it was my privilege to hire Dr. Hackett to replace me in the philosophy department at Trinity when I was called to Dallas Theological Seminary. His spiritual and intellectual discipline was exemplar. His logical mind and analysis of the problems were among the greatest it was my privilege to know. His influence lives on through his books, student, and one of his greatest disciples, Dr. William Lane Craig.

By Christopher on Spanish, Thomism

¿El Tomismo Conduce al Catolicismo?

¿El Tomismo Conduce al Catolicismo?

por Norman L. Geisler

Tomás de Aquino, el gran filósofo y teólogo, era católico romano. Y existe un número creciente de eruditos nocatólicos que se han convertido en tomistas. Y algunos de estos se han convertido en católicos. ¿Hay una conexión lógica? ¿El tomismo conduce al catolicismo? Es natural que se quiera examinar esta conexión.

La Razón por la que Algunos Tomistas No-Católicos se Vuelven Católicos

Existen una variedad de razones por las que los no-católicos se vuelven católicos. Examinemos algunas de ellas. Existe el atractivo de la antigüedad, la unidad, la continuidad, la belleza, la fraternidad (o la paternidad), la intelectualidad y el deseo de certeza (ver Geisler, Is Rome the True Church? cap. 8). A cualquiera o más de estos apelan algunos evangélicos. Es de destacar que ninguno de estas o una combinación de ellas es una prueba válida de la verdad.

Pocos evangélicos se vuelven católicos porque se convencieron por el estudio de las Escrituras de que Roma es la verdadera Iglesia. Casi nadie razona su camino a Roma simplemente por un estudio objetivo de la evidencia. Por ejemplo, un converso reciente al catolicismo escribió: “Mi familia es católica. ¡Querían que volviera, y la Biblia dice que debemos honrar a nuestros padres!” Está claro que ninguna de estas razones es una buena prueba para la verdad de una religión por la misma lógica que alguien podría argumentar para convertirse en hindú, budista, o incluso un ateo, si su familia pertenecía a ese grupo. O bien, alguien podría convertirse en ortodoxo oriental, si estuviera buscando una tradición más antigua que la propia.

Hemos sopesado las muchas razones por las que algunos evangélicos se han vuelto católicos (en Is Rome the True Church?), y casi nadie dijo que fue porque el estudio de la filosofía tomista los condujo allí. En cuanto al atractivo de la tradición intelectual en el catolicismo, tengo un Ph.D. en filosofía de una institución católica (jesuita) y nunca he tenido la tentación de convertirme en católico. He utilizado mi formación académica en ambas tradiciones para compararlas (ver Geisler, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences). Mi co-autor Ralph MacKenzie y yo tenemos el catolicismo en nuestro trasfondo. Hemos estudiado cuidadosamente ambos lados, y no vemos ninguna razón para nadar el Tíber.

Un converso reciente al catolicismo admite que no fue un buen razonamiento lo que lo llevó a Roma sino la fe. Él dijo: “Los discípulos falsos solo siguen a Jesús cuando están de acuerdo con sus enseñanzas. Si soy muy honesto, el racionalismo de mi fe evangélica me habría puesto en el primer campo (aquellos que lo rechazan porque es difícil de entender) porque rechacé la doctrina de la Presencia Real basada en argumentos teológicos (es una enseñanza penosa), en lugar de poner mi fe en Cristo que la enseñó” (énfasis añadido). Por supuesto, una vez que alguien pone su fe en el sistema romano (por la razón que sea), el resto forma parte de un paquete.

Cualquiera que sea la razón por la cual las personas se vuelven católicas, nunca he visto a nadie argumentar que el catolicismo romano fluya lógicamente de la filosofía tomista. La razón de esto es simple: no hay una conexión lógica entre ellos. El mismo Aquino dijo que no existe una conexión lógica entre el tomismo y el catolicismo romano. Además, la experiencia muestra que hay muchos tomistas que no son católicos.

La Distinción Tomista Entre Fe y Razón

Tomás de Aquino creía que la fe y la razón eran dominios tan distintos que incluso la creencia en Dios no podía ser un objeto de la fe y la razón simultáneamente.

La Distinción Formal Entre Fe y Razón

Aunque Tomás de Aquino en realidad no separó la fe y la razón, sí las distinguió formalmente. Él afirmó que no podemos conocer y creer lo mismo al mismo tiempo. Porque “todo lo que sabemos con conocimiento científico [filosófico] propiamente dicho lo conocemos al reducirlos a los primeros principios que están naturalmente presentes en el entendimiento.” Todo conocimiento científico termina a la vista de algo que está presente [mientras que la fe siempre está en algo ausente]. Por lo tanto, es imposible tener fe y conocimiento científico [filosófico] sobre la misma cosa.” (Ver Geisler, Should Old Aquinas be Forgotten, cap. 5).

El Objeto de la Fe está Más Allá de la Razón

Para Aquino, el objeto de la fe está por encima de los sentidos y la comprensión. “En consecuencia, el objeto de la fe es lo que está ausente de nuestro entendimiento.” Como dijo Agustín, creemos que lo que está ausente, pero vemos lo que está presente. Entonces no podemos probar y creer lo mismo. Porque si lo vemos, no lo creemos. Y si lo creemos, entonces no lo vemos. Porque “toda ciencia [conocimiento filosófico] se deriva de principios autoevidentes y, por lo tanto, vistos… Ahora,… es imposible que una y la misma cosa sea creída y vista por la misma persona.” Esto significa “que una cosa que es un objeto de visión o ciencia para uno, es creída por otro” (ibid.). No significa que una y la misma persona pueda tener tanto la fe como la prueba de uno y el mismo objeto. Si alguien ve racionalmente, entonces él no lo cree por el testimonio de los demás. Y si él lo cree en el testimonio de otro, entonces él no lo ve (conoce) por sí mismo.

Podemos Razonar acerca de la Fe pero no hacia la Fe

No obstante, “esto no impide la comprensión de alguien que cree que tiene algún pensamiento discursivo de comparación acerca de las cosas que él cree.” El pensamiento discursivo, o el razonamiento desde las premisas hasta las conclusiones, no es la causa del asentimiento de la fe. No obstante, tal razonamiento “puede acompañar el asentimiento de la fe.” La razón por la que son paralelos pero uno no causa el otro es que “la fe implica voluntad (libertad) y la razón no coacciona la voluntad” (ibid.). Es decir, una persona es libre de disentir aunque haya razones convincentes para creer.

La Razón No Puede Producir la Fe

La razón acompaña pero no causa la fe. “La fe es llamada consentimiento sin indagación en la medida en que el consentimiento de la fe, o asentimiento, no sea causado por una investigación del entendimiento.” Comentando en Efesios 2:8-9, Aquino sostiene que “el libre albedrío es inadecuado para el acto de fe ya que los contenidos de la fe están por encima de la razón… Entonces, la razón no puede llevar a alguien a la fe” (ibid., énfasis añadido). En el mejor de los casos, la razón es el preámbulo de la fe en Dios y en Cristo. Entonces, la fe cristiana como tal no se sigue lógicamente de la filosofía–incluso de la filosofía tomista. Lo mejor que la filosofía puede hacer es preparar el camino para la fe, pero lógicamente no conduce a la fe, y mucho menos a una fe en particular como la fe católica romana.

La Fe Va Más Allá de la Razón

Un argumento filosófico no contiene premisas tomadas de la fe. Se sostiene sobre sus propios dos “pies” filosóficos. Además, según Santo Tomás, las doctrinas únicas de la fe cristiana (como la Trinidad y la Encarnación de Cristo) no son el resultado de la razón humana. Ningún proceso racional, por sofisticado que sea, puede alcanzar estas doctrinas cristianas únicas. No son contrarios a la razón (ya que no hay contradicción en estas), pero van más allá de la razón. Dada esta diferencia entre lo que se puede conocer por la razón y lo que solo se puede conocer por la fe, es obvio que la filosofía tomista no conduce lógicamente al catolicismo romano.

Tomistas Quienes No Son Católicos Romanos

No solo no existe una conexión lógica entre tomismo y catolicismo, sino que históricamente no existe una conexión real para muchos filósofos tomistas que no han sido católicos. Eric Mascal era un tomista anglicano. David Johnson es un tomista luterano. John Gerstner, R. C. Sproul y Arvin Vos son tomistas reformados. Win Corduan y yo somos tomistas evangélicos. Thomas Howe y Richard Howe son tomistas bautistas. Joseph Holden es un tomista de Calvary Chapel. Mortimer Adler no vio contradicción en ser un tomista judío durante muchos años (antes de convertirse en católico), y así sucesivamente. Hay muchos más.

Es verdad que una cantidad de tomistas evangélicos se han convertido en católicos (por ejemplo, Thomas Howard, Jay Budziszewski y Frank Beckwith). Sin embargo, ninguno de ellos lo hizo porque los principios filosóficos del tomismo los condujeron allí. La verdad es que no hay una conexión lógica entre estos. La filosofía tomista como tal no conduce lógicamente o filosóficamente al catolicismo romano, así como no conduce a ser un presbiteriano o un bautista. Por lo tanto, si un tomista se convierte en católico, no se debe a ninguna necesidad filosófica que surja del tomismo.

Esto no quiere decir que algunos evangélicos que no tienen una historia litúrgica, estética o intelectual muy profunda no se sienten atraídos por el catolicismo. Algunos lo son, pero algunos también se sienten atraídos por la ortodoxia oriental o el anglicanismo. Pero muchos siguen contentos con su fe evangélica, y eso por buenas razones. El católico convertido Chris Castaldo expresó esto en su libro Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic cuando se regocijó en el sentido de liberación del ritual y de la culpa que nunca tuvo en el romanismo. Decenas de miles de excatólicos que se convirtieron en evangélicos se sintieron atraídos por las experiencias personales, basadas en la Biblia del evangelicalismo provistas con el simple mensaje del Evangelio y una relación personal con Cristo que obtuvieron a través de él.

Tengo una gran experiencia en el catolicismo, habiendo sido entrenado en dos instituciones jesuitas con un Ph.D. en filosofía de la Universidad de Loyola. Sin embargo, hay varias razones básicas por las que no me he sentido atraído por el catolicismo. Primero, estoy satisfecho de ser un evangélico doctrinal, experiencial y filosóficamente. Segundo, no he visto alguna razón convincente bíblica o de otra manera para tentarme a convertirme en católico. Tercero, mi estudio sistemático del catolicismo me ha convencido de que se basa en fundamentos no-bíblicos e irrazonables. Cuarto, nunca he tenido la tendencia a confundir el cordón y la gracia, o para conectar el ritual y la realidad muy de cerca. Finalmente, hay algunas doctrinas y prácticas católicas que considero no-bíblicas e incluso desagradables, como el purgatorio, orar por los muertos, indulgencias, venerar imágenes, orar a María, venerar a María, la asunción corporal de María, adorar a la hostia consagrada y la infalibilidad del Papa, por mencionar algunas.

Las Dimensiones Protestantes en Tomás de Aquino

Aunque no existe una conexión lógica entre la filosofía tomista y el catolicismo, he encontrado muchas similitudes filosóficas e incluso teológicas entre el evangelicalismo y la filosofía tomista que se me hacen atractivas como evangélico.

Santo Tomás era un católico pre-Trentino, parte de lo que podría llamarse la “Vieja Iglesia Católica” con la que los episcopales serían felices en la mayoría de los casos. Como tal, Aquino no estaba comprometido con la inmaculada concepción de María, la asunción corporal de María, la infalibilidad del Papa y otras idiosincrasias católicas. Además, Tomás de Aquino estaba comprometido con la sola Escrituras solas, la exposición de las Escrituras y otras doctrinas características del protestantismo (ver Geisler, Aquinas, ibid., cap. 4). Su Bibliología básica (menos los Apócrifos), Prolegómenos, Apologética, Teología Propia y Cristología son compatibles con el evangelismo.

De hecho, considero que la filosofía de Tomás de Aquino es un prolegómeno útil para la teología evangélica. Después de todo, Tomás de Aquino defendió el realismo metafísico, la visión de correspondencia de la verdad, la revelación de la proposición, la apologética clásica y el teísmo clásico–todos los cuales son útiles para defender las posiciones evangélicas. De hecho, se tiene que buscar duro, si no en vano, para encontrar un filósofo evangélico que pueda igualar a Aquino en estas áreas.

Pero lo que hoy conocemos como catolicismo “romano,” con su creencia en que las obras son necesarias para la salvación, la veneración y las oraciones a María, el culto de la hostia consagrada, la compra de indulgencias, el purgatorio, la adición de libros apócrifos (en apoyo a los que rezan por los muertos) a las Escrituras inspiradas, e inclinarse ante la infalibilidad del Papa, simplemente no puede competir con la simplicidad del Evangelio evangélico: “Cree en el Señor Jesucristo, y serás salvo” (Hechos 16:31). Y, “Todo el que oye mi palabra y cree al que me envió tiene [ahora mismo] la vida eterna. Él no viene a juicio, sino que ha [desde ese momento] pasado de la muerte a la vida” (Juan 5:24).

Por lo tanto, mi atracción por el tomismo es algo así como mi atracción por C.S. Lewis. Hay muchas cosas que me gustan de la visión de Lewis, por ejemplo, su apologética, su creencia en la verdad y la moral absoluta, su teísmo clásico, su defensa de los milagros del Nuevo Testamento, la afirmación del nacimiento virginal, la encarnación de Cristo, su creencia en la resurrección de Cristo, el castigo eterno (Infierno). Sin embargo, también hay algunas creencias de Lewis que no acepto, por ejemplo, su negación de algunos milagros del Antiguo Testamento, su creencia de que el AT contiene mitos y errores, y su creencia en la evolución, y en el Purgatorio. Pero ninguno de estos impide mi aceptación de los muchos valores positivos que encuentro en Lewis. Pero a pesar de mi aceptación de todas estas características positivas en Lewis, nunca he tenido la tentación de convertirme en anglicano (como lo era él).

Del mismo modo, muchos protestantes se identifican estrechamente con los escritos de San Agustín, pero no pensarían en tirar por completo su filosofía porque afirmaba ser católico, aceptaba los libros apócrifos, creía en la regeneración bautismal y otras enseñanzas católicas.

Entonces, a pesar de los muchos aspectos positivos de las creencias de C. S. Lewis, nunca me he visto tentado a convertirme en anglicano–ni siquiera en episcopal. Se puede sacar provecho de los puntos de las visiones filosóficas positivos de Lewis sin caer en visiones religiosas negativas. ¿Por qué tirar al bebé de la verdad con el baño de agua del error en el nombre de Aquino o Lewis?

Volverse de esto es Juego Limpio

Si bien estamos perdiendo algunas cabezas intelectuales en la parte superior del evangelicalismo hacia Roma, estamos ganando decenas de miles de conversos al evangelicalismo desde el fondo del catolicismo. El intercambio favorece mucho al evangelicalismo. Existen literalmente decenas de miles de católicos en América del Sur que se han convertido en evangélicos. Algunos países (como Brasil) son casi un tercio católicos ahora. Además, decenas de miles de estos conversos católicos terminan en una de las grandes iglesias evangélicas donde cantan música de alabanza centrada en Dios y se les enseña la Palabra de Dios. Esto es algo que Roma con todas sus capas de tradición ha perdido. Una vez que descubren que las obras no son una condición necesaria para la salvación (Romanos 4:5; Efesios 2:8-9; Tito 3:3-6) sino que somos salvos por la sola gracia a través de la sola fe, ellos se hacen grandes cristianos evangélicos. Se dan cuenta de que no podemos obrar para la gracia, pero que obramos desde la gracia. Una vez que aprenden que podemos tener vida eterna ahora (Juan 5:24) por fe y no tienen que obrar por esta o esperar hasta que mueran, ellos son exuberantes.

Por mi parte, doy la bienvenida a la renovación tomista en el evangelicalismo. En un mundo de experiencialismo, una toma del “racionalismo” tomista es más que bienvenida. Del mismo modo, el tomismo es un buen antídoto para el misticismo de la Nueva Era que ha penetrado en parte del evangelicalismo. Además, el énfasis del Doctor Angélico en la verdad objetiva y la revelación proposicional es una cura segura para el existencialismo barthiano que se ha infiltrado en la visión evangélica de la Escritura. Como lo expresó el tomista reformado John Gerstner, “Dios quiere alcanzar el corazón, pero no quiere eludir la cabeza en el camino hacia el corazón.” El tomismo definitivamente puede ayudar en esta sección. Por último, pero no menos importante, la metafísica tomista es la única respuesta sólida a la deriva hacia las visiones del Teísmo Abierto y del proceso de Dios. Por supuesto, Roma no está en el hogar soteriológico (salvación) o eclesiológicamente (iglesia), pero el tomismo abarca importantes verdades en Prolegómenos, Apologética, Teología Propia y Metafísica que los evangélicos necesitan desesperadamente hoy en día. En resumen, existe demasiado bien en las visiones de Tomás de Aquino como para estar cantando “¡Debería Olvidarse el Viejo de Aquino!”

Dr. Geisler es el autor de Should Old Aquinas Be Forgotten? Many Say Yes but the Author Says No (¿Debería el Viejo Aquino Ser Olvidado? Muchos Dicen Sí, Pero el Autor Dice No) (Bastion Books :2013), What Augustine Says (¿Qué Dice Agustín?) (Bastion Books :2013), Is the Pope Infallible: A Look at the Evidence (¿Es el Papa Infalible? Un Vistazo a la Evidencia) (Bastion Books :2012), Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (¿Es Roma la Verdadera Iglesia? Una Consideración de la Afirmación Católico Romana) (Crossway Books :2008), y Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Católicos Romanos y Evangélicos: Acuerdos y Diferencias) (Baker Academic :1995). Para recursos adicionales por el Dr. Geisler sobre el Catolicismo Romano, favor de visitar http://normangeisler.com/rcc/

Characteristics That Must Be True of God’s Word, But Could Also Be True of a Human Book

1. The Bible Claims to Be God’s Word

C. The New Testament Was Seen As Being Revealed Scripture As Well

F. The Bible Claims to Have Divine Authority in All Its Parts

G. Christ Testified That the Bible Is from God Jesus had an extremely high view of Scripture. For example,

2. The Bible Is Historically Accurate

3. The Trustworthiness of the Biblical Authors

5. The Documents We Possess Are Accurate Copies of the Originals

True Only of God’s Word

1. Scientific Knowledge Before Its Time

A. The Body

B. The Earth

C. The Heavens

2. The Supernatural Predictions of the Biblical Prophets

B. The Coming Of Christ

3. The Uniqueness of the Biblical Message

A. Spiritual Death

B. Eternal Life

C. A Gift

4. The Miraculous Confirmation of the Biblical Witnesses

5. The Testimony of the Transforming Power of the Bible

Conclusion

The Untold Truth:

Facts Surrounding Paige Patterson and his Removal from SWBTS

By Sharayah Colter

May 2018

Why Firing Paige Patterson from the Presidency

of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

was a Serious Mistake

by Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D.

May 28th, 2018

La Razón por la que Algunos Tomistas No-Católicos se Vuelven Católicos

La Distinción Tomista Entre Fe y Razón

La Distinción Formal Entre Fe y Razón

El Objeto de la Fe está Más Allá de la Razón

Podemos Razonar acerca de la Fe pero no hacia la Fe

La Razón No Puede Producir la Fe

La Fe Va Más Allá de la Razón

Tomistas Quienes No Son Católicos Romanos

Las Dimensiones Protestantes en Tomás de Aquino

Volverse de esto es Juego Limpio

May 28^th, 2018