The Necessity of Faith with Knowledge

by Daniel Stabler

Christian Logic

April 25, 2 !"

D# Stabler 2

Table of Contents $ntrod%ction##################################################################################################################################page 2 Chapter !& 'hat is Knowledge(##################################################################################################page " Chapter 2& 'hat is Faith(############################################################################################################page ) Chapter "& Faith for Ac*%iring Knowledge###############################################################################page !! Chapter +& Faith and Certainty,,,#######################################################################################page !Chapter 5& Faith for .sing Knowledge######################################################################################page 2+ Chapter )& Faith for Knowing####################################################################################################page 2Concl%sion##################################################################################################################################page " /ibliography

D# Stabler "

INTRODUCTION
0any people arg%e that faith and 1nowledge are contradictory# S1eptics say, 21nowledge is what we know, b%t faith is si3ply what we believe#4 5thers, fro3 the religio%s perspecti6e, say that we 1now so3e things by faith, and others by 1nowledge, b%t we sho%ldn7t get too e8tre3e with either or we will beco3e fanatical# This paper will arg%e that it is possible to ha6e 1nowledge that we belie6e and faith that we 1now# $t will also address the fact that tr%e 1nowledge can only be fo%nd, %sed and e8perienced with faith# $n the early !9 s :# ;resho3 0achen obser6ed that the 3odern world, with all its ind%stry and ad6ance3ent, has seen an 2enor3o%s widening of h%3an 1nowledge4 and 1nown great 2perfecting of the instr%3ent of in6estigation#4 'e are in a day when 2No depart3ent of 1nowledge can 3aintain its isolation fro3 the 3odern l%st of scientific con*%est< treaties of in6iolability, tho%ght hallowed by al the sanctions of age=long tradition, are being fl%ng r%thlessly to the winds#4 ! 'hat is the reaction of the Christian( Do we s%b3it o%r 1nowledge of what is 3ost i3portant to the 3odern scientist, and allow hi3 to 3old o%r beliefs according to his 3ethods( Do we say that we accept his 1nowledge abo%t earth along with o%r 1nowledge of ;od, b%t place the3 each in two totally different categories with no interrelation( Do we re>ect all 2scientific4 1nowledge and >%st ta1e a 2leap into the dar14 to establish o%r 1nowledge solely on 2faith#4 5r do we see1 o%t e6idence for o%r faith that is reasonable, and find 1nowledge that we can 1now is tr%th( 'hile this paper will be written fro3 an %nasha3edly Christian perspecti6e, the a%thor belie6es that e6en the %nbelie6er will find thro%gho%t that there is so%nd logic and reason s%pporting the final concl%sion# For there is not one tr%th for the religio%s and one for the %nbelie6er# Tr%th is tr%th, and 1nowledge is only worth anything if it is based on tr%th# So let %s find o%t the tr%th abo%t faith#

What is Knowledge?
1

:# ;resho3 0achen, Christianity and Liberalism# ?;rand @apids, 0$& 'illia3 /# Aerd3ans B%b# Co#, !925C, "

D# Stabler +

The !!th edition of the 0erria3='ebster dictionary defines 1nowledge as a ?!C: the fact or condition of 1nowing so3ething with fa3iliarity gained thro%gh e8perience or association ?2C: ac*%aintance with or %nderstanding of a science, art, or techni*%e b ?!C: the fact or condition of being aware of so3ething ?2C: the range of oneDs infor3ation or %nderstanding Eanswered to the best of 3y FG c : the circ%3stance or condition of apprehending tr%th or fact thro%gh reasoning : cognition d : the fact or condition of ha6ing infor3ation or of being learned Ea person of %n%s%al $n short, 21nowledge4 can be defined as anything that is 1nown# 'e ha6e personal 1nowledge, which has its li3its ?2to the best of my 1nowledge4C# $f all things that co%ld be 1nown were gathered together, then that wo%ld be considered 2all 1nowledge,4 and also 2all tr%th#4 Tr%th and 1nowledge are close synony3s< it co%ld be said that tr%th beco3es 1nowledge when so3eone 1nows it# 0any people do not f%lly %nderstand this, howe6er, so it is necessary that we obser6e the logical connection between 1nowledge and tr%th# There are a 6ariety of 6iews that ha6e been proposed as to what tr%th and 1nowledge are# $n 'estern c%lt%re the f%nda3ental 3eans of ta1ing tr%th into one7s 1nowledge has been the 3ethod of linear logic# This logic is based on the concepts of absol%tes, the idea that so3e things are tr%e, and are always tr%e ?whether or not anyone 1nows itC# A is ne6er non=A, and if A always e*%als / and / always e*%als C then A 3%st always e*%al C# Any c%lt%re that has not followed this concept has been dra3atically hindered fro3 ad6ance3ent in 3any areas of life# A6ery ti3e the 'est has bro%ght reason to a c%lt%re witho%t linear logic has then been progress in ind%stry, art, and econo3y# This is the logic of the /ible H ;od declares that so3e things are tr%e, and will always be tr%e, beca%se they co3e fro3 a ;od that does not change ?0al "&)C# Linear logic depends on tr%th that is constant# An indi6id%al 3ay 3a1e a state3ent abo%t so3ething, declaring it to be tr%e, b%t if the obser6ation of the state3ent is not act%ally so, then the state3ent is false# Aristotle obser6ed that a state3ent co%ld only change fro3 false to tr%e or 6ice 6ersa if the act%al thing referred to changed# State3ents and beliefs,the3sel6es re3ain co3pletely %nchangeable in e6ery way< it is beca%se the act%al thing changes that the contrary co3es to belong to the3# For the state3ent that so3ebody is sitting re3ains the sa3e< it is beca%se of a change in the act%al thing that it co3es to be tr%e at one ti3e and false at another# Si3ilarly with beliefs,For it is not beca%se they the3sel6es recei6e anything that state3ents and beliefs are said to be able to recei6e contraries, b%t beca%se of what has happened to so3ething else# For it is beca%se the act%al thing e8ists or does not e8ist that the state3ent is aid to be tr%e or false, not beca%se it is able itself to recei6e contraries# 2 Th%s, what $ say abo%t so3ething ?in 3y 3ind thin1ing it to be tr%e 1nowledgeC does not 3a1e it so# 5nly if the thing act%ally e8ists is the state3ent tr%th# So3e state3ents are only tr%e in certain ti3es ?2he is sitting down4C, b%t that does not 3ean that tr%th has changed at the 3o3ent when the state3ent no longer applies# $ can only 1now that an apple is red when light reflects off of it and enters 3y eye, b%t neither the light nor 3y brain or 3y 3ind 3ade the apple red# $t wo%ld reflect that portion of the light spectr%3 e6en if $ had ne6er been born, e6en if no 3an had e6er declared that portion to be 2red#4 A6en the fa3o%s agnostic /ertrand @%ssell ac1nowledges that 2the world contains facts, which are what they are whate6er we 3ay choose to thin1 abo%t the3, and that there are also beliefs, which ha6e reference to the faces, and by reference to facts
2

:osh 0cDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict# ?Nash6ille, TN& Tho3as Nelson B%b#, !999C, 5-)

D# Stabler 5

are either tr%e or false#4 Ie declares that beliefs 2?aC depend on 3inds for their e8istence, ?bC do not depend on 3inds for their tr%th#4" Therefore, we 3%st realiJe that 21nowledge4 is a fact that $ ha6e beco3e aware of H a tr%th o%tside of 3e that $ ha6e gained cogniJance of# $ 3ay say that $ 1now so3ething, b%t if it is not tr%th, then $ si3ply 2belie6e4 it to be tr%e, b%t do not act%ally 1now it# That which is false can beco3e 3y belief, b%t tr%e 1nowledge can only consist of tr%th that $ ha6e co3e to 1now# 5%r *%est, therefore, is to see1 to co3e to a 1nowledge in o%r 3ind ?o%r set of beliefsC that is tr%e# Aach of o%r beliefs and assertions represents the 'orld as being a certain way, and the belief or assertion is tr%e if the 'orld is that way, and false if the 'orld is not that way# $t is, as one 3ight p%t it, %p to o%r beliefs and assertions to get the 'orld right< if they don7t, they7re not doing their >ob, and that7s their fa%lt and no fa%lt of the 'orld7s# F Beter Kan $nwagen + 'e ac1nowledge that there are so3e who do not ta1e this position# The e8istentialist declares that what he belie6es is tr%e to him, altho%gh it 3ay not be tr%e to anyone else# Iis tr%th is therefore as changing as hi3 and his own beliefs# S%ch thin1ing is only worthy of 3ention in conde3nation# 5ne 3%st not try to arg%e with an e8istentialist, beca%se arg%3entation and reasoning between two beings re*%ires co33%nication, and e8istentialis3 destroys all co33%nication# $f there is no independent reality, it is i3possible to lie ?for the state3ent is tr%e to the one saying itC and also i3possible to say anything that is tr%e# The e8istentialist has his own definitions for words, so the one he is arg%ing with can ne6er act%ally be certain what he is saying#5 The relati6ist declares that beca%se tr%th is always relati6e to the spea1er or the sit%ation, it is not absol%te# Ie wo%ld say that state3ents abo%t location are relati6e to space and state3ents abo%t present states are relati6e to ti3e H b%t that does not 1eep the3 fro3 being tr%e in an absol%te sense& For e8a3ple, 2@eagan is Bresident,4 when said in !9-) is tr%e and it always will be tr%e# At no ti3e will it cease to be tr%e that @eagan was Bresident in !9-)# $f so3eone %ses the sa3e words in !99 , then he is 3a1ing a new and different tr%th clai3, beca%se the present tense is now fo%r years re3o6ed fro3 the conte8t of the other state3ent# The spatial and te3poral conte8t of state3ents is an inherent part of the conte8t which deter3ines the 3eaning of that assertion# Iowe6er, if 2@eagan is president4 ?said in !9-)C is always tr%e for e6eryone e6erywhere, then it is absol%te tr%th#4 ) 'e 3%st ne6er say that so3ething was tr%e in the past is not tr%e today# $t is still tr%e that :ews were once being 1illed in ;er3any %nder Adolf Iitler, e6en if today ;er3any is a safe place for :ews to li6e# 5ld tr%th 3ay not be applicable H there is no longer an %rgent need for :ews to flee fro3 ;er3any H b%t that does not 3ean it is not still historical fact# Anyone who clai3s to be a total relati6ist is act%ally a hypocrite# 0ost ha6e certain things they hold as absol%te H their own na3e, for e8a3ple# $f $ chose to introd%ce a relati6ist as 2Adolf Iitler4 he wo%ld probably try to correct 3e and tell 3e what his tr%e na3e is H b%t who is to say it is not tr%e to 3e( Any relati6ist who writes or spea1s to others is a hypocrite, beca%se he is trying to co33%nicate so3ething as
3 4

0cDowell, 5-L $bid# 5 $bid#, 5-9 6 $bid#, 59 M%oting ;eisler and /roo1s

D# Stabler )

tr%e, when he says that nothing is tr%e H what 3a1es hi3 thin1 that idea is tr%e to 3e( At the 6ery least he contradicts hi3self by saying that 2all is relati6e, there are no absol%tes4 is absol%tely tr%e in all cases# Anything a relati6ist clai3s o%ght to be regarded as >%st an opinion, s%ch as 2$ li1e red4 or a feeling, 2$ a3 sad,4 which has no bearing on anyone else#L Th%s, we co3pletely discard all e8istentialist or relati6istic concepts and ada3antly declare& 1nowledge, whate6er one belie6es, is only tr%e if it corresponds to the tr%e act%ality independent of the belie6er# To declare so3ething is tr%e 3ay be %npop%lar, as it necessarily declares that other things are false, and people want to be able to change and act witho%t being told they are wrong# Net thin1ing and li6ing can only be b%ilt on tr%th, and atte3pting to create a 2belief 1nowledge4 that is not 2tr%e 1nowledge4 is 3ental s%icide#

What is Faith?
There is great debate on what faith is# So3e 6iew it as necessarily in contradiction to reason, or e6en as its opposite# For e8a3ple, a website atte3pting to e8plain the basics of philosophy declares, 'hen accepting a state3ent as tr%e, there are two basic 3ethods# The first is reason# $t is when the 1nown e6idence points to the state3ent being tr%e, and when the tr%th of the state3ent doesnDt contradict other 1nowledge# The second is faith# $t is when one accepts a state3ent as tr%e witho%t e6idence for it, or in the face of e6idence against it# ThereDs a lot of conf%sion abo%t what e8actly faith is# 0any people conf%se belief with faith# $tDs said
7

0cDowell, 59"

D# Stabler L

that if yo% belie6e so3ething, yo% 3%st be ta1ing it on faith# This is a denial of the f%nda3ental distinction between reason and faith# $t pretends that e6idence for or against an idea is irrele6ant# The article goes on to say that 2%sing faith4 will res%lt in 2the co3plete inability to thin1#4 This wo%ld of co%rse be tr%e, if that definition of faith as %nthin1ing acceptance is ta1en# The article declares that the belie6ing in Afghanistan based on the reports of others is not faith, beca%se there is e6idence H b%t we cannot say it is by reason, beca%se we ha6e no absol%te proof, seeing that those reports 3ay be false# Ie ad3its that if so3eone clai3s s%pernat%ral 1nowledge that wo%ld ha6e to be accepted by 2faith4 H b%t how do we decide what is 2s%pernat%ral(4 Th%s there is so3e 6ag%e %ndefined area in between reason and faith, for 1nowledge which we ha6e so3e e6idence for, b%t cannot pro6e by reason# The si3ple sol%tion is that faith is not a re>ection of e6idence# The article goes on to say, 2$f he clai3s to ha6e 1nowledge which yo% are incapable of achie6ing, his beliefs 3%st be re>ected#4 Net no one teaches anyone to ha6e faith in what they are incapable of achie6ing Hfor if yo% belie6e it, then yo% ha6e achie6ed itO Let %s pa%se at this point and see what the 3odern dictionary declares faith is ?the /iblical definition will be addressed in a 3o3entC& 1 a : allegiance to d%ty or a person : loyalty b ?!C: fidelity to oneDs pro3ises ?2C: sincerity of intentions 2 a ?!C: belief and tr%st in and loyalty to ;od ?2C: belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b ?!C: fir3 belief in so3ething for which there is no proof ?2C : co3plete tr%st 3 : so3ething that is belie6ed esp# with strong con6iction < esp: a syste3 of religio%s beliefs Th%s we see the greater e3phasis of 2faith4 is a fir3 tr%st in so3eone or so3ething, for which there is no co3plete proof# 'ebster7s !-!2 dictionary 3a1es this a little clearer, with the two non=religio%s definitions presented as !# /elief< the assent of the 3ind to the tr%th of what is declared by another, resting on his a%thority and 6eracity, witho%t other e6idence< the >%dg3ent that what another states or testifies is the tr%th# $ ha6e strong faith or no faith in the testi3ony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates# 2# The assent of the 3ind to the tr%th of a proposition ad6anced by another< belief, or probable e6idence of any 1ind#

There are few today who %nderstand this definition of faith, as the initial e8a3ple clearly shows# /y this definition, al3ost e6erything we ha6e learned in o%r li6es has been by faith H e6erything we were ta%ght was accepted by faith# Anything that $ ha6e not personally obser6ed that $ clai3 to 1now is ta1en by faith# For e8a3ple, $ ha6e no absol%te proof that glaciers e8ist H $ ha6e ne6er seen the3, and the photos presented to 3e co%ld ha6e been doctored# A6en if $ had seen one, 3y eyes co%ld ha6e fooled 3e, and $ wo%ld need 3ore scientific e6idence to consider the3 2pro6ed#4 Net at the sa3e ti3e $ do belie6e glaciers e8ist, based on the 2e6idence4 of boo1s, pict%res, and personal testi3ony# This is considered 2reasonable4 e6en by p%re nat%ralists who scorn 2faith#4 As we loo1 for the place of faith in o%r thin1ing we 3%st re3e3ber that faith is not based on
8

:eff Landa%er and :oseph @owlands, 2Faith,4 $3portance of Bhilosophy#co3, 2 http&PPwww#i3portanceofphilosophy#co3P$rrationalQFaith#ht3l, Feb -, 2 !"C

!# ?Accessed at

D# Stabler -

2absol%tely no e6idence4 b%t rather e6idence that has not been scientifically pro6en# A6ery day we ta1e the word of another person as s%fficient e6idence and belie6e what they say abo%t so3ething# $f we belie6e so3ething witho%t proof or e6en being told abo%t it ?e6idenceC then it 3%st ha6e been created by o%r 3ind, and th%s be si3ply i3agination# Th%s, anything we belie6e 3%st fall %nder either scientifically pro6en 1nowledge, faith, or i3agination# 'hence then is this conf%sion abo%t what faith is( 0ost of the tro%ble has been ca%sed by religio%s people who %se phrases s%ch as 2we cannot 1now, so we >%st ha6e to accept it by faith#4 Charis3atic gro%ps >%stify anything that they do by saying 2we did it in faith,4 when really they are only hoping or wishing it was the best thing to do# The @o3an Catholic Ch%rch conf%ses the iss%e f%rther by following the teachings of Tho3as A*%inas who said that faith is faith is 2less than scientific 1nowledge beca%se faith does not ha6e 6ision as science does, altho%gh it has the sa3e fir3 adherence# And yet it is said to be 3ore than opinion beca%se of the fir3ness of the assent,4 and as a res%lt, 2it is i3possible to ha6e faith and scientific 1nowledge abo%t the sa3e thing#4 9 /y this logic, once yo% personally witnessed so3ething that yo% had belie6ed by report to e8ist than yo% wo%ld cease to belie6e it e8isted# Another theory abo%t faith co3es fro3 the Cal6inist perspecti6e, declaring that it is so3ething that ;od places in 3en who3 he selects, recei6ed totally independent fro3 reason or e6idence# Faith is both a gift and a response< it is the gift of ;od ?Aph# 2&-C and the response of 3an ?Ieb# !!&)C# That is to say that 3an ret%rns to ;od what ;od7s grace brings to 3an# Christian faith does not lie within the bo%ndary of 3an7s possibilities< he is incapable in and of hi3self to initiate or to achie6e, 3%ch less 3aintain, Christian faith# Ie can only gi6e to ;od what ;od gi6es to hi3# 2The only tr%e faith is that which the Spirit of ;od seals in o%r hearts4 ?Cal6in, Institutes, $, -!C< according to Bascal, 2this faith4 is so3ething 2that ;od Ii3self p%ts into the heart4 ? Pensees, $K, 2+-C,# Faith does not need reason< it is not e6en enhanced by reason# Christian st%dy is not anchored in an irrational faith< in fact, faith itself is not irrational, b%t that is not to say that faith is rational# Faith is s%pernat%ral< it is of ;od# The basis for faith is not reason, b%t faith is not %nreasonable# Christian faith is anchored in fact and history, b%t Christian faith is also concerned with Tr%th that s%persedes both fact and history, Tr%th that is both physical and 3etaphysical# Faith is the fo%ndation, and reason is %sed, when needed, in the constr%ction of a syste3 of theology# @eason has its place and 3%st be 1ept in its proper place& 2$f we s%b3it e6erything to reason, o%r religion will ha6e no 3ysterio%s and s%pernat%ral ele3ent# $f we offend the principle of reason, o%r religion will be abs%rd and ridic%lo%s4 ?Bascal, Pensees, $K, 2L"C# For the Christian theologian, reason is the ser6ant of faith#! This 6iew has been ta1en by 3any, b%t it is at its heart e8istentialist# /laise Bascal, here *%oted, was one of the first to bring e8istentialis3 to Christianity in pro3oting the idea of a leap of faith fo%nded on nothing, b%t blindly tr%sting that we wo%ld end in ;od# :ohn Cal6in has been interpreted 6ario%sly, b%t 3any of his followers ta1e the position that faith is not dependent on 3an in any way, b%t inserted by ;od# This is fo%nd nowhere in the /ible< Aph 2&- refers to salvation as the gift of ;od, the ;ree1 will not the fe3inine pistis to be the ob>ect of the ne%ter touto#!!
9

;ordon Clar1, Thales to Dewey: !istory o" Philosophy, ?;rand @apids, 0$& /a1er /oo1 Io%se, !95LC, 2L =2L! 2The Necessity of Faith4 A3braced by Tr%th, ?Accessed at http&PPwww#e3bracedbytr%th#co3PL$FAPLifeR2 inR2 ChristPTheR2 NecessityR2 ofR2 Faith#ht3, Feb -, 2 !"C 11 Archibald Tho3as @obertson ?'ord Bict%res in the New Testa3ent# A=swordC, Aph 2&10

D# Stabler 9

The abo6e *%ote is in itself irrational ?which is acceptable in e8istentialis3C, atte3pting to say that faith is not rational b%t not non=rational ?irrationalC# Tr%th does not s%persede fact and history< fact and history are si3ply part of tr%th# 'e disagree with Bascal7s state3ent that so3ething has to be %nreasonable to be s%pernat%ral# $t is only reason apart fro3 ;od that has a proble3 with 3iracles< they are perfectly logical to the one whose fore3ost 3ethod of reason is faith# 0any will be s%rprised to hear faith referred to as a 3ethod of reason, b%t s%ch is how the /ible presents it# There are se6eral 6erses that gi6e %s a clear definition as to what faith tr%ly is& Now "aith is the substance o" thin#s hoped "or$ the evidence o" thin#s not seen% !ebrews &&:& This si3ple definition act%ally defines faith as a 1ind of e6idence, which can then be %sed to pro6e certain 1nowledge# The chapter then goes on to gi6e e8a3ples of people who acted in faith, saying These all died in "aith$ not havin# received the promises$ but havin# seen them a"ar o""$ and were persuaded o" them$ and embraced them$ and con"essed that they were stran#ers and pil#rims on the earth% !ebrews &&:&' The heroes of faith did not act %pon absol%tely no e6idence H they acted the pro3ises they had recei6ed and were as pers%aded that they were tr%e as if they had seen it with their own eyes# This 3atches %p with two other 1ey 6erses on faith& nd bein# "ully persuaded that$ what he had promised$ he was able also to per"orm% (om ):*& +o then "aith cometh by hearin#$ and hearin# by the word o" ,od% (omans &-:&. Christian faith is based in the e6idence of the 'ord of ;od# Abraha3 was 2f%lly pers%aded4 that ;od wo%ld do what Ie had pro3ised, beca%se ;od7s 'ord is always tr%e# 'e can tr%st the 'ord beca%se it also has e6idence& nd many other si#ns truly did /esus in the presence o" his disciples$ which are not written in this book: 0ut these are written$ that ye mi#ht believe that /esus is the Christ$ the +on o" ,od1 and that believin# ye mi#ht have li"e throu#h his name% /ohn *-:'-2'& ;od does not as1 %s to ha6e 2blind faith4 H Ie as1s %s to belie6e what Ie says, >%st li1e we do with other people e6ery day# Concerning 3en it is said, 2Ie that tr%sts another, gi6es hi3 credit, and hono%rs hi3 by ta1ing his word#4!2 This is not 6iewed as %nreasonable, if we ha6e seen the 3an to be tr%stworthy and reliable# Nor sho%ld we ta1e it as %nreasonable to tr%st ;od, who has pro6en Ii3self by so 3any things H fro3 the Creation of the world to the preser6ation of Iis 'ord and Iis people# So3eti3es the e6idence for faith 3ay co3e by sight, as it did in the case of Tho3as when Christ said to hi3 after Iis res%rrection, 2/eca%se tho% hast seen 3e, tho% hast belie ed4 ?:ohn 2 &29aC# The Sa3aritans, 3entioned earlier, belie6ed on the Lord# The fact of their seeing Ii3 did not precl%de their belie ing on Ii3 ?:ohn +&+!C# There are ti3es, of co%rse, when faith and sight go together# 0en so3eti3es wal1 by faith beca%se of sight# 0any ca3e in obedience to the Lord d%ring Iis earthly 3inistry beca%se of what they heard and saw# D%ring the early years of the ch%rch, 3any belie6ed beca%se of the 3iracles they saw perfor3ed# 0%ch faith was prod%ced by the act%al e6ents that were obser6ed by those present# /%t what of those who ha6e not seen those e6ents firsthand( Do they ha6e any less of a faith than those who witnessed s%ch e6ents( No, faith is not di3inished by lac1 of sight# :es%s told Tho3as,
12

0atthew Ienry, 3atthew !enry4s Commentary ?.SA& Iendric1son B%blishers, $nc# !99!C, @o3 +&2!

D# Stabler !

2blessed are they that ha6e not seen, and yet ha6e belie6ed4 ?:ohn 2 &29bC# Ba%l obser6ed that 2we wal1 by faith, not by sight4 ?2 Corinthians 5&LC# Tho3as had faith a!te" sight# Today we ha6e faith witho#t sight, beca%se of credible testi3ony fro3 those who were eyewitnesses# !" Th%s we see that faith is in way contrary to e6idence# $t is based on e6idence, either thro%gh a direct witness of a circ%3stance, or thro%gh the indirect witness of the 'ord, which we belie6e today# $ 1now what 3y na3e is beca%se 3y parents told 3e# $ 1now who :es%s is beca%se the /ible told 3e# The /ible is 6ery clear that belie6ing and 1nowing are not contradictory& $n :ohn )&)9, Beter said to the Lord& 2And we ha6e belie ed and $now that tho% art the Ioly 5ne of ;od#4 'riting in 2 Ti3othy !&!2, Ba%l said 2$ $now hi3 who3 $ ha6e belie ed#4 The Sa3aritans told the wo3an who bro%ght Christ to the3, 2Now we belie e, not beca%se of thy spea1ing< for we ha6e heard for o%rsel6es, and $now that this is indeed the Sa6ior of the world4 ?:ohn +&+2C# , At ti3es faith 3ay be contrasted with a %eans of obtaining 1nowledge ?e#g#, sightC, b%t faith ne6er is contrasted with 1nowledge or, for that 3atter, reason# $n addition, at ti3es faith and 1nowledge 3ay ha6e the sa3e ob>ect# The Script%res 3a1e it clear that the following can be both $nown and belie ed& ?aC ;od ?$saiah +"&! C< ?bC the tr%th ?! Ti3othy +&"C< and ?cC Christ7s deity ?:ohn )&)9< cf# +&+2C#!+ The faith that is co33anded by Script%re is not irrational H it is when o%r reason accepts ;od7s 'ord as a pre3ise for its reasoning, and co3es to a 1nowledge of what ;od has re6ealed# 'e 1now faith incl%des 6olition beca%se it is co33anded, and we are told there will be conse*%ences if we do not obey# 5ne 3an has defined faith as the 26olitional co33it3ent of an infor3ed intellect,4 !5 choosing to tr%st what one has been gi6en e6idence of# Ie obser6es that 21nowledge witho%t co33it3ent is disbelief ?:ohn -&" =+)< !2&+2,+"< :a3es 2&!9C< co33it3ent witho%t 1nowledge is irrationalityO4!) Faith is not tr%sting in so3ething we do not 1now& we tr%st beca%se we ha6e co3e to 1now ;od# Nor is it a gift that ;od gi6es to %s and we gi6e bac1 to Ii3 H it is the answer of o%r heart to Iis call# Faith is what spro%ts when the seed of the word of ;od is planted in a fertile heart# /# /# 'arfield declared, The Ioly Spirit does not wor1 a blind, an %ngro%nded faith in the heart# 'hat is s%pplied by his creati6e energy in wor1ing faith is not a ready=3ade faith, rooted in nothing, and clinging witho%t reason to its ob>ect< nor yet new gro%nds of belief in the ob>ect present< b%t >%st a new ability of the heart to respond to the gro%nds of faith, s%fficient in the3sel6es, already present to the %nderstanding# 'e belie6e in Christ beca%se it is rational to belie6e in hi3, not tho%gh it be irrational# For the birth of the faith in the so%l it is >%st as essential that gro%nds of faith sho%ld be present in the 3ind as that the ;i6er of faith sho%ld act creati6ely %pon the heart# !L Faith is i3possible %nless ;od sends Iis 'ord to draw %s to Ii3self ?:n )&++C, b%t it is e*%ally i3possible if the heart hardens against that 'ord# This is where the 6olitional aspect co3es in, and why 2not all 3en ha6e faith4 ?$$ Thess "&2C# The 3a>ority do not want to accept the 'ord of ;od as 6alid e6idence, so ref%se its 3essage# Sadly, 3any professing Christians ha6e helped the3 in thier denial by their declarations that faith is so3ething accepted witho%t e6idence# The tr%th is, 2the non=Christian has no right to disregard
13 14

/ert Tho3pson, Bh#D# 5aith and 6nowled#e% ?Apologetics Bress, $nc#, !99+C Tho3pson 15 $bid# 16 $bid# 17 Clar1 I# Binnoc1, +et 5orth 7our Case# ?Chicago, $L& 0oody Bress, !9)LC, !)

D# Stabler !!

the gospel beca%se it is a 3atter of Sfaith7 in the 3odern sense# 5n the contrary, it is a 3atter of "act#4!The /ible says we are to get o%r facts H o%r 1nowledge H of that which is 3ost i3portant by faith# Iow logical is that( Let %s now e8a3ine the possible so%rces for gaining 1nowledge, and see#

Faith !o" &c'#i"ing Knowledge

$n his !-!2 dictionary 'ebster noted that 2we can ha6e no 1nowledge of that which does not e8ist# ;od has a perfect 1nowledge of all his wor1s# I%3an 1nowledge is 6ery li3ited, and is 3ostly gained by obser6ation and e8perience#4 /y definition 1nowledge is tr%th that we ha6e so3ehow gained, thro%gh so3e 3eans# There are 3any 3eans by which h%3ans atte3pt to gain 1nowledge, and a 6ariety of opinions as to the 3erits of each, b%t all agree there 3%st be so3e 3ethod# A6ery area of %nderstanding de3ands its appropriate organ, or channel# $f $ a3 to en>oy a s%nset $ 3%st ha6e organs of sight# $f $ a3 to appreciate a sy3phony of /eetho6en $ 3%st ha6e organs of hearing# $f $ a3 to breathe deeply the rarified air of the Swiss 3o%ntains, $ 3%st ha6e l%ngs# This principle is always 6alid#!9 @ecogniJing this need, o%r ne8t responsibility is to find the right channel for obtaining 1nowledge# :%st as atte3pting to inhale o8ygen %nderwater or thro%gh a tailpipe will res%lt in negati6e conse*%ences, so see1ing 1nowledge fro3 a poor so%rce will res%lt in wrong beliefs# Iow a3 $ to 1now that the beliefs $ ha6e are based on tr%e 1nowledge( So3e people ha6e had hall%cinations or heard so%nds in their head that were not a physical reality H how do $ 1now if the infor3ation $ a3 ta1ing in is tr%th( All so%rces of 1nowledge
18 19

$bid#, )) Charles 'oodbridge, Tell 8s Please# ?'estwood, N:& Fle3ing I# @e6ell Co#, !9+-C, 2-

D# Stabler !2

3%st be e6al%ated to deter3ine whether they are bringing to 3e tr%e 1nowledge or so3e sort of del%sion# Bhilosophers and apologists ha6e organiJed 6ario%s so%rces of 1nowledge in a n%3ber of ways# 'e will e8a3ine the3 %nder the classifications of reason, instinctPint%ition, report, and re6elation#

@AAS5N So3e of the brightest 3en of history ha6e declared that only reason is a 6alid so%rce of tr%e 1nowledge# @ene Descartes belie6ed that all we belie6e sho%ld begin reason& 2$ thin1, therefore $ a34 H since one has reason, then one 3%st e8ist# Then f%rther concl%sions wo%ld add to this 1nowledge# Iowe6er, while reason clearly plays a part in co3ing to 1nowledge ?we are c%rrently %sing reason to assess so%rces of 1nowledgeC, there are se6eral li3itations of h%3an reason which ca%se %s to *%estion its 6alidity as o%r sole so%rce of tr%th& !# The finiteness of the h%3an 3ind# $t is i3possible for a finite reason to co3prehend infinite tr%th# @elying on reason th%s will li3it the 1nowledge of that 3ind to a li3ited sphere# 2# The per6ersion of the h%3an 3ind# @egardless of how one defines 2sin,4 the e8istence of e6il and selfishness is %ndeniable, and any s%ch force will create selfish bias and blind one to the tr%th# 2 "# The reliance of reason %pon pres%ppositions# @eason has to ha6e so3e 1ind of principle to begin with< a syllogis3 needs at least two pres%ppositions before it can go anywhere# This 3%st co3e fro3 either obser6ationPe8peri3entation, e8periencePhistory, or int%itionPa priori concepts, all of which are fallible ?and will be e8a3ined laterC# All reason does is ta1e ideas and bring the3 together to for3 new ideas# Th%s, it 3%st ha6e ideas to begin with# 'e do not deny that that reason is part of co3ing to 1nowledge, and desire to incl%de it in the process, b%t it cannot pro6ide %s with the initial 1nowledge needed# Also, we obser6e that there are 3any 3ethods of reasoning and logic, each of which has been arg%ed to be the 2best#4 Net the arg%3ents are the3sel6es 3ade %p of reasonings, so theoretically all co%ld confir3 the3sel6es to be tr%e, based on that 3ethod, and there wo%ld be no way to 1now which one is the best# There 3%st be another so%rce of 1nowledge o%tside of reason# $NST$NCTP$NT.$T$5N There are two a6en%es of 1nowledge which do not re*%ire any 1ind of process to obtain, b%t are inherent in e6ery indi6id%al# $nstinct refers to 2an inborn pattern of acti6ity and response co33on to a gi6en biological gro%p4 and int%ition is the 21nowing of an ob>ect in a 3anner not deter3ined by any pre6io%s act of reasoning,the direct apprehension of tr%th apart fro3 any reasoning process#4 2! Different scholars define these different ways< so3e not disting%ishing between the3 or ac1nowledging one or the other, and all debating when e8actly the int%ition co3es to a person# Aither way, this incl%des the category of 1nowledge
20 21

$bid#, !" 'arren No%ng, Bh#D#

Christian pproach to Philosophy# ?;rand @apids, 0$& /a1er /oo1 Io%se, !95+C, +L=+9

D# Stabler !"

that a person possesses witho%t gaining it thro%gh reason or o%tside sti3%l%s# A si3ple analysis of these a6en%es shows the3 to be %tterly %nreliable# Firstly, few can agree on what act%ally falls %nder these categories, and there is no way to be certain a piece of 1nowledge was int%iti6e and not pic1ed %p fro3 one7s en6iron3ent# 0ore i3portantly, it is clear fro3 history that 2the int%itions of 6ario%s people, and indeed of the sa3e indi6id%al, are often fo%nd to contradict each other#4 22 This is ob6io%sly not a so%rce of absol%te tr%th# All that one7s inner tho%ghts tell hi3 is what is in his own 3ind, b%t pro6ide no confir3ation that so3ething is %ni6ersal tr%th if there is no o%tside e6idence to s%pport it# 'hile it 3ay be possible that we are born with or inherently 1now so3e things, int%ition cannot be %sed as a 6erification of what 1nowledge is tr%th# /N @AB5@T 'e all reg%larly add to o%r 1nowledge what other people tell %s, and we co%ld si3ply rely on this so%rce for all o%r tr%th# Iypothetically, this presents the proble3 that so3eone has to 1now the 1nowledge before he can tell it to others# Bractically, the diffic%lty in this category is sorting thro%gh the great 3ass of co33%nication to find o%t which is tr%e# 'e are all aware that so3e people lie and so3e are 3ista1en# As a res%lt we do not belie6e e6erything that is said H we rely either on those we 1now personally or those we dee3 to be *%alified e8perts# Since 3ost of %s do not personally 3eet these e8perts, we see1 1nowledge thro%gh 6ario%s for3s of 3edia thro%gh which they spread what they declare to be tr%th, 3ost often boo1s, which record the history of what 3en ha6e done and findings of what they ha6e disco6ered# There is certainly 6al%e in this# Iistory boo1s record the e8periences of people in the past, thro%gh which we can disco6er th%s not only what happened and what people ha6e obser6ed b%t trace patterns and disco6er tendencies in h%3an nat%re# Iowe6er past tendencies or obser6ations do not g%arantee f%t%re actions, as o%r own e8perience ?personal historyC teaches %s# 'e are also li3ited by *%estions as to the acc%racy of the reports, as well as the fact that history does not co6er all areas of 1nowledge and is li3ited to that ti3e period fro3 which we ha6e act%al data ?i#e# there is no history fro3 before the earth was for3edC# 5thers follow tradition or c%sto3< that which society reports to be tr%e# This is 3ost often ta%ght to %s thro%gh those we personally tr%st, s%ch as friends or fa3ily, e6en tho%gh we often ha6e no e6idence that their set of beliefs is tr%th# Net c%sto3s and traditions ob6io%sly disagree with one another, to the point that people will 1ill each other o6er conflicting beliefs# 5ne co%ld say that so3ething was tr%e >%st for the s3all local gro%p, b%t that is relati6is3, which can ne6er reach tr%e 1nowledge ?as shall be pro6ed laterC# F%rther3ore, how wo%ld local gro%ps be established with any definiteness( 0odern philosophers and psychologists ha6e especially e3phasiJed the idea of %ni6ersal agree3ent, or whate6er is 2%ni6ersally belie6ed#42" Net this enco%nters si3ilar proble3s# An idea 3ay be co33on, b%t it wo%ld be i3possible to pro6e that everyone belie6es it# There are 3any things we regard as f%nda3ental to
22 23

$bid#, +L=5! No%ng, 5!

D# Stabler !+

all people which ha6e been disco6ered to not e8ist in the 3inds of certain people gro%ps# F%rther3ore, history shows that ideas that were at least al3ost %ni6ersal H s%ch as spontaneo%s generation or the effecti6eness of bloodletting or the flatness of the earth H ha6e been e6ent%ally pro6en to be false# 'hat was once 2%ni6ersally4 belie6ed is now 2%ni6ersally4 disbelie6ed# Th%s, by the reports of h%3anity H written, oral, or otherwise H we find no consistently reliable 3ethod of confir3ing which 1nowledge is eternal tr%th# @elying on the reports is necessary H we cannot possibly gather all the 1nowledge we need on o%r own# Since it is clear that there is no 1ind of report that can be pro6en to be always tr%e, we 3%st ha6e so3e 3eans o%tside of report to discern which reports sho%ld be belie6ed# 'hich historiesPtraditions are the best so%rces of 1nowledge, and how tr%stworthy are they( There are as 3any opinions as there are reports# Th%s the 3eans of learning by report also fails as the sole so%rce of 1nowledge# 5/SA@KAT$5N The 3a>ority of the infor3ation in o%r 3inds is ta1en in thro%gh obser6ation H what we see, hear, s3ell, feel, or taste, and record in o%r 3e3ory# 'hile 3%ch of the data recei6ed is insignificant and soon forgotten, a portion is ta1en in and re3e3bered as what we 1now to be tr%e abo%t reality# Beople tend to be confident in their senses, declaring 2$7ll belie6e it when $ see it with 3y own eyes#4 Net the sa3e h%3an fallibility, finiteness, and sinf%l nat%re that li3its 3an7s reason li3its his e8perience# 'e are all aware that the senses can be conf%sed or decei6ed, either d%e to optical ill%sion or a fail%re of the sensory organs# The tools of the scientist only 3agnify the sensations which o%r senses ta1e in# Th%s there 3%st be so3ething beyond the senses to confir3 their reliability# I%3an e8periences are li3ited to their conte8t H e8periencing s%33er in ;eorgia tells %s nothing of winter in Alas1a# Th%s they cannot answer *%estions greater than o%r little world, and certainly cannot reach into the infinite# $n search for essential 1nowledge, one of the greatest wea1nesses is that it cannot tell %s abo%t the ori#ins of anything presently e8isting H s%ch as the earth H beca%se it is i3possible for h%3an beings in the real3 of ti3e to obser6e the past# The only thing that we can obser6e is the present conse*%ences of past actions# 'e see a tree so ass%3e it was planted ?scientific ded%ctionC, we see are r%ined wall so ass%3e it was b%ilt ?archeologyC, we see a boo1 and belie6e what is written in it ?historyC# /%t we cannot act%ally obser6e the origin itself, and all these ass%3ptionsPded%ctions are based on prior 1nowledge# The boo1 is no good if we ha6e ne6er seen the lang%age, the tree is no help if we ha6e ne6er seen a seed planted, and the wall is %seless if we ne6er saw a wall b%ilt# Therefore, obser6ation fails entirely to tell %s abo%t things which do not ha6e a parallel in what we are presently obser6ing# The 3ost distinct e8a3ple of this is the beginning of the planet earth# 'e ha6e ne6er obser6e a planet for3, or e6en anything li1e it, so ha6e no basis for calc%lation or ded%ction# As @obert :astrow, Fo%nder of NASA7s ;oddard $nstit%te of Space St%dies declared, 2The world had a beginning %nder conditions in which the 1nown laws of physics are not 6alid, and as a prod%ct of forces or circ%3stances we cannot disco6er#42+
24

Ba%l Ferg%son, ,od and the theist# ?Leyton, London& :es%s Sa6es 0ission $nternational B%blishing, 2

5C, !5

D# Stabler !5

'e ac1nowledge we 3%st rely on o%r powers of obser6ation for 3any things# /%t as we 3a1e obser6ations with ca%tion, how do we deter3ine which obser6ations are to be tr%sted, and which discarded as probably decei6ing( 'e can ta1e all of these a6en%es together, co3bining o%r own obser6ations with the reports of others and e6al%ating the3 by reason, b%t where does the absol%te standard lie( There still 3%st be so3ething infallible to >%dge report, obser6ation, and e6en reason by, and for it to bring %s to f%ll 1nowledge it 3%st go beyond the li3itations of 3an1ind to reach the tr%th of the infinite# @AKALAT$5N 0ost people belie6e in so3e for3 of re6elation# The 3a>ority of people are religio%s, and al3ost e6ery religion deri6es its essential beliefs at least partially fro3 the spirit%al real3# $t 3ay be handed down %ne8pectedly, as in 0oha33ed7s 6ision, or so%ght o%t and learned indirectly, as in the i3pressions one recei6es after long 3editation or a sha3anistic rit%al# The diffic%lty presented is, as with all the other areas, in finding which re6elation is tr%th# So3e try to state that re6elation is not tr%th, beca%se it is in the spirit%al real3 and 3%st be accepted by faith# 'e ha6e already shown how faith is not opposed to real 1nowledge# Those who re>ect re6elation and all other 3iracles on the basis of what science 1nows are acting as if ;od was part of a closed=syste3 %ni6erse# Science cannot declare the e8istence or non=e8istence of anything o%tside of the %ni6erse, beca%se Science only applies to this %ni6erse# $t has nothing fro3 o%tside the %ni6erse to 6erify its tenants, so cannot declare that what so3eone has declared is fro3 o%tside the %ni6erse is false, beca%se it does not 1now what 2o%tside the %ni6erse4 is# Th%s the best science can say is it does not 1now if there is a ;od who can gi6e re6elation# @e6elation a6oids all the h%3an li3itations which the other a6en%es are hindered by# $t is possible for %s to 3ishear, 3is%nderstand, or read error into re6elation ?this will be addressed shortlyC b%t the act%al re6elation fro3 an infinite ;od is flawless 0ut the wisdom that is from above is "irst pure$ then peaceable$ #entle$ and easy to be intreated$ "ull o" mercy and #ood "ruits$ without partiality$ and without hypocrisy% /ames ':&. /y definition ;od is infinite H in power, goodness, and 1nowledge H therefore cannot lie or 3a1e a 3ista1e# All 1nowledge begins in Ii3 and co3es fro3 Ii3, so Ie defines what is tr%th ?Col 2&"C# The only way we can accept error as tr%th is if the re6elation is not act%ally fro3 Ii3# 5%r responsibility, in see1ing for tr%e 1nowledge, is th%s to find the right so%rce of re6elation# The religions of the world gi6e a 6ast array, b%t e6en the /ible records ;od spea1ing thro%gh a 6ariety of a6en%es# Thro%gh nat%re& 2The hea6ens declare the glory of ;od4 ?Bs# !9&!C and 2the in6isible things of hi3 fro3 the creation of the world are clearly seen, being %nderstood by the things that are 3ade, even his eternal power and ;odhead< so that they are witho%t e8c%se4 ?@o3ans !&2 C# Net nat%re is li3ited in the detail it pro6ides, gi6ing only r%di3entary 1nowledge abo%t the $nfinite# /y 6isions& Script%re records ;od re6ealing tr%th thro%gh 6isions ?N%3 !2&)<Dan ! &!C gi6en

D# Stabler !)

directly to specific 3en# /y a%dible 6oice& So3e 3en ;od spo1e to directly ?;en !-&!"<N%3 !2&-C# /y angels& ;od has sent Iis angelic 3essengers to co33%nicate to 3en ?Dan 9&2!<LK !&!9,2)C# /y prophets& Since the last three points are generally li3ited to 6ery specific people, it was re*%ired that ;od spea1 to prophets who then spo1e for Ii3 to the people ?A8 2 &!9<De%t 5&2+=2LC# /y Script%re& ;od7s re6elation gi6en to 3en ?as prophetsC who then wrote it down, so that all people co%ld read it# Concerning which 1ind of re6elation we sho%ld e8pect the /ible tells %s, ,od$ who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the "athers by the prophets$ !ath in these last days spoken unto us by his +on$ whom he hath appointed heir o" all thin#s$ by whom also he made the worlds1 !ebrews &:&2* The %lti3ate re6elation of ;od was thro%gh the Son of ;od, :es%s Christ# Today we cannot interact with Ii3 face to face, so those who ha6e seen Ii3 ha6e caref%lly recorded what they witnessed in the /ible ?:n 2 &"!<L1 !&!=2<$ :n !&!=+C# 'e are then told that this for3 is s%perior to all the other for3s# Si3on Beter records his personal e8perience with :es%s Christ in a 3iracle that 6erified the tr%th of what :es%s declared to be tr%e# Then Beter declares to %s that we ha6e 2a 3ore s%re 'ord of prophecy4 in the Script%res, which were not 2of any pri6ate interpretation4 or written fro3 the 3ind or will of a 3an, b%t 2holy 3en of ;od spa1e as they were 3o6ed by the Ioly ;host4 ?$$ Bet !&!)=2!C# Net how can we be certain that the 1nowledge presented in Script%res is the tr%e @e6elation( There 3%st be so3ething to confir3 that a re6elation is tr%e# They cannot all be tr%e, for they are contradictory, and so3e s%pposed re6elations contradict each other# The re6elation of nat%re pro6ides its own proof concerning the essential attrib%tes of ;od, as science confir3s ?this will be addressed laterC# The other for3s, howe6er, re*%ire confir3ation that they are act%ally fro3 the s%pernat%ral real3# The only fitting e6idence wo%ld be a s%pernat%ral act that co%ld be scientifically 6erified to be beyond the real3 of nat%ral possibility# The /ible was 6erified at the ti3e of its writing in that the prophets and apostles who penned it displayed 3iracles as proof# /%t 3any script%res clai3 as 3%ch# 0ore i3portantly today, the /ible itself is a 3iracle that no other boo1 can approach# 'hile a co3plete st%dy of e6idences for the 6alidity and 6erity of the /ible is beyond the scope of this paper, we list a few e8a3ples& I%ndreds of f%lfilled prophecies, of which the probability of chance f%lfill3ent is 3athe3atically i3possible A 23oral ele6ation4 and greatness of principles that ha6e transfor3ed societies and c%lt%res and s%rpassed any other literary wor1 in history#25 The honesty in writing, being willing to ac1nowledge sins, errors and 3ista1es and e6en predict the falling away of the religion it teaches# The %nity of the whole /oo1, written by 3ore than + 3en o6er 3ore than !5
25

years#

'oodbridge, !-

D# Stabler !L

The 3iracle of li6es transfor3ed by the boo1 in s%ch a way that lea6es no e8planation other than so3ething s%pernat%ral S%ch facts are obser6ations which draw fro3 the e6idence of history and appeal to the standards of h%3an reason# Now enters the s%b>ect of o%r paper& this 1nowledge 3%st be apprehended by faith# :%st as the philosopher has faith in his reason, as the historian has faith in his boo1s, and as the scientist has faith in his 3icroscope beca%se each has fo%nd the3 to be consistently reliable, so the Christian has faith in the /ible beca%se it has been 3ore reliable than any of the for3er three# This is faith based on e6idence# 'e ac1nowledge that re6elation also is li3ited, not by the @e6ealer, b%t by the one Ie spea1s to# 0ost religions recogniJe the diffic%lty of obtaining tr%th is not in that the ;odPgods ha6e tro%ble spea1ing to %s, b%t that o%r proble3s ?sinP%nwillingness to hearPfailing to see1Pi3proper perfor3ance of rit%alsPetc#C 1eep %s fro3 hearing the tr%th Ie wishes to i3part# A6en those who belie6e they ha6e an infallible, inerrant, preser6ed Script%re still ha6e the proble3 of proper interpretation# The lay3an worries o6er his ability to interpret it for hi3self, b%t also wonders if the standard interpretation of the ch%rch is so%nd H for history has shown that ch%rch leaders ha6e often interpreted doctrines with a bias, see1ing their own selfish ends# There is another for3 of re6elation presented in the /ible which we ha6e not yet noticed# $t is described 3ost clearly in $ Corinthians 2& 0ut as it is written$ Eye hath not seen$ nor ear heard$ neither have entered into the heart o" man$ the thin#s which ,od hath prepared "or them that love him% 0ut ,od hath revealed them unto us by his +pirit: "or the +pirit searcheth all thin#s$ yea$ the deep thin#s o" ,od9:hich thin#s also we speak$ not in the words which man4s wisdom teacheth$ but which the !oly ,host teacheth1 comparin# spiritual thin#s with spiritual% 0ut the natural man receiveth not the thin#s o" the +pirit o" ,od: "or they are "oolishness unto him: neither can he know them$ because they are spiritually discerned% & Corinthians *:;2&-$&'2&) The way to recei6e tr%th thro%gh re6elation, therefore, is by illumination# The writer of the Script%res, the Ioly Spirit, can e8plain to %s what it 3eans# /%t first one 3%st be 2spirit%al4 H that is, ha6ing a right relationship with the Ioly Spirit# This is not p%rely s%b>ecti6e as in clai3ing to hear the 6oice of the Ioly Spirit inside one7s head H it is based on the Script%res, which will be interpreted the sa3e way by those g%ided by the Spirit# Net here, again, faith is re*%ired# First, beca%se the 3eans is still fallible# Iistory records 3any instances of one 3an saying the Ioly Spirit showed hi3 that a te8t 3eant so3ething, and another 3an saying the Spirit told hi3 it 3eant e8actly the opposite# Secondly, the relationship with the Ioly Spirit ?necessary for this insightC is based on faith# 'hile how to co3e to tr%e faith is o%tside the scope of this paper, it is sho%ld be *%ite e6ident that faith is a necessity in obtaining tr%e 1nowledge#

D# Stabler !-

Faith and Ce"taint(

Ia6ing disc%ssed these so%rces of 1nowledge and established the diffic%lty of being certain one has co3e to tr%th, we now wish to ta1e a step bac1 and as1 a 6ery f%nda3ental *%estion& is it act%ally possible to 1now( The reason we are addressing at a so3ewhat later point in this st%dy is beca%se the *%estion co3es to all people later in life# Children are born belie6ing they can 1now# They 1now they ha6e hands e6en before they 1now what the word 2hands4 is# The idea that 1nowing is i3possible is so3ething ac*%ired when we del6e into the proble3 addressed in the pre6io%s chapter# A caref%l e8a3ination pro6es that o%tside of re6elation we cannot 1now the f%nda3ental principles %pon which the %ni6erse is based, so cannot be certain of anything# Since re6elation 3%st be recei6ed by faith based on e6idence, those who do not see faith as a legiti3ate needs of ac*%iring 1nowledge ?b%t si3ply a wish, hope, g%ess or drea3C therefore concl%de that we cannot 1now# There is act%ally a field of philosophy that deals with this *%estion, the *%estion not of what we know b%t how we know# $t is called 2episte3ology,4 the st%dy of 1nowledge# Since the goal is the 1nowledge that we co3e to 1now, howe6er, the process is only i3portant in that we 3%st be s%re that we act%ally ca3e to tr%e 1nowledge by a 6alid process# Th%s the root of the *%estion is not so 3%ch 2 !ow do we 1now, b%t rather Do we 1now(42) $f we can confir3 that o%r 3eans of 1nowing is legiti3ate, then we can rest with certainty in that which we belie6e# Any 1ind of process of gaining 1nowledge 3%st incl%de basic ele3ents of reason# So let %s start at the beginning and find o%t if the reasonPlogic we are %sing is reasonablePlogical# Bhilosophers and thin1ers since Aristotle ha6e ac1nowledged that reason 3%st begin with so3ething, and then wor1 fro3 there# These 2first principles4 that are the basis of all thin1ing 3%st be 2self=e6ident,4 pro6ing the3sel6es# This is essential beca%se proofs are based off of these principles, so they are needed before any pro6ing can be done#2L Bhilosophers ha6e atte3pted to list all these 3ost basic principles, and the list has been %lti3ately red%ced to fi6e concepts& !# $dentity ?/ is /C 2# Noncontradiciton ?/ is not Non=/C "# The e8cl%ded 0iddle ?Aither / or Non=/C
26 27

0cDowell, 59L $bid#

D# Stabler !9

+# Ca%sality ?Non=/ cannot ca%se /C 2Fro3 absol%tely nothing co3es absol%tely nothing4 5# Finality ?A6ery agent acts for an endC2The law of noncontradiction, %pon which the other principles rest, is the central aspect of linear logic# 0any atte3pts ha6e been 3ade to try to get aro%nd it, b%t all are self defeating# 2For the sentence that denies noncontradiction is offered as a noncontradictory sentence# $f it is not, then it 3a1es no sense#4 29 So3e try to say that these first principles are si3ply the 'estern way, which is >%st another way than the Aastern 3indset# Iowe6er, daily life pro6es that these are %ni6ersal principles, %sed e6erywhere, whether a c%lt%re incl%des the3 in their philosophyPreligion or not# The whole world %ses 3athe3atics based on linear logic, as well as technology, 3ethods, and prod%cts deri6ed fro3 those principles# The concept of a noncontradictory eitherPor is inescapable# As one con6ert fro3 Iind%is3 p%t it, 2e6en in $ndia we loo1 both ways before we cross the street H it is either the b%s or 3e, not both of %s#4 " So we co3e bac1 to the pre3ise we saw in the section on 1nowledge& anything we accept as tr%th 3%st be pro6ed by linear logic, and anything 6alidly pro6ed by linear logic can be 1nown to be tr%e# 5nce pro6ed by proper logic, we can tr%st o%r life and eternity to it H as we do when we loo1 both ways before we cross the street# Science will not accept a 2theory4 as a 2law4 %ntil it is %ndeniable that it will wor1 e6ery ti3e in day to day li6ing# Linear logic and Christian principles ha6e been wor1ing for 3an1ind for tho%sands of years, while Aastern logic has 1ept 3any in bondage and the e6ol%tionary hypothesis has ne6er been act%ally obser6ed wor1ing# 5nly Christianity pro6ides a syste3 that wor1s for all areas of life witho%t contradicting itself#"! To p%t it plainly H if we cannot 1now anythin# then we 3ight as well >%st go ahead and die, beca%se nothing has 3eaning, b%t if we are going to atte3pt to %se reason and co3e to concl%sions and co33%nicate then there is only one 3ethod that wor1s& linear logic# The process of o%r daily li6ing pro6es this# S%ch is the logic this paper has so far been based on, and with this logic we ca3e to the concl%sion that only re6elation accepted by faith can bring %s to a tr%e and co3plete logic# For e6en with the right 2first principles4 and a so%nd 3ethod of logic, we 3%st ha6e pre3ises to %se the3 on# There 3%st be an 2A4 and 2/4 before we can say, 2if A is non=/ then A is not /#4 5%r section on so%rces of 1nowledge pro6ed that we cannot rely on the e6idences of obser6ation, as that 3ay fail# The s1eptic Da6id I%3e declared that 2All 1nowledge is deri6ed thro%gh senses or reflection on ideas4 H b%t that 6ery state3ent was deri6ed fro3 neither, and th%s pro6es itself to be false# 'hile 3en li1e Iobbes, /er1eley and I%3e declare we do not ha6e abstract ideas they often %se the3 in their arg%3ents#"2 So how do we co3e to ideas that are not based on obser6ations, and yet be certain they are tr%e( $f we try to begin with ideas that we 2inherently 1now4 or 2percei6e by nat%re4 we find that people disagree on those, so how are we do decide which are tr%e( The answer is fo%nd in the word a%thority& that which we
28 29

$bid#, ) ! 0cDowell, ) L, *%oting Nor3an ;eisler 30 $bid#, ) 5=) L 31 Francis Schaeffer, The Complete :orks o" 5rancis +chae""er# ?'heaton, $L& Crossway /oo1s, !9-2C, Kol# !, !2!=!22 32 0cDowell, )"!

D# Stabler 2

recogniJe as the absol%te standard# A6ery 1ind of logic 3%st e6ent%ally fall bac1 on the first 2A4 and 2/4 that were p%t together to 3a1e the first concl%sions# That which gi6es %s o%r first pre3ises is that a%thority# .lti3ately e6ery 3an 3%st decide what so%rce of 1nowledge is going to be the absol%te a%thority for his life# 'hat a 3an chooses e8plains to %s why he does what he does# St%dy the records of anti*%ity# Bonder the religio%s *%ests of 3an# /ehold the Agyptian worshipping his fo%r=footed idols< the Chinese reciting the Conf%cian Analects< the Shintoist 3a1ing obeisance at his fa3ily shrine< the African circling the nec1 of his baby with a brass ring to protect it fro3 e6il spirits< the 3edicine 3an with his incantations< the philosopher with his h%3an theories# /ehind e6ery 3anifestation lies a predeter3ined a%thority# 0en act as they do beca%se they belie6e, and they belie6e beca%se they rely on so3ething or so3eone in which they ha6e confidence# "" $t has long been obser6ed that so3e 1ind of faith is needed before we can gain any 1nowledge at all# A%g%stine, who said that fFaith is the acceptance of a proposition as tr%e on the testi3ony of witnesses,4 e8plained how we 3%st tr%st so3eone before we can e6en begin learning# ;ordon Clar1 e8plains A%g%stine7s position on faith, referring to se6eral of the scholar7s analogies& A yo%ng 3an belie6es that a certain older 3an is his father on the testi3ony of his 3other< and e6en the identity of the 3other is a 3atter of faith# Faith is the basis of fa3ily life and society# ;ranted that faith is not direct 1nowledge, still it is not irrational# $t is not blind# There are reasons for belie6ing a witness# $f a 3an had ne6er seen the walls of Carthage, it 3ight be irrational to ta1e his word as to their height# /%t if he is an eyewitness and if he is tr%stworthy, faith in hi3 is neither %nnat%ral nor %nreasonable# $n fact, not only is 3ost so=called 1nowledge faith, b%t also there can be no 1nowledge in the strict sense witho%t faith# All 1nowledge begins in faith# 5%r parents and teachers tell %s things, and we belie6e the3# Later in life we 3ay reason o%t so3e of this infor3ation for o%rsel6es# /%t we co%ld co%ldn7t ha6e obtained the later %nderstanding witho%t the prior faith# "+ The philosopher or scientist 3ay say he is not relying on faith, b%t reason and logic# Iowe6er he is the sa3e as the religio%s 3an H he >%st has faith in his 3ind or his instr%3ents# 2Scientists ha6e faith in their own ability to arri6e at cogniti6e >%dg3ents, they ha6e faith in those with who3 they wor1, they ha6e faith in the tr%th of the disco6eries of the past, they ha6e faith in the orderliness of the world in which they wor1, and so on#4"5 Along with all the others the scientist relies on an earthly so%rce to try to find the essence of tr%th that e8isted before the earth was# They all don7t see the illogic of it, beca%se they ha6e faith in what they ha6e chosen to be their a%thority# @ationalis3 is not the res%lt of reason proceeding witho%t faith, b%t rather, reason proceeding witho%t the acceptance of the category of special re6elation# @ationalis3 is not the res%lt of the re>ection of faith at all, b%t of the re>ection of the possibility of a di6ine disclos%re# $t is si3ply the assertion that the intellect%al ability of 3an hi3self is co3petent to arri6e at all concl%sions and to sol6e all proble3s which 3ay relate to h%3an e8istence# $ follows that rationalis3 is s%b>ecti6e, for the indi6id%al is the a%thority, and there are abo%t as 3any rationalistic syste3s as there are rationalists the3sel6es#") The fact is, e6eryone has things they belie6e and thin1 they 21now,4 b%t %lti3ately they are co3ing bac1 to faith in so3ething# 0any li1e to thin1 that they are %sing so%nd reason when they discard the idea of
33 34

'oodbridge, !+ Clar1, 225=22) 35 No%ng, 2 ) 36 $bid#, 2 )=2 L

D# Stabler 2!

faith H they declare they alone are reasonable 3en# /%t it is >%st as %nreasonable as the @o3an Catholic leaders who ref%sed to loo1 thro%gh ;alileo7s telescope beca%se they did not want to 1now the tr%th abo%t the solar syste3# Faith is a 3eans of gaining tr%th thro%gh %se of Di6ine e6idence and reason, th%s it can see into real3s that the h%3an eye and spirit can ne6er reach on its own# Atheists ha6e often ad3itted that the reason they follow their religion is not beca%se science has forced the3 to belie6e it, b%t beca%se they want to belie6e it# Brofessor Tho3as Nagal of New Nor1 .ni6ersity wrote, $ want atheis3 to be tr%e and a3 3ade %neasy by the fact that so3e of the 3ost intelligent and well= infor3ed people $ 1now are religio%s belie6ers# $t isn7t >%st that $ don7t belie6e in ;od and, nat%rally, hope that $73 right in 3y belief# $t7s that $ hope there is no ;odO $ don7t want there to be a ;od< $ don7t want the %ni6erse to be li1e that#"L Another e6ol%tionist, @ichard Lewontin, li1ewise ad3itted to a conscio%s choice to re>ect ;od, saying, 'e ta1e the side of science in spite of the patent abs%rdity of so3e of its constr%cts, in spite of its fail%re to f%lfill 3any of its e8tra6agant pro3ises of health and life,beca%se we ha6e a prior co33it3ent, a co33it3ent to 3aterialis3# $t is not that the 3ethods and instit%tions of science so3ehow co3pel %s to accept a 3aterial e8planation of the pheno3enal world, b%t, on the contrary, that we are forced by o%r a priori adherence to 3aterial ca%ses to create an apparat%s of in6estigation and a set of concepts that prod%ce 3aterial e8planations, no 3atter how co%nter int%iti6e, no 3atter how 3ystifying to the %ninitiated# 0oreo6er that 3aterialis3 is absol%te for we cannot allow a Di6ine foot in the door#"The 1ind of faith that the /ible teaches is not based on so3ething inconcei6able, b%t logical# Atheis3, howe6er, re*%ires a 1ind of faith that flies in the face of the concept of 3athe3atical probability# As :ohn Achols, Nobel la%reate in ne%rophysiology ad3its& 2The odds are against the right co3binations of circ%3stances occ%rring to e6ol6e intelligent life on earth# The odds are abo%t + , again on any planet or any other solar syste3#4"9 Atheistic scientists ha6e esti3ated that the probability of a h%3an e6ol6ing by chance processes is on in !
2, , ,

trillion trillion trillion

trillion to one# A6ol%tion is fantastically i3probable# $ belie6e that it did occ%r, b%t that it co%ld ne6er occ%r

# 0athe3aticians %se the r%le that any probability less than one in !

is i3possible, so it is

not s%rprising that $lya Brigongine, recipient of two Nobel BriJes in che3istry, declared that 2the statistical probability that organic str%ct%res and the 3ost precisely har3oniJed reactions that typify li6ing organis3 wo%ld be generated by accident, is Jero#4+ $f we accept that we 21now4 fro3 science not the absol%tely pro6en, b%t rather the highly probable, we 3%st concl%de fro3 science that the highly i3probable is so3ething we 21now4 to be false# This is the 1ind of 2faith4 spo1en of in chapter 2, that of belie6ing with absol%tely no scientific e6idence# Th%s we see it is not a 3atter of e6ol%tionary scientists 6s# faith, as the 3edia often portrays, for the Faith of A6ol%tionis3 is one of the least scientific in e8istence# Now, when offered only the options of e6ol%tionis3 ?now pro6en falseC and $ntelligent Design, we
37 38

Ferg%son, !" $bid#, "5 39 $bid#, 2! 40 $bid#, "+

D# Stabler 22

are forced to realiJe that the 3ost essential 1inds of 1nowledge can only be 1nown by re6elation fro3 that Designer# $t is not foolish or illogical to ha6e faith in e6idence H that is a part of the process of reasoning# 'hat is foolish is to ha6e faith in e6idence that is a 3athe3atical i3possibility, when the @e6elation of ;od is s%pported by 3ore than s%fficient e6idence# As Christians we belie6e that the /ible has pro6en itself to be the only infallible a%thority, s%fficient in all circ%3stances# 'e don7t see it as o%r only so%rce of 1nowledge H i# e# we get infor3ation fro3 3ath te8tboo1s as well as the /ible H b%t it is the fo%ndation and test of all 1nowledge# Th%s it deter3ines how we co3e to any 1nowledge, fro3 o%r %nderstanding of eternity and the s%pernat%ral to 3an and 3athe3atics# The "ear o" the L<(D is the be#innin# o" wisdom: and the knowled#e o" the holy is understandin#% Proverbs ;:&That their hearts mi#ht be com"orted$ bein# knit to#ether in love$ and unto all riches o" the "ull assurance o" understandin#$ to the acknowled#ement o" the mystery o" ,od$ and o" the 5ather$ and o" Christ1 In whom are hid all the treasures o" wisdom and knowled#e% Colossians *:*2' The /ible 3a1es it 6ery clear that all 1nowledge is fo%nd in ;od, and in see1ing 1nowledge or wisdo3 we 3%st begin with Ii3 ?Bro !&L<:ob 2-&2-<Bs# !!!&! C# This is only reasonable, if we belie6e that Ie created all things other than Ii3self, and s%stains the3 e6ery 3o3ent ?Col !&!LC# All 1nowledge is either abo%t ;od Ii3self, or so3ething that Ie has 3ade, so cannot be %nderstood o%tside of Ii3# The /ible tells %s 6ery clearly what the first pre3ise is& 2in the beginning, ;od#4 5nly starting with ;od can we for3 a correct syste3 of 1nowledge# $t is possible to gain pieces of 1nowledge witho%t %sing faith, b%t it is i3possible to %nderstand 21nowledge4 itself witho%t re6elation# Francis Schaeffer pro6ides the e8a3ple of a boo1 which had all its pages torn o%t and only an inch of each page re3aining# 'e wo%ld be able to gain infor3ation fro3 those frag3ents, b%t %ntil we recei6ed the torn o%t portions we co%ld ne6er %nderstand the story# +! 0ost people today that thin1 they ha6e a good set of 1nowledge ha6e only frag3ents of infor3ation, and will ne6er %nderstand the whole# 'itho%t those 3issing pages H the Script%res H there will be 3ore gaps than tr%th# The pages are not accepted as a 2leap of faith4 b%t as that which fits in with the bit that we already had, the obser6able world aro%nd %s, and answers all o%r needs in a real and practical way# 'ith the propositional co33%nication fro3 the personal ;od before %s, not only the things of the cos3os and history 3atch %p, b%t e6erything on the %pper and lower stories 3atches too& grace and nat%re< a 3oral absol%te and 3orals< the %ni6ersal point of reference and the partic%lars, and the e3otional and aesthetic realities of 3an as well# 5f co%rse, the indi6id%al 3an will not see that they 3atch %p if he re>ects the co33%nication >%st beca%se he has not tho%ght it %p hi3self# This wo%ld be 3%ch the sa3e as the 3an in o%r ill%stration re>ecting the T3issingU pieces of the boo1 fo%nd in the attic beca%se he wanted to 3a1e %p his own story# +2 $t is ti3e we stopped trying to 3a1e %p o%r own story, and si3ply accepted the tr%th offered to %s# .nless we accept o%rsel6es as the absol%te a%thority for all 1nowledge ?which wo%ld be ridic%lo%sly arrogantC we 3%st find a so%nd, %nchanging standard# The only 2story4 that passes e6ery test and perfectly fits in with the frag3ents of o%r own li3ited e8perience is the /ible#
41 42

Schaeffer, 6ol# $, !!9 $bid#, 6ol# $, !2

D# Stabler 2"

$n st%dying the f%nda3ental tr%ths of the %ni6erse or the nat%re of 1nowledge, e6en a strong belie6er in Script%re 3ay be presented with the *%estion& 2b%t can we really know(4 ;od answers, 2yes#4 Fifteen ti3es the /ible records ;od saying or doing so3ething 2that ye 3ay 1now4 a needed tr%th ?A8o# ! &2<!!&L< "!&!"<:os# "&+<:ob !9&29<$sa# +"&! <:er# ++&29<AJe# 2 &2 <0ic# )&5<0at# 9&)<0ar1 2&! <L%1e 5&2+<:n ! &"-< Aph# !&!-<!:n# 5&!"C# 0ost i3portant of all, :ohn tells %s that which he penned %nder inspiration of the Ioly Spirit was 23ay 1now that ye ha6e eternal life, and that ye 3ay belie6e on the na3e of the Son of ;od4 ?! :n 5&!"C# 'e can 1now, and we can 1now things beyond o%r own li3ited e8perience, beca%se ;od has told %s#

Faith !o" Using Knowledge

The reader 3ay ha6e obser6ed by now that while this paper is entitled 2The Necessity of Faith 'ith Knowledge,4 the pre6io%s two chapters foc%sed on the need of faith 2for4 1nowledge# /%t this paper is not finished, and co3ing to possess 1nowledge is not the end of the story# 5ne 3%st then %tiliJe that 1nowledge, and faith 3%st be e6er 2with4 that 1nowledge, or it will fail to acco3plish its p%rpose# $t is not eno%gh to

D# Stabler 2+

si3ply 1now H 1nowledge residing in the 3ind is of no p%rpose or 3eaning if not applied# Thou believest that there is one ,od1 thou doest well: the devils also believe$ and tremble% /a *:&; The de3ons are li1e a 3an standing on a railroad trac1, who f%lly belie6es a train is co3ing H he has s%fficient e6idence thro%gh his ears and eyes H b%t beca%se he has 3ade a pre6io%s decision to re3ain standing there regardless of e6idence, will not accept that 1nowledge for his life# L%cifer 1new that ;od was real H he had the e6idence of face=to=face e8perience, b%t did not tr%st his life %pon that 1nowledge in tr%e faith, so rebelled and was cast o%t of hea6en, beco3ing Satan# There are 3any people who li1ewise ref%se to accept essential 1nowledge for their daily li6es# They 3ay ha6e faith for ac*%iring essential 1nowledge H e6en accepting the tr%th that there is a ;od, and that Ie has gi6en %s re6elation thro%gh the Ioly /ible# They 3ay e6en ha6e faith in certain parts of the /ible, to the point that they li6e daily life according to it# /%t certain areas of life are based on 1nowledge fro3 which faith has been e8cl%ded# Fro3 their b%siness, their pleas%re, or their relationships they ha6e e8cl%ded faith, and ha6e beco3e 2willingly ignorant4 ?$$ Bet "&5C in the li6ing of that area# This ref%sal to ha6e faith has been called by so3e 2denial,4 by so3e 2escapis3,4 and by the /ible, si3ply 2%nbelief4 ?Ieb "&!9C# 'e are all aware that there is s%ffering in the world# Beople ha6e proble3s, and desire to escape fro3 the3# The 3ost co33on way is to flee fro3 the tr%th, beca%se the tr%th is not what we want it to be# Beople ha6e long %sed alcohol or other dr%gs to get their 3ind away fro3 reality# So3eti3es they see1 to get lost in 3%sic, pleas%re, or >%st the b%siness of life# After the Age of @eason ca3e to the concl%sion that life was 3eaningless, people began to see1 an 2escape fro3 reason,4 as Christian apologist Francis Schaffer has aptly ter3ed it# Another apologist, Clar1 Binnoc1, describes the 2%pper story4 that people began to flee to in an atte3pt to not ha6e to face harsh reality# As opposed to the 2lower story4 of real life with its ca%se and effect, this 2%pstairs4 is 2the field of int%ition, faith, and con>ect%re# $t is in no way related to or connected with the lower le6el# $t is a state of non=3ind, the region of the nonrational 3ystical e8perience into which LSD %sers escape with considerable relief#4+" /%t it is not >%st LSD that they %se H 3any will find it thro%gh spirit%al di6ersions s%ch as 3editation or attending sens%al ?appealing to the sensesC religio%s ser6ices# S%ch people do not want their act%al li6ing to be according to 1nowledge, beca%se they don7t li1e what 1nowledge tells the3# They see no hope# Net there is hope, if one is willing to enter that real3 of 1nowledge that is fo%nd, not in an e8istential %pper story, b%t thro%gh faith in ;od7s 'ord# Thro%gh the Script%res we find that there is a ;od higher than o%r nat%ral real3, b%t e*%ally real and 6ery 3%ch connected to o%r real3# Ie not only created this real3, b%t Ie is s%staining it e6ery 3o3ent ?Col !&!LC and will interact in this real3 according to the faith that 3en ha6e in Ii3# The e8istentialist does find hope, and a 3eas%re of peace# No one can criticiJe hi3, he says, for faith is Spersonal7 and no one has the right to >%dge what he belie6es# Ie can say that he has 2faith4 that :es%s rose fro3 the dead, and so all will be well, beca%se :es%s lo6es and will forgi6e e6eryone and raise the3 too# Ie shr%gs off the nat%ralist with the retort that it is 2by faith4 and dodges the tr%e belie6er who *%estions his
43

Binnoc1, 2!=22

D# Stabler 25

poor doctrine and loose li6ing by saying that his faith is independent fro3 his li6ing# ++ /%t his hope and peace are that of a dying 3an ta1ing a placebo and sho%ting that he will soon be well# Any atte3pt to li6e life based on 1nowledge recei6ed independently fro3 tr%e faith will destroy an indi6id%al or society# $t 3atters not if the co33on belief is s%pposedly reached by science or by 2faith4 in so3e non=e8istent deity# Aither way the 1nowledge is false, and li6ing by it will ha6e conse*%ences# Iistory tells %s of 3any instances when people ca3e to realiJe that in all their false 1nowledge none of it had any 3ore s%pport than any other, so nothing 3attered# Adward ;ibbon records concerning the @o3an A3pire in its decline that 2The 6ario%s 3odes of worship which pre6ailed in the @o3an world were all considered by the people as e*%ally tr%e< by the philosopher as e*%ally false< and by the 3agistrate as e*%ally %sef%l# And th%s toleration prod%ced no only 3%t%al ind%lgence, b%t e6en religio%s concord# +5 No one co%ld see that the society was rotting at its 6ery core, beca%se no one was see1ing the tr%th# 5%r 3odern c%lt%re that will cast aside any principle for the sa1e of 2toleration4 has reached this point# They clai3 the 3ost i3portant need is to 2co=e8ist4 with whate6er 1nowledgePfaith one has, for it is all the sa3e# Children are *%ic1 to defend an idea with 2well, e6eryone else says it is tr%e,4 and o%r childish c%lt%re co3forts itself with the ass%rance that the 3asses 2agree to disagree4 and declare that all roads lead to the sa3e goal# $n the end it will ha6e the sa3e effect it did in @o3e and e6ery other great ci6iliJation# .nless we see1 the tr%th not only in astrono3y and 3ath class and b%siness b%t fro3 ;od and for all of life, o%r e8istence will be 3eaningless# This is not optional# 'hen $ say Christianity is tr%e $ 3ean it is tr%e to total reality H the total of what is, beginning with the central reality, the ob>ecti6e e8istence of the personal=infinite ;od# Christianity is not >%st a series of tr%ths b%t Truth H Tr%th abo%t all of reality# And the holding to that Tr%th intellect%ally H and then in so3e poor way li6ing %pon that Tr%th, the Tr%th of what is H brings forth not only certain personal res%lts, b%t also go6ern3ental and legal res%lts# +) Schaeffer goes on to describe how the %lti3ate res%lt of a re>ection of ;od7s Tr%th leads to a re>ection of the 3ost basic 3orals, to the point that the atheist philosopher can declare not only that a h%3an 2fet%s4 is not any 3ore h%3an than a bacteria, b%t apply the sa3e to senile or co3atose people# +L 'hen one re>ects the ;od that ga6e 3an worth, there is no sanctity of h%3an life, and people beco3e no 3ore than ani3als# Iistory shows that the res%lt is always people acting li1e ani3als# 'hat is the 3ost i3portant 1nowledge for %s to 1now( $s it that the planet Bl%to is co6ered in ice( No, we 1now that the 3ost i3portant 1nowledge is that which infl%ences o%r li6ing# Th%s that 1nowledge which g%ides o%r choices H how to li6e and what to do H is the 3ost i3portant 1nowledge# And once again, we find that s%ch 1nowledge can only be reached by faith# 0orality, or r%les for h%3an cond%ct, is based in the concept of right 6s# wrong# 0en inherently 1now there is right and wrong, b%t how are we to decide which is what( Thro%gh the cent%ries 3en ha6e searched diligently H thro%gh philosophy, science, art, and
44 45

Binnoc1 2+=25 $bid#, 5" 46 Schaeffer, Kol# K, +25 47 Schaeffer, Kol# K, +2)

D# Stabler 2)

all other possible a6en%es H for so3e basis for 3orality o%tside the s%pernat%ral# The only one that has been able to s%r6i6e with any se3blance of reason has been %tilitarianis3& whate6er wor1s best for society is right# $n a n%3ber of his wor1s Francis Schaeffer has shown how this can only end in tyranny, or as, 5li6er 'endell Iol3es p%t it, 2the 3a>ority 6ote of that nation that co%ld lic1 all others#4 +- The conse*%ences of see1ing a standard for 3orality o%tside of re6elation are not attracti6e, as history pro6es# A6en the agnostic @enan was forced to ad3it in !-))& 2$f @ationalis3 wishes to go6ern the world witho%t regard to the religio%s needs of the so%l, the e8perience of the French @e6ol%tion is there to teach %s the conse*%ence,4 and 'ill D%rant H who desired to li6e by 2nat%ral ethic4 H obser6es 2There is no significant e8a3ple in history, before o%r ti3e, of a society s%ccessf%lly 3aintaining 3oral life witho%t the aid of religion#4+9 /%t if we are willing to loo1, by faith, %nto ;od, we find a standard of right and wrong based on Absol%te ;ood# $f we are to base o%r life on what we know, rather than i3agine or wish to be so, we 3%st base it on so3ething tr%e# 5bser6ation, whether of life aro%nd %s or of history, pro6es that what we inherently 1now to be 3oral is best 3aintained and preser6ed by so3e 1ind of fear of ;odPgods# 'here there is no faith, loo1ing to a 1nowledge higher than the 6isible world, there is nothing to preser6e ethicsP3oralityPgoodness# This is what scientific e6idence indicates thro%gh consistent e8a3ples# Altho%gh the Bost=0odern age is pro3oting li6ing by del%sion, the serio%s thin1er sho%ld be able to see that li6ing based on a lie cannot res%lt in positi6e or prod%cti6e e8istence, for an indi6id%al or society# Iistory certainly confir3s it# /%t 3ost people do not belie6e their entire life is based on falsehood< they fo%nd so3e of it on eternal principles, then the 2less i3portant4 areas they don7t really thin1 abo%t# 0any Christians loo1 to the /ible for 2religio%s4 or 2spirit%al4 3atters and perhaps a few sec%lar things of great significance# They ad3it they need faith, and the tr%e 1nowledge it brings, to acco3pany and g%ide their 1nowledge in certain areas, b%t in others they reser6e the a%thority to decide what is tr%e by other 3eans# Net if we are going to e8cept Script%re for part of o%r life, and ac1nowledge it is tr%e, then we 3%st accept what it declares abo%t 2all things#4 'e are told that 2all things4 are created by ;od ?$ Cor -&)C and that we are to than1 Ii3 for 2all things4 ?Aph 5&2 C and co%nt 2all things4 as loss for Christ ?Bhp "&-C, to obey in 2all things4 ?Col "&2 C, to find %nderstanding fro3 the Lord in 2all things4 ?$$ Ti3 2&LC and re3e3ber that 2all things4 were created for the honor, glory, and pleas%re of ;od ?@e6 +&!!C# $t is illogical to say there are 2so3e things4 which do not fall %nder the 2all things#4 Th%s, e6ery action of e6ery 3o3ent 3%st be done %nto ;od, whether we eat or drin1 or whate6er we do ?$ Cor ! &"!C# Then if all that we do is to be based in ;od and for ;od, and ;od is 1nown by faith< if all that we do is to be based in what we 1new ;od wants %s to do, and we 1now that by faith, then all action 3%st be based on faith# Aither ;od is the Creator of the whole 3an, the whole %ni6erse, and all of reality and e8istence, or
48 49

$bid#, +29 $bid#, +"9=++

D# Stabler 2L

he is the Creator of none of it# $f ;od is only the creator of so3e di6ided platonic e8istence which leads to a tension between the body and so%l, the real world and the spirit%al world, if ;od is only Creator of so3e spirit%al little 2praise the Lord4 reality, then he is not 3%ch of a ;od# $ndeed, he is not $ A0 at all# $f o%r Christian li6es are allowed to beco3e so3ething spirit%al and religio%s as opposed to so3ething real, daily applicable, %nderstandable, bea%tif%l, 6erifiable, balanced, sensible, and abo6e all %nited, whole, if indeed o%r Christianity is allowed to beco3e this waffling spirit%al goo that nineteenth=cent%ry platonic Christianity beca3e, then Christianity as tr%th disappears and instead we only ha6e a syste3 of 6ag%e e8periential religio%s platit%des in its place# 5 The *%estion then, beco3es *%ite si3ply& a3 $ going to see1 all of 3y 1nowledge by faith and apply 3y 1nowledge in faith, or a3 $ going to re>ect faith altogether( Any atte3pt at a halfway co3pro3ise is si3ply illogical and %nreasonable# 5nce we choose the a%thority for o%r 1nowledge, that a%thority 3%st be the standard for all 1nowledge# 'e 3%st ha6e faith in this a%thority with H g%iding and controlling H o%r reason# $f ;od does e8ist, and Ie has re6ealed to %s the 3ost i3portant tr%ths thro%gh the Script%res, then it only 3a1es sense to begin o%r reasoning with the /ible# The first principles of o%r thin1ing sho%ld be deri6ed fro3 what ;od has told %s, and only then can we be certain that what we belie6e is act%ally so3ething we 21now4 H tr%th, absol%te tr%th, and real 1nowledge# To ac1nowledge the e8istence of ;od, b%t then belie6e we co%ld 1now tr%th totally independent of the 5ne who is the so%rce of tr%th, is at the least 6ery foolish# $f we ac1nowledge that faith is needed for the 1nowledge of ;od, and we ac1nowledge that ;od created all things, wo%ld not faith be needed for the 1nowledge of all things( @%shdoony shows %s the blea1 6iew of life li6ed witho%t ;od and 1nowledge of Ii3& 'here6er 3an asserts his independence of ;od, saying in effect, that, while he will deny ;od, he will not deny life, nor its relationships, 6al%es, society, its sciences and art, he is in6ol6ed in contradiction# it is an i3possibility for 3an to deny ;od and still to ha6e law and order, >%stice, science, anything, apart fro3 ;od# The 3ore 3an and society depart fro3 god, the 3ore they depart fro3 all reality, the 3ore they are ca%ght in the net of self=contradiction and self=fr%stration, the 3ore they are in6ol6ed in the will to destr%ction and the lo6e of death ?Bro6# -&")C# For 3an to t%rn his bac1 on ;od, therefore, is to t%rn towards death< it in6ol6es %lti3ately the ren%nciation of e6ery aspect of life#5!

Faith !o" Knowing

There is one 1ind of 1nowledge that is 3ore i3portant than any other# $t goes beyond latent 1nowledge residing in the brain, and e6en beyond the application of 1nowledge in acting %pon what we 1now# $t is 1nowing in a relationship# 'e can 1now that water e8ting%ishes fire beca%se we read it in a boo1, and we can e8perientially 1now that fact by po%ring water on a ca3pfire# /%t the water will ne6er 1now %s, and we will ne6er ha6e a relationship with fire, no 3atter how closely we interact with the3# 5nly with a person can we both 1now the other and be 1nown, and th%s ha6e an acti6e interchange that e6er deepens o%r 1nowledge of the other# The 3ost i3portant Berson is, by definition, ;od, so the 3ost i3portant 1nowing possible is that of 1nowing ;od# $t is also the deepest relationship, beca%se ;od alone has the ability to read all the 1nowledge
50 51

Schaeffer, Kol# K, *%oting fro3 ddicted to 3ediocrity$ +5+ Binnoc1, +9

D# Stabler 2-

that we ha6e within %s ?0at 9&+<Bs# !"9&2C and to directly i3part f%ll 1nowledge into %s ?$$ Cor +&)<Col !&9C# This 1nowledge is so deep that it act%ally transfor3s who we are, as we read in :ohn !L&"# nd this is li"e eternal$ that they mi#ht know thee the only true ,od$ and /esus Christ$ whom thou hast sent% /ohn &.:' $n this prayer to Iis Father, :es%s Christ defined 2eternal life4 as the relationship of 1nowing the Trinity# This 1ind of 1nowing not only changes o%r physical life, b%t it gi6es %s a new 1ind of spirit%al life# This is the 1ind of 1nowing that sets %s free ?:ohn -&"2C# Facts lying in the brain free no one# Facts applied to the life 3ay bring abo%t a li3ited liberty, b%t only 1nowing :es%s Christ frees %s fro3 all bondage# 'e all ha6e this 1ind of 21nowledge4 in 1nowing other people, b%t only those who accept ;od7s 'ord by faith can 1now ;od, for we do not 3eet Ii3 on the sa3e face=to=face basis that we enco%nter other people# Faith is absol%tely necessary in all aspects of 1nowing ;od# Since it is by faith that one obeys ;od in entering into an appro6ed relationship with Ii3 ?;al 5&)C and li6es a life appro6ed by Ii3 ?;al "&!!C, it follows that faith is necessary to please ;od ?Ieb !!&)< :ohn -&2+C# Faith 3%st be in oneDs heart in beco3ing a Christian and it 3%st be retained and e6en a%g3ented thro%gho%t his life as a Christian ?@o3 5&!< 2 Cor 5&LT$$ Bet !&5UC# There is no sin 3ore de6astating than the sin of %nbelief,.nbelief, which so easily besets a person ?Ieb !2&!C, 1eeps hi3 fro3 fellowship with the li6ing ;od ?Ieb "&!2C# 52 'e ha6e seen that one cannot 1now spirit%al ?abo6e the physicalC tr%th %nless ;od re6eals it to %s ?$ Cor 2&9C, and that Ie can only re6eal it to %s if we ha6e faith# /%t it is possible to ha6e faith in so3e things, to belie6e the3 and 3a1e the3 a part of o%r life, and not ha6e faith in other areas# 'e 3ay tr%st :es%s Christ to sa6e %s fro3 sin and hell, b%t then stop short of tr%sting Ii3 to sa6e %s fro3 the power of sin in o%r daily li6ing# As we saw in the pre6io%s section, all things are fro3 ;od and all things 3%st be %nderstood and e8perienced in Ii3# Th%s, this personal 1nowing ;od H o%r contin%al relationship with Ii3 H 3%st be the controlling factor in e6ery e8perience of life# :%st as we cannot co3e to 1now 1nowledge abo%t ;od witho%t accepting the e6idence of Iis 'ord in faith, so we cannot 1now ;od personally b%t by faith# :%st as we 3%st ha6e faith in applying all o%r 1nowledge abo%t ;od to all we do, so we 3%st li6e o%r spirit%al and nat%ral life thro%gh the 1nowledge of o%r Lord :es%s Christ by faith# Th%s we see that faith is necessary not only to 1now tr%th, b%t to %tiliJe tr%th in any conte8t# All o%r actions are ca%sed by decisions, and all decisions are ca%sed by relating pieces of 1nowledge and co3paring the ad6antageo%s of each# Decisions 3ade based on incorrect 1nowledge will res%lt in wrong actions# So3e of the 3ost essential 1nowledge pertains to how things wor1, where they co3e fro3, and what will be the final end# 'hen doctors belie6ed that the blood was prod%ced by the li6er and b%rned %p in the heart they were 6ery inefficient in helping the h%3an body to prosper# $f we ha6e wrong beliefs abo%t where we ha6e co3e fro3, how we are s%pposed to operate, or what will be the end of o%r life or any partic%lar action, we will not 3a1e good decisions# This is why it is i3possible to ha6e right thin1ing, and th%s right
52

;ene Taylor, The Necessity o" 5aith# Center6ille @oad Ch%rch of Christ, Tallahasee, Fl# ?Accessed at http&PPwww#center6illeroad#co3ParticlesPfaith=!#ht3l, Feb !-, 2 !"C

D# Stabler 29

actions, if we do not by faith co3e to 1now to the f%llest the 5ne who designed, began, s%stains, and will bring to a concl%sion all things#

CONC)U*ION
5%tside of 3athe3atics there are few things that can be absol%tely pro6en# Theoretically, if eno%gh people are liars, it co%ld be that :%li%s Caesar ne6er e8isted or that Antarctica is act%ally co6ered in sand rather than ice# Theoretically, 1idneys co%ld be part of the digesti6e rather than filtration syste3s of the body, if eno%gh doctors and scientists failed in their e8peri3ents# Iowe6er, the re*%ire3ent placed on a >%ry is not to pro6e absol%tely and 3athe3atically, b%t 2beyond all reasonable do%bt#4 'e co%ld 1eep as1ing *%estions to the point that we wondered if all e8istence was si3ply a drea3, b%t instead we li6e day to day based on things we belie6e and 21now4 based on o6erwhel3ing e6idence# ;od does not want to be absol%tely pro6en, as 22V2W+4 is pro6en# Ie wants %s to belie6e on Ii3 by faith# Faith re*%ires the in6ol6e3ent of the spirit%al heart, while 3athe3atics is only in the 3ind# Net at the sa3e ti3e Ie does not call %s to belie6e based on nothing, for that is g%essing, not faith# Ie has s%pplied %s with 3ore than s%fficient e6idence# 'hen /ertrand @%ssell was as1ed how he wo%ld answer if he 3et ;od

D# Stabler "

after death he answered, 2$ will tell Ii3 that Ie did not gi6e 3e eno%gh e6idence#4 5" /%t the /ible tells %s that Ie has& 5or the invisible thin#s o" him "rom the creation o" the world are clearly seen$ bein# understood by the thin#s that are made$ even his eternal power and ,odhead1 so that they are without e=cuse: (omans &:*Fro3 a scientific perspecti6e, the %ni6erse pro6es the e8istence of at least an $ntelligent Designer# Consider one e8a3ple of 3any& An intelligible co33%nication 6ia radio signal fro3 so3e distant gala8y wo%ld be widely hailed as e6idence of an intelligent so%rce# 'hy then doesn7t the 3essage se*%ence on the DNA 3olec%le also constit%te pri3a facie e6idence for an intelligent so%rce( After all, DNA infor3ation is not >%st analogo%s to a 3essage se*%ence s%ch as 0orse code, it is s%ch a 3essage se*%ence# 5+ Net all we can learn fro3 obser6ation is ;od7s 2eternal power and ;odhead,4 the fact that an eternal Ca%se with infinite power and intelligence e8ists# To gain the needed details abo%t Iis s%pernat%ral ?abo6e the physicalC real3 H yea, and o%r own spirits, which are not physical H we need re6elation fro3 Ii3# This re6elation is obser6ed H >%st as s%rely as DNA strands seen %nder the high=power 3icroscope H thro%gh faith# Iere then is the proble3 for 3ost people# The reason that so 3any are lac1ing in 1nowledge is not lac1 of ed%cation, b%t lac1 of faith# ;od confronted this proble3 tho%sands of years ago, declaring 20y people are destroyed for lac1 of 1nowledge#4 $t was not beca%se they did not ha6e opport%nity to 1now, b%t 2beca%se tho% hast re>ected 1nowledge4 ?Ios +&)C# The reason that they did 2resist the tr%th4 was they were 23en of corr%pt 3inds, reprobate concerning the faith4 ?$$ Ti3 "&-C# $n departing fro3 faith in ;od and Iis 'ord they had destroyed their own 3inds, and co%ld now thin1 or 1now anything correctly# The reason that people do not ha6e faith with their 1nowledge is not beca%se faith is %nreasonable or contrary to 1nowledge, b%t beca%se 3ost people don7t want to 1now the tr%th abo%t ;od# Faith is not the opposite of 1nowledge# The scandal of the gospel is not its alleged i33%nity fro3 proof# The gospel 3a1es sense, not non=sense# $ts offense lies in its 3oral %n3as1ing of the sinner, not in its s%pposed %ncertain tr%thf%lness# The 3ind is not to be left at the threshold in Christianity# S%ch deliberate irrationalis3 is positi6ely anti=Christian and plays directly into the hands of %nbelie6ers who cherish the ill%sion that the gospel is a foolish leap of faith# 55 Beople 2willingly are ignorant4 ?$$ Bet "&5C beca%se they 1now that if they accept the 1nowledge of ;od, they will be acco%ntable for it# They do not realiJe that doing so 3a1es all their 1nowledge i3potent, and for the 3ost part false# This is not what ;od is wanting# Ie desires for 2all 3en to be sa6ed and co3e to the 1nowledge of the tr%th4 ?! Ti3 2&+C# Ie wants %s to 2grow in the grace and 1nowledge of o%r Lord :es%s Christ4 ?2 Bet "&!-C# There are 3any who are lac1ing in 1nowledge, and will not find what they are see1ing %ntil they go bac1 to the beginning and begin with :es%s Christ, in 2who3 are hid all the treas%res of wisdo3 and 1nowledge4 ?Col 2&"C# Faith is absol%tely necessary with all 1nowledge, both to ac*%ire and to %tiliJe it# The s1eptic 3ay as1, 2$f reason is inferior to re6elation, why do yo% %se reason to ref%te h%3an
53 54

Ferg%son, !" $bid#, *%oting Charles /# Tha8ton, 2) 55 Binnoc1, !"=!+

D# Stabler "!

reason to achie6e yo%r concl%sions(4 This st%dy has certainly 3ade %se of reason, and ;od e8pects %s to %se the fac%lties Ie has gi6en# Dr# 5# T# Spence pro6ides a good response& $f $ do not %se reason at all, yo%, as a s1eptic, will conde3n 3y faith< and if $ %se reason, yo% conde3n 3y reasonable faith# 'hy do yo% do that( 'hat do yo% want 3e to do( $ belie6e it is beca%se yo% %se 2@eason4 with the per6ersion of an %nreasonable heart towards ;od# 5) $t is only reasonable to ta1e ;od as Iis 'ord, and base o%r thin1ing on Iis re6elation# This sho%ld not be seen as a restriction or painf%l li3itation, b%t a glorio%s opport%nity# The 1ey is not personal brilliance, b%t s%rrender to ;od# Not only will h%3ble faith open o%r 3ind to the tr%th of the .ni6erse that we 3ay %se ;od7s gift of reason to disco6er 3ore, b%t ;od desires to directly i3part 1nowledge to %s thro%gh Iis 'ord# For those who will contin%e in faith, and lay hold of all ;od offers, there is a 1nowledge of ;od7s Law, Iis 'ord and Tr%th, that can only co3e by a s%pernat%ral wor1 in o%r hearts# 5or this is the covenant that I will make with the house o" Israel a"ter those days$ saith the Lord1 I will put my laws into their mind$ and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a ,od$ and they shall be to me a people: !ebrews >:&So is faith %nreasonable and 1nowledge faithless( Far fro3 it# There is no need to fear beco3ing either too reasonable or fanatical in faith, as long as we ha6e tr%e faith# Tr%e faith is applying reason to re6ealed e6idence# Anything that fails to rely first on ;od is h%3anistic reason, not faith, and anything that belie6es witho%t reasonable e6idence is h%3an i3agination, not /iblical faith# $n an age when 1nowledge is increasing rapidly, 3ay we see1 firstly truth, by an %nreser6ed faith in the 5ne who is the Tr%th#

+ibliog"a,h(
Clar1, I# ;ordon, Thales to Dewey: !istory o" Philosophy, ;rand @apids, 0$& /a1er /oo1 Io%se, !95L 5 Ferg%son, Ba%l, ,od and the theist# Leyton, London& :es%s Sa6es 0ission $nternational B%blishing, 2 Landa%er, :eff and :oseph @owlands, 2Faith,4 $3portance of Bhilosophy#co3, 2 !# Accessed at

Ienry, 0atthew# 3atthew !enry?s Commentary on The 0ible# Beabody, 0A& Iendric1son B%b#, $nc#, !99! http&PPwww#i3portanceofphilosophy#co3P$rrationalQFaith#ht3l ?Feb -, 2 !"C
56

5# T# Spence, The !uman +pirit$ Vol% *% ?D%nn, NC& Fo%ndations Bress, 2

C, 25-

D# Stabler "2

0achen, :# ;resho3# Christianity and Liberalism# ;rand @apids, 0$& 'illia3 /# Aerd3ans B%b# Co#, !925# 0cDowell, :osh# The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict# Nash6ille, TN& Tho3as Nelson B%b#, !999 Binnoc1, Clar1 I# +et 5orth 7our Case# Chicago, $L& 0oody Bress, !9)L @obertson, Tho3as Archibald# :ord Pictures in the New Testament# A=Sword# Schaeffer, Francis A# The Complete :orks o" 5rancis +chae""er# 'heaton, $L& Crossway /oo1s, !9-2 Spence, 5# T# The !uman +pirit$ Vol% *% D%nn, NC& Fo%ndations Bress, 2 Tho3pson, /ert, Bh#D# 5aith and 6nowled#e% Apologetics Bress, $nc#, !99+# Accessed at http&PPwww#apologeticspress#orgPapcontent#asp8(categoryW!!XarticleW"-5 ?Feb -, 2 !"C 'oodbridge, Charles# Tell 8s Please# 'estwood, N:& Fle3ing I# @e6ell Co#, !9+No%ng, 'arren, Bh#D# Christian pproach to Philosophy# ;rand @apids, 0$& /a1er /oo1 Io%se, !95+