Some Concerns and Directions among the Successes
***This paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, Atlanta, GA,
November 17. 2015.
No Christian in philosophy today would argue
that there has not been a virtual explosion of the number of
Christians working in philosophy.
William Lane Craig and Paul Copan declare, “Nothing short
of a veritable revolution in Anglo-American philosophy has
begun! … God is making a comeback.”
Someone has estimated that 30 percent of all faculty at
the college and graduate levels, including those secular, who
are working in philosophy, are Christians.
Alvin Plantinga played a considerable role in this
development with his leadership in several ways and in
particular his landmark address in 1984, “Advice to Christian
there are a plethora of others who deserve mention, but cannot
be for reasons of time.
This growth of Christians in philosophy is a cause for
celebration—an exciting advancement for the Kingdom of God.
However, rapid growth in any area is never
While I make no claim to the status of Plantinga, I would like
to explore some ways that we might be more “Christian” in our
work. Of course, these
are MY concerns, but perhaps you might agree on one or more, or
I may give you some ideas on which to work.
Every age seems to think that it faces the
worst problems in history.
I have been reading a novel about the Mongols of the 13th
century and their devastation that was to be feared because it
was often total annihilation.
Whether we face the greatest threat in history is
debatable, there is no doubt that we face grave dangers in the
West in general and America in particular.
Christian philosophers should be determined to be part of
the solution and not contribute to a worsening situation.
project is that to reduce the threat of atheistic efforts
and tyrannical tendencies, the Academy must grasp and widely
teach that all beliefs about cosmology, anthropology,
epistemology, and ethics are faith-based, that is religious.
One’s choice of which philosophy or religion to commit “gers
or houses, horses, salt, and blood on a “word of iron,” as the
Mongols did to their kahns, will determine what kind of world in
which we live.
Therefore, how one defines “religion” and “belief” will define
the future of the world.
Until the Enlightenment, Christianity faced no
real philosophical challenge. Prior
to that event, in the West, the ancient philosophies, rightly
and wrongly, were integrated into the Christian faith.
But “intellectual man” chafed under the Christian
tradition, sometimes for right reasons, but mostly for wrong
today, we have stringent voices that are definitively
have the falsely contrived divorce of faith and reason.
The divide of faith and
On the one hand, this divorce is seen in the
public square, perhaps, most vividly in the common idea of
there are identities known as faith-groups, what are the other
groups? If faith and
reason are the only categories, then everyone else belongs to
Now, in the eye of the common man, and even intellectuals, who
has the most credibility?
Well, obviously the groups who reason and are reasonable.
There is then, therefore, the antithesis of “religious”
and “reasoned.” Even
evangelical Christians prefer to be known as “reasonable” or
“reasoning” persons, rather than “religious” or belonging to a
World crisis. Now,
whatever may be taken away from my paper here, this thought is
one that I want to trumpet as loudly and as clearly as I am
Christians must work to tear down this dichotomy or Western civilization
may be destroyed.
– Repeat --
Certainly, I am often given to such, but you may decide
the extent to which I am exaggerating.
If I present an argument as a “person of faith,” and I
oppose a Marxist, he is subtly, but powerfully, a person of
dichotomy that I have described only allows faith and reason.
As a Christian, I am a person of “faith’ or “non-reason.”
Again, if you are to take anything from my
paper, please consider.
First, whether what I am saying is accurate.
If it is, what can YOU do about it.
Wherever you teach, wherever you write, wherever you
speak, begin to discuss that all peoples are peoples of faith
whether of religious group or not.
The Marxist belongs to a faith-group, as does the
socialist, communist, constitutionalist, Republican, Democrat,
or whatever banner one is under.
We have lost the ideological and sociological battle
before it begins, if we allow this dichotomy to continue.
Or, just dismiss me as a false prophet and
turn me into a pile of stones!
That is the confrontation in the public
square, but on the other
hand, scholarly and
intellectually, “faith” is the inescapable starting point for
all philosophical or religious systems.
What is the end term of “justified true belief?”
Belief. Let’s review this
Faith and reason interdependent.
faith are interdependent.
There must be the reasoned structures of an alphabet,
words, and grammar in a statement of faith, as well as the mind
of the one who hears or reads it.
Then, unless one is content to be ignorantly dogmatic
(and too many are), that basic belief should be built into a
coherent system that can be apologetically defended.
Reason is necessary to achieve this solid structure.
One’s most basic beliefs are tacit and
personal, as Michael Polanyi has demonstrated so clearly in his
several books. While
one may find a community of similar beliefs, as he has shown, it
is still a personal choice to indwell that particular community.
And, even so, few within that group will agree on every
single tenet of that belief system.
The tautology and circular reasoning of basic beliefs is
unavoidable, just as Kurt Gödel demonstrated in mathematics and
shook the philosophical world. As
I have stated, the Enlightenment was an attempt to escape
Christian beliefs and ground an epistemology on a totally
secular basis. But,
what is that intent but a basic belief in itself?
The logical positivists of the early 20th
century believed that only empirical studies could provide
knowledge, but that foundational belief itself was tacit and
personal, speculative and metaphysical.
It was and is a performative contradiction, that is, if
true it was false.
I am sincerely astonished that so many for
so long still argue faith vs. reason.
While Augustine said that one must believe in order to
understand, he also said that reason was necessary to make a
statement of belief and necessary to a coherent structure of
Certainly, modern linguistics has put the lie to the
simplicity of a simple statement of any kind, much less that of
a basic belief. Such
formulation is only possible by a most complex structure of
empiricism, deduction, abduction, tradition, culture, and
By what standard? Measuring
stick? One of
the few—almost—universal beliefs among modern philosophers is
that foundationalism, as least in its classical form, is dead.
Conflated with that fact, or perhaps even a re-statement
of it, is the reality that after 2500+ years, there is no
agreed-upon epistemology, ontology, cosmology, morals or ethics.
One could say that
philosophy has no settled
Indeed, philosophers cannot even agree on a definitive
definition of philosophy.
Christian philosopher, do you
Christian philosopher, “Do you hear?” What right does any person
with any other belief system have to even begin to criticize
Christianity, much less to launch a full-scale challenge to it.
Where would that person stand to do so?
The ideological world, then, on that unsettled basis
should be wide-open to invite Christians and their beliefs to
Plantinga’s “warrant” for belief is only the proverbial tip of
A Christian should be quite willing to argue the fruits of 2000 years of
Christianity vs. the fruits of 2500 years of philosophy or any
other religious system!
But, the intellectual world has never been
more closed to the truth of Christianity.
must be something more than logic, reason, and even empiricism
that opposes it.
Perhaps, the Bible has an answer: the world, the flesh, and the
principalities and powers of the air?
Satan as the Father of liars and the Angel of
There are only two epistemologies:
light and darkness, the light of Scripture and the darkness of
man without Biblical revelation.
We should decide into which side our work falls.
A brief aside about
doubt, skepticism, and higher criticism
I recently read an article by professors at a
Reformed denomination’s university on the subject of doubt, and
I would include “skepticism” and
“higher criticism” here as they are birds of a feather.
This discussion illustrated my contention here that
doubt, as representative of this trinity
should not have the
privileged status that it has had historically and
represents other forms of
All debates consist of one faith against another.
And again, they should to
be identified as such.
Polanyi has some 30 pages on the critique of doubt and
You would do well to read it for it gives great power to
modern debates that invoke these terms.
I have seen nothing like it anywhere.
This powerful influence must be
recognized for what it is. The failed quest of
foundationalism demonstrates that there are no universal basic
beliefs, only passionately held, competing beliefs or competing
privileged over the others except to the extent allowed by
Orthodox Christianity gains considerable ascendency in its
epistemological status by this re-phrasing of its competition.
Herein is the fact of the matter.
Doubt and skepticism are merely
other faith positions—they have no privileged status!
The presence of doubt is merely the question, “Where and in what
will I place my faith?”
Biblical truth which presents an omniscient God , OR
modern science OR my own
As Christians, we make too much of doubt because we do not
consider, and worse have not been taught, that doubt is simply
transferring our faith to an inferior epistemology, not some
serious challenge to God’s Word.
The presence of doubt, then, is the challenge
to increase one’s study of God and His Word until one arrives as
the solid ground of Biblical epistemology.
Definitions of Faith—An
After love, faith is the most mis-understood
word in the Christian vocabulary.
I have spent years on the subject, intrigued by Jesus’
command to several persons whom He had healed, “Go your way,
your faith has made you well!”
I want to very briefly share my conclusions with you.
Generically, faith is the predisposition to act according
to one’s personal knowledge with an expectation of a particular
result that will or will not be proven true by the events of
Or, for a Christian, faith is the willingness
to act righteously according to Biblical knowledge, expecting
God to act in a particular way and receiving His Providence as a
The blessing of faith, whether generic or
Christian, is that one is able to make a decision with
incomplete knowledge or without one’s being omniscient.
I presented a paper which developed those
themes more fully at the spring meeting of the SE-EPS, if anyone
would like that paper.
Starting points. What
then should be the starting points of Christians in philosophy
or one might say, what starting points are most foundational of
a Christian pursuit of philosophy or any other area of
knowledge? I propose
the two that Abraham Kuyper grounded his encyclopedic efforts in
the 19th century:
regeneration and Scripture.
there is the reality and necessity of regeneration.
Now, to consider regeneration—only briefly—is to invite
all manner of misunderstanding.
But, in my personal and informal survey of
two publications, Faith
and Philosophy and Philosophia Christi, regeneration seems to be
a neglected topic among Christians and evangelicals in recent
decades in philosophy.
Perhaps, however, I can state some central agreements
along this line.
Regeneration is and is not “conversion.”
There are several lengthy articles and books on
conversion by both Christians and non-Christians.
As such, it is a change, possibly a dramatic change, from
one belief system to another.
I once read about John Denver’s “mountaintop conversion”
to something, and there is the early and later Wittgenstein.
Conversion in this sense is epistemological and ethical,
and it comes as a conviction to new premises.
Regeneration is that, but much more.
First, and foremost, it is a work of God the
Holy Spirit (John 3).
Whether one is Arminian or Reformed seems to be mostly a
matter of timing and perspective on the human will, and whether
the change is permanent regardless of the thinking and behavior
of the regenerate person.
Yet, the radical nature of the change should be beyond
dispute, as it consists of one’s destiny of Heaven instead of
Hell; dwelling in light rather than darkness; “a new creation”
vs. “the old man”; calling Jesus Christ as Lord vs. using His
name in vain, loving Him with all your heart, soul, mind, and
strength vs. commitment to idols.
I have come to think of regeneration as an ontological
change, but I do not have time to discuss that here, and that
reality is not necessary to my essay.
Surely, then, we can agree that this change is
minimally epistemological—dramatically so, if our just-reviewed
Again, Biblical texts indicate this dramatic grounding of
In the 1st Chapter of I Corinthians, there
is the contrast of “wisdom of God” vs. “foolishness of men”;
in the 2nd Chapter, Christians “have the mind
of Christ”; in
Romans 12:1-2, we present “a living sacrifice,” that is, we
worship and are “metamorphosed” by the “renewing of our minds”;
in Colossians 2:3 we find that “in Christ are hidden all the
‘storehouse” of wisdom and knowledge”: in Psalm 111:10 David
says that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” ---
wisdom? Love of
wisdom… the definition of philosophy?
Scripture and the EPS.
The other starting point is Scripture. At first glance, this
starting point seems coherent with the EPS statement of belief.
The Bible alone, and the
Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and therefore
inerrant in the original manuscripts. God is a Trinity: Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence,
equal in power and glory.
In 2004, the meaning of
“inerrant” was expanded by a resolution of the Evangelical
Theological Society to the following statements.
For the purpose of advising members regarding
the intent and meaning of the reference to biblical inerrancy in
the Doctrinal Basis of ETS , the Society refers members to the
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). The case for
biblical inerrancy rests on the absolute trustworthiness of God
and Scripture’s testimony to itself. A proper understanding of
inerrancy takes into account the language, genres, and intent of
Scripture. We reject approaches to Scripture that deny that
biblical truth claims are grounded in reality.
I have not been able to find where EPS has or
has not acted on this clarification. However, the above oath for
membership has not changed, so my proposal would not seem to be
While my paper is only in part about
epistemology, these words
convey the ultimate epistemology: “the Word of God written” and
else in the universe of epistemology or concerns for truth is
there such a claim?
God speaking to man as the revelation of Himself..
The omniscient God, Creator of man who is made in His
image, revealing what he wants man to know… what is necessary
for his relationship with God, with his fellow man, and about
the meaning of his life on this planet.
This Word has made a greater impact for good in the
history of man when measured by any standard of “flourishing.”
And, such superlatives could be expanded greatly.
Yet, if one peruses issues of Philosophia
Christi, one finds few articles of substance that develop
Biblical themes relative to philosophy.
Most Scripture that is cited is token reference to other
issues in the text.
In fact, many of our most renown philosophers purposefully avoid
Then, there is
God’s own call through His Word that should be central to all
(1) “The Word of God is living and active, piercing to the
division and joints and marrow” (Hebrews 4:12).
(2) God has promised that His Word will not return to Him
void (Isaiah 55:11).
He makes no promise about any other knowledge.
And, I would declare that , Scripture has more claims to
epistemological truth than any other source of knowledge known
to man on planet Earth.
Please, do not think that I am excluding what philosophy
offers to the Kingdom of God.
I am not a Bible-only fundamentalist.
I strongly believe that philosophy in the service of
Biblical hermeneutics and theology can markedly contribute to
the advancement of knowledge and the Kingdom of God.
I simply want to call for a more robust inclusion of
Biblically derived theological themes in our discussions.
A Biblical, educational
Thus, I am calling for a “Biblical” turn among
Christians in philosophy.
This change may be already happening, as I have been
encouraged by recent issues of
since I first delivered this paper in 2011. But I think that we
can and must do better. If most of a Christian’s education
concerns secular philosophy, how is he or she to be truly
“Christian” in their later work?
Their greatest commitment to the truth of Christianity
will be extremely weak, if it makes attempts on the basis of
“milk”—that is, only a Sunday School education in
one’s philosophical work.
As a physician, I have a long and extensive
background in psychology.
The intensive and extensive training that psychologists
undergo trains them to think like secularists.
Great harm has been done to Christians by using the
world’s understanding of thinking and behavior.
I strongly believe that the same is true of Christians in
young aspiring philosopher, then, may be jolted to muse, “Who
wants additional years of theological study added to the many
years already necessary for a degree in philosophy?”
Well, I stand before you as a physician,
board-certified for the 6th time last year,
yet I have achieved a strong background in theology and am
working to develop my skill and understanding in philosophy, not
to mention that I am almost a scratch golfer at age 72.
The idea that one must have formal degrees is one that
must be re-considered without lowering expectations to achieve
mastery in fields where one is believed to be called.
I spent 23 years preparing to practice medicine, is not
the philosophy and theology of the soul infinitely more
Barna polls indicate an appalling ignorance
among evangelical Christians.
In our churches, we have no expectations of scholarly
advancement. We give
admittance to a very minimal understanding of what it is to be a
Christian. Worse, we
have little more expectation of deacons, elders, and other
church leaders. We
have sermonettes for Christianettes.
We have little or no training for Sunday School teachers.
Yet, garden societies, of which my wife is a member, have
higher standards than evangelical churches.
regeneration as a
profound personal and worldview change, as we have seen, and
that change includes, or perhaps is more foundationally, a
soundly developed mind.
I wonder the amount of time that congregants spend
surfing the web, watching television, trundling children to
soccer practice, and otherwise spending precious time that could
be spent in serious study of the Bible and theology?
Now, for the record, length and even depth of
education, does not guarantee truth and correct action, but
a short and superficial
education does guarantee unnecessary ignorance.
I wonder how much more unity in the body of Christ we
might achieve with a higher level of Biblical, theological, and
logical education by which to demonstrate and argue our beliefs,
especially on a more sound hermeneutical and rational basis.
So many of our conflicts are superficial and emotional.
Questionable Areas of
From these two starting points, there are
several areas that are questionable pursuits for Christians.
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to discuss them
more fully, but I have done so in the past and on my website.
Classical theism is one.
There is the God of Scripture, but there is no god who exists as
described by classical theism.
In discussions within Western philosophy, classical
theism must borrow from the
zeitgeist of hundreds
of years in order to formulate such a description.
Then, whatever description is used, that god does not
exist—he is only a figment of philosophers’ imagination.
Pascal recognized this distinction in his “god of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” vs. the “god of the philosophers.”
Philosophy of religion is another.
If all beliefs are religious by advocating a worldview,
then philosophy of religion is no different than philosophy
In congruence with this thinking, note that many
definitions or descriptions of “philosophy of religion” cover
virtually all categories with general philosophy. What, then, is
unique about this category?
philosophy of religion in the West heavily infiltrated with
When a God of theism is constructed, why should it be one who is
omniscient, omnipotent, the greatest idea conceivable, perfect,
etc. How do these
ideas originate except within the Christian tradition?
And how is there a Christian tradition without the Bible?
When Plantinga and others speak of the
sensus divinitatis of Augustine and Calvin, where did these scholars
get this concept except from the writings of the Apostle Paul of
the New Testament?
Why not discuss the sensus
divinitatis as an idea of Revelation, rather than a man
Do we not tacitly deny what we know by revelation when we
present ideas in this way?
Are we honoring our God and His Revelation in reverence
and awe? Is this
Natural theology, especially “ramified natural theology” suffers the
Natural theology borrows greatly from the intellectual milieu of
the West. Could it
have developed in its classic form within the Oriental world of
ideas? Such does not
what is the flirtation with “inclusivism” of some Christians?
What do other “religions” have to offer epistemologically
Judaism is incomplete, without a Messiah.
The fruits of Islam in its subjugation of other religious
peoples, its treatment of women, and its stifling of public
education, much less its barbarities of conquest and perversions
of its prophet Mohammed, condemn it for what is.
I saw a political cartoon that vividly describes the
contrast of the distortion of Christianity and Islam in today’s
world. It showed two
toilets—commodes—what we sit on to do our business.
In one toilet was the Koran and in the other was a Bible.
The captions read, “Modern art” and the other read “Hate
crime.” You know
which was which.
Hinduism is a variety of beliefs that are
quite varied and even contradictory.
The history of Indian poverty and caste system shows its
fruit. Buddhism is a
focus on self, with no transcendent being.
And on and on.
“Religion” is a false category, failing to have common
core characteristics and the word, “religion,” masks that all
epistemologies are personal, basic beliefs.
***Application to the inerrancy debate.
In preparing for this paper, I tried to read extensively
on the inerrancy debate that is still vigorous today.
If we re-frame the debate into one basic belief competing
against another basic belief, the nature of the argument
changes. One scholar
has contended that it is “a virtual impossibility to be both an
evangelical believer (in inerrancy as stated by the ETS and EPS)
and a critical scholar at the same time.”
To re-state in my terminology here, his concern becomes
competition between “faith” in Scripture as the very Word of God
who is truth vs. “faith” in critical scholarship.
Wherein lies the greater authority of these “faiths?”
While in reality the latter is necessary to the former,
one must predominate, else it is not a basic belief.
Application to science and Scripture.
There is a vast literature on
the philosophy of science
that seems to be almost unknown in the evangelical world with
the exception of the Creation-science debate.
I have already mentioned Michael Polanyi whose major work
is entitled Personal Knowledge where he gives many, many examples where “faith”
in science has been misplaced.
He demonstrates most persuasively that the most basic
belief in science known as “the scientific method” involves
personal choices and commitments from beginning to end.
Yet, this method is espoused in colleges and universities
throughout the world as infallible and the source of truth.
I give one example in Polanyi’s own field of physical
theories of crystal formation were being developed, researchers
began their study with certain beliefs about crystals.
Those specimens that met these beliefs were formed into a
system. Those that
did not fit these beliefs were simply tossed aside!
Where is the
objectivity in that process?
dichotomies must be taken seriously
Harry Blamires, while speaking of Christians
working with secularists, stated we forget that there is “a
between good and evil that splits the universe.”
Is this the way that we approach our work in Christian
One apologetic for Christianity as the only
true religion is stated herein: Scripture’s appeal as one’s
basis for epistemology.
While there have been debates about inclusion or
exclusion of Scripture in the work
of Christian philosophers, only in Scripture do we find
the notion of “having the mind of Christ” I Cor. 2:14.
I submit that there is no greater source of truth for
Orthodoxy must be taken
***Narrowing Plantinga’s call.
Orthodoxy must be taken more seriously.
Can Christopher Hitchins see orthodoxy more clearly than
some Christians? In
an interview with an avant
garde minister who claimed not to believe in the doctrine of
the atonement, Hitchens responded.
I would say that if you don’t believe that
Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose
again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven,
you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.
Now, I would not begin to let Hitchens define
orthodoxy, but he nailed this “liberal Christian” (her own
words) from any real identity of being a Christian.
I contrast this exclusive position defined by an avowed
atheist with three Christian authors in the 2nd issue
of Philosophia Christi
in 2009, entitled, “Religious Diversity.” I find such
discussions to be dangerous to traditional orthodox beliefs and
to the souls of those in other religions.
According to the stance of the ETS, and presumably EPS,
those flirtations and others that are ongoing are heretical.
While I do not necessarily want to be involved in witch
hunts, our philosophies must serve Christian orthodoxy and
identify heresy when we believe it to exist.
Further, this exclusivism is demanded by the
nature of belief itself.
If any belief
is possible, no belief is possible.
If anything goes, nothing goes.
All belief sets its limits—limits are inescapable.
So, any philosopher who does not recognize that
exclusivism is both necessary and demanded by the concept of
concrete beliefs, believes in nothing.
And, that is not to even mention the exclusive nature of
orthodox and evangelical Christianity which reflects Jesus
Christ’s own exclusivism that “I am the way, the truth, and the
life. No man comes
to the Father but by me.”
If we agree that there is an orthodox
Christianity, what is it?
Some statement about the final authority and “inerrancy” of the
Bible should be included.
By “Bible,” I mean the 66 books that all three major
branches of Christianity agree upon and about which I have
coined the term, “agree-upon Bible.”
By “inerrancy,” I do not necessarily mean agreement with
the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), but
something close to it.
The points at which our world is being destroyed.
Perhaps, continue our “ivory tower” conceptual pursuits, but
equal (?) time to the public square.
Philosophy of science.
Expose the lie of scientism and the scientific method.
Only two contenders for knowledge today:
scientism and evangelical Christianity.
2. Expose the
lie of “faith-groups,” and expose the lie of
separation of church and state.
All thought is circular and requires conversion.
to proclaim the
apologetic claims of Christianity.
We seem to be doing this quite well.
students and congregants to
think and reason.
Formal theology and philosophy are not beyond their
Increased study in
theology and Bible study required in attaining degrees in
basic beliefs. If you express universal ideas, they should jolly
well be well thought out.
The difference between emoting (political correctness)
and rational reasoning.
Scripture as our starting point according to our statement of
belief and as the outworking of the Holy Spirit in personal
sanctification and advancement of the Kingdom of God.
6. Expose the
lies of Islam, its injustice, and its predilection for violence.
7. Expose the
lies of political correctness.
discussions and debate for the core of orthodoxy—“anything goes”
is incompatible with Christianity.
The reality of church discipline.
8. Teach that
there is no privileged status for doubt—it is only another faith
position. (9) Getting secular and college universities to have
classes that present honest appraisals and debates on
“religions.” (10) Challenge other religions in college and university on an
Philosophies incompatible with Biblical, orthodox Christianity
Other worlds, possible
Philosophy of religion
Apologetics to convince by reason
Physicalism and brain only without soul/spirit
Evolution: some forms
“Soft sciences”: psychology, sociology, medicine, etc.
Empiricism as a means to truth; empiricism as a basic belief
Evidentialism, as a persuasive apologetic
Other world crises. (1)
Mass movement of immigrants into the U.S. and Europe.
restrictions on Christians’ free speech and behavior.
(3) Mass migration of Muslims into America and Europe and
their unwillingness to assimilate into Christian culture.
(4) The idea of “faith-groups” as a political entity.
(5) Pastors unwilling to preach what they know, as
Biblical truth (Barna).
(6) Debt of
the U.S. government and other government institutions.
(7) Implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
“Trajectories in Philosophy and Apologetics,”
example, Gordon H. Clark, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Arthur
Holmes, George Mavrodes, Stephen Evans, William Alston,
Eleonore Stump, James Sire, and others named elsewhere
in this paper.
Augustine and Calvin.
I recommend Christian Smith’s analysis of persons as
“believing” beings in his book,
Animals and Michael Polanyi’s
Carlos R., “Scriptural Authority and Believing
Journal of Philosophy and Scripture 3(1):17-27.
The Christian Mind,
(Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1963), 70.