Chapter Summaries of Introduction to Christian Philosophy
by Gordon Clark
Lecture One: Secular Philosophy
After a brief introduction to the subject of Christian Apologetics, the author discusses various secular views on four areas, namely, epistemology, science, ethics and religion, and shows how they fail in all of them.
Christian apologetics ought to deal with broader and more fundamental principles like the existence and knowledge of God, rather than very definite and particular problems like archaeological evidence for the Hittites. It should also be comprehensive and connected rather than piecemeal and disjointed. The piecemeal approach runs the risk of logical inconsistencies. Christianity has been attacked in every field of learning and thus it is necessary for apologetics to be comprehensive.
The first area the author looks at is epistemology, which is the theory of knowledge. This is the starting point in philosophy and should precede even metaphysics. There is no one secular theory of epistemology, although it may be divided into two types: rationalistic, e.g. Plato, and empirical, e.g. Aristotle. Plato held that the objects of knowledge, constituting the real world, were suprasensible and unchangeable ideas. The theory of ideas depends on the necessity of similarities and classification, and no epistemology can succeed without something like Platonic ideas. But the problem with Plato lies in his concept of recollecting ideas from the eternal world. It fails to explain why sensation stimulates different notions in different people. Aristotle, on the other hand, rejected Platonism and based all knowledge on sensory experience. For him, the mind is a perfect blank before any sensation. Aristotle’s empiricism fails because it cannot account for his “categories” and ultimately the law of contradiction. Empiricism also fails to justify the selection of various sensations and combining them into the perception of a thing. Modern empiricists like Dewey hold that the laws of logic are generated by bodily habits and will change as man evolves. But if the laws of logic can change, then all thought and argumentation is impossible. It is clear that secular epistemology is a failure.
The second area the author investigates is science. He begins with a discussion on Kant’s a priori categories which were supposed to provide the basis for science. One of the twelve categories is causality or the uniformity of nature, which is supposedly a universal principle. The problem is that it does not aid in the identification of the cause and the event. Furthermore, it cannot fix the limits within which conditions may be called the same and thus it cannot authorize us to assert the universality of any law of physics. The so called laws of science are not really discoveries and neither do they describe the workings of nature for they depend on non-observational factors like mathematical manipulations and the scientist’s independent choice. All that the laws of science do is to provide directions for operating in a laboratory, i.e. they do not say what nature has done but what the scientist should do. Regarded as manipulation, science is very successful, but regarded as a cognitive enterprise, i.e. obtaining a knowledge of the laws of nature, it is a failure.
The third area is ethics where the author looks at various secular ethical theories and shows that they all fail. First, he discusses utilitarianism, which holds that each of us should seek the greatest good for the greatest number. The two main objections to this theory are: firstly, it is impossible to estimate the pleasures and pains that the two lines of action will produce for the person, and secondly, it cannot justify its own principle. Next, he discusses one of the leading ethical theories of the present age which reduces morality to a social code and denies that there is a single basic all-controlling principle. But based on this theory, there is no basis for preferring one code of conduct to another. Another theory reduces ethics to personal preference, i.e. that which suits a person’s psychological and biological condition, but this is even worse than the previous theory because it allows criminals to justify all kinds of crimes. There is no rational method of settling a disagreement between two parties on what is right or wrong. The only solution appears to be to persuade the other party to adopt your position, but persuasion does not support the conclusion that that position is good or obligatory. The final theory discussed is existentialism, which emphasizes living rather than thinking and action rather than abstraction. Again, beyond the vague idea of living authentically, existentialism fails to provide norms of conduct or to justify one action over against another. Its chief source of failure is its subjective epistemology. In conclusion, secular ethics fails because it can neither justify a single norm of conduct nor provide guidance in making concrete decisions in daily living.
The fourth area is that of religion. The author briefly examples humanism, which is defined as the integration of personality produced by devotion to a supreme ideal. The problem with humanism is that it cannot establish what this ideal is for it varies from person to person.
Lecture Two: The Axiom of Revelation
Having shown the failure of secular philosophy, the author goes on to propose the axiom of revelation. He discusses the nature of axioms, the necessity and definition of revelation, the relationship between God, logic and scripture, analogy, and various objections to this approach.
From the previous lecture, two conclusions may be drawn. Firstly, it is not possible to construct a philosophy without presuppositions. Secondly, secular philosophers have not selected the right presuppositions to solve their problems.
Seeing that other presuppositions have failed, the author proposes that revelation be accepted as the axiom. It should be noted that axioms, regardless of the subject, are never deduced or proved from more original principles. Rather, they are tested by how well they succeed in solving the problems. A person cannot be compelled to assent to an axiom by strict logic. Instead, induced by the successful solution to the problem, he makes a voluntary choice to accept it.
It is impossible to know God apart from God revealing Himself since it is impossible to extort knowledge of God from a God who is unwilling to give it. Thus, either revelation be accepted as an axiom or there is no knowledge of God at all.
There are two different meanings of the word revelation. The first has to do with natural revelation, which is that knowledge of God found in nature and obtained by observation. But this simply brings us back to empiricism. The second has to do with verbal and rational communication of truth, i.e. through the words which God spoke to men. It is true that some knowledge of God is obtainable from nature but there has to be a prior revelational knowledge of God before that can happen.
The two immediate objections to the axiom proposed are: firstly, it assumes too much and leaves nothing to be proved, and secondly, verbal revelation covers very little. The first may be answered simply by distinguishing between axioms and theorems. An axiom which covers all the theorems that follow is most desirable. As for the second objection, it is true that the Bible does not give us all possible or desired knowledge. Nevertheless, we should be thankful for all the knowledge that it gives us because secular epistemology cannot provide us with any knowledge at all! Furthermore, every philosopher admits that there will always be spheres of ignorance.
The author next discusses the relation of logic to God and scripture. Logic or the law of contradiction is important because secular philosophy has failed to establish it as a universal truth and because without it, the scripture would be unintelligible. The scripture reveals that God is omniscient and independent and thus He is the source of His own knowledge. He is the source and determiner of truth. God is sovereign and thus a proposition is true because God thinks it so. In John’s prologue, God is identified with logic. The law of contradiction is thus not independent of God but it is God thinking. Also, the law is not subsequent to God. Logic should be viewed as the activity of God’s thinking and willing. Scripture is the mind of God, or more accurately, a part of God’s mind, and what it says is God’s thought. Thus, we find logic embedded in scripture and that the scripture exhibits a logical organization. The fact that a single word must mean one thing and not its contradictory is the evidence of logic in all rational language. Scripture rather than logic is selected as the axiom since logic alone is not sufficient to produce knowledge. But similarly, scripture rather than God as distinct from scripture is made the axiom for the word “God” apart from scripture means very little. Our knowledge of God comes from the Bible. Thus we see that God, scripture and logic are all tied together.
Next, the author looks at logic in man. Scripture teaches that God made man in His image. Colossians 3:10 identifies this image as knowledge or rationality. Without rationality, there can be no righteousness or holiness or even sin. Rationality is that which basically distinguishes man from animals. While the fall seriously damaged God’s image in man, it did not entirely destroy his rationality. In fact, the preaching of the gospel presupposes the rational remnants of God’s image in man. To avoid irrationalism, we must insist that truth is the same for God and man, and if we are to know anything at all, what we know must be identical with what God knows. Thomism denies that man has any positive knowledge of God and that his knowledge is only negative and analogical. But analogy is essentially a literary device. By itself, i.e. without literal and positive statements, it cannot give any definite knowledge. God is perfectly able to speak to man in positive, literal and non-analogical terms and to make man capable of receiving this knowledge, and in fact that is what He has done. The author then examines William Temple’s view, which essentially denies that God has given a verbal revelation to man. But such a view is inconsistent with the content of Biblical revelation. Also, it portrays God as one who is able but unwilling to talk.
Scripture places emphasis on knowledge and understanding. Christianity is based on the acceptance of an intelligible message and not on emotional experience.
Theology operates on a single axiom – the Bible is the word of God and from it thousands of propositions are thus declared to be true. But some object that our approach to epistemology cannot account for everyday “knowledge” drawn from common sense. Such an objection misses the point for common sense or common opinion is not always true and the real issue is how we can have a method to determine whether a proposition is true or false. It is true that revelation does not give us all knowledge. Nevertheless, revelation gives us the most important knowledge otherwise unobtainable.
Lecture Three: Several Implications
This chapter builds on the previous two and shows how revelation not only succeeds in the area of epistemology but also in other important areas as well. But before that, it gives a brief critique of the work of Herman Dooyeweerd, a Christian philosopher, who attempted to cover all fields of knowledge in his philosophy.
Dooyeweerd viewed the universe as exhibiting fifteen different aspects. He listed these fifteen law-spheres in order of increasing complexity from numerical to pistical. An examination of these fifteen aspects shows that some of them should really be combined and that the order in which they are given are not all correct, e.g. he puts the sphere of logic and thought in the middle whereas it should be even before the spheres of space, motion and mathematics. The author then examines his theory of cosmic time, which he defines as the indissoluble correlation of order and duration. But Dooyeweerd’s definition does not convey a definite meaning for he does not define time, order or duration and thus does not show how there can be three different kinds of time. Dooyeweerd is mistaken when he identifies logical with temporal order. For example, the validity of the syllogism does not depend on the temporal order of our stating it. The final point of criticism is in his assertion that in the sphere of faith, time takes on a special meaning and that the eschatological aspect of time goes beyond the limits of cosmic time. An example of what happens beyond the limits of cosmic time is the creative days of Genesis. But if some events did not occur in time, how does one decide which biblical accounts are historical and which are not?
The author, not wanting to be as ambitious as Dooyeweerd’s all embracing scheme, then turns his attention to a few important subjects in order to illustrate how the axiom of revelation can be used to produce concrete results. The first area is history. Secular theories may be divided into two groups. The first is a presuppositionless and objective theory of history while the second is a subjective view of history. The problem with the first is that all historical writings are coloured by the author’s state of mind. Also, there is the problem of determining what is important and what is the true cause and significance of events. The problem with the second is that it leaves one with no objective facts or truths about history. The main failure of secular history is that it cannot properly explain the significance of events for empirical procedures can neither determine causes in the past nor a goal in the future. Without revelation, there is no possibility of explaining the significance of history. Neo-orthodoxy, which denies scripture to be divine revelation, cannot answer the question of how one can distinguish between true events and mistakes and myths, what is the true significance of an event, and what is the nature of the God of history.
The second area in which revelation is tested is politics. It is not true that Christianity is indifferent to the different theories of politics. Locke and Rousseau sought to justify government on secular grounds. Both tried to avoid tyranny but their theories failed. Rousseau thought that a totalitarian government would be benevolent but his optimism is contradicted by the scriptural doctrine of depravity. Locke did much better because he borrowed much from the Scottish Covenanters. But he failed to justify government when he grounded it on the unanimous vote. Revelation provides answers to some of the most important questions on politics, for example, whether minorities have any unalienable rights or whether a government must be totalitarian. Scripture authorizes the right of individuals, capital punishment and private property. It forbids the government to persecute Christians and it exhorts Christians to submit to the government. Only a theory of government that is based on revelation will avoid the twin evils of totalitarianism and anarchy.
The third area is ethics. Secular theories fail because they are unable to reach a conclusion concerning obligation. Furthermore, it is unnecessary since God has already established normative laws. The Reformers like Zanchius, Calvin, Bucer, Luther and Zwingli taught that God is sovereign and His will determines what is just and righteous. This solves the problem of evil, which says that God cannot be both good and omnipotent. Secular theories also fail to give specific and practical directions. In contrast, revelation shows what our specific duties are. Three things may be said in response to the objection that Christians are not delivered from perplexity. Firstly, many so called perplexing problems are really matters of indifference in God’s sight. Secondly, although the Bible covers all possible moral problems, nevertheless, Christians are often perplexed because they either cannot remember what scriptures say or they cannot draw out its logical implications. Thirdly, even if scripture does not cover all possible areas of morality, still, it does cover some areas and this is far better than secular ethics which covers none. The so-called “law of love” gives no directions for conduct and is useless for ethical purposes.
The final area is in religion. Naturalism and humanism both fail because they cannot discover ideals, values or norms through experience. The author then looks at existentialism, both religious and atheistic. Kierkegaard attacked rationalism and substituted objective truth for the subjective manner in which a person thinks it. Atheistic existentialism teaches that existence precedes essence, that God does not exists and that what man is is subsequent to his existence and choice. Such a philosophy is unable to discover reality or the answers to the difficulties and perplexities of life. Truth is found in choice and action and there is no one universal eternal truth valid for all. Religious existentialism is erected on personal experience rather than doctrine. It rejects logic and valid inference. In opposition to this subjective religion, the axiom of verbal inspiration implies a religion that is intelligible and logical. This means that a non-doctrinal religion is not Christianity.
In conclusion, it has been shown that secular philosophy is a failure and that only the verbal revelation of the bible solves the problems of epistemology, history, ethics, and religion. It alone distinguishes truth from error and banishes mysticism, emotionalism and despair.
After a brief introduction to the subject of Christian Apologetics, the author discusses various secular views on four areas, namely, epistemology, science, ethics and religion, and shows how they fail in all of them.
Christian apologetics ought to deal with broader and more fundamental principles like the existence and knowledge of God, rather than very definite and particular problems like archaeological evidence for the Hittites. It should also be comprehensive and connected rather than piecemeal and disjointed. The piecemeal approach runs the risk of logical inconsistencies. Christianity has been attacked in every field of learning and thus it is necessary for apologetics to be comprehensive.
The first area the author looks at is epistemology, which is the theory of knowledge. This is the starting point in philosophy and should precede even metaphysics. There is no one secular theory of epistemology, although it may be divided into two types: rationalistic, e.g. Plato, and empirical, e.g. Aristotle. Plato held that the objects of knowledge, constituting the real world, were suprasensible and unchangeable ideas. The theory of ideas depends on the necessity of similarities and classification, and no epistemology can succeed without something like Platonic ideas. But the problem with Plato lies in his concept of recollecting ideas from the eternal world. It fails to explain why sensation stimulates different notions in different people. Aristotle, on the other hand, rejected Platonism and based all knowledge on sensory experience. For him, the mind is a perfect blank before any sensation. Aristotle’s empiricism fails because it cannot account for his “categories” and ultimately the law of contradiction. Empiricism also fails to justify the selection of various sensations and combining them into the perception of a thing. Modern empiricists like Dewey hold that the laws of logic are generated by bodily habits and will change as man evolves. But if the laws of logic can change, then all thought and argumentation is impossible. It is clear that secular epistemology is a failure.
The second area the author investigates is science. He begins with a discussion on Kant’s a priori categories which were supposed to provide the basis for science. One of the twelve categories is causality or the uniformity of nature, which is supposedly a universal principle. The problem is that it does not aid in the identification of the cause and the event. Furthermore, it cannot fix the limits within which conditions may be called the same and thus it cannot authorize us to assert the universality of any law of physics. The so called laws of science are not really discoveries and neither do they describe the workings of nature for they depend on non-observational factors like mathematical manipulations and the scientist’s independent choice. All that the laws of science do is to provide directions for operating in a laboratory, i.e. they do not say what nature has done but what the scientist should do. Regarded as manipulation, science is very successful, but regarded as a cognitive enterprise, i.e. obtaining a knowledge of the laws of nature, it is a failure.
The third area is ethics where the author looks at various secular ethical theories and shows that they all fail. First, he discusses utilitarianism, which holds that each of us should seek the greatest good for the greatest number. The two main objections to this theory are: firstly, it is impossible to estimate the pleasures and pains that the two lines of action will produce for the person, and secondly, it cannot justify its own principle. Next, he discusses one of the leading ethical theories of the present age which reduces morality to a social code and denies that there is a single basic all-controlling principle. But based on this theory, there is no basis for preferring one code of conduct to another. Another theory reduces ethics to personal preference, i.e. that which suits a person’s psychological and biological condition, but this is even worse than the previous theory because it allows criminals to justify all kinds of crimes. There is no rational method of settling a disagreement between two parties on what is right or wrong. The only solution appears to be to persuade the other party to adopt your position, but persuasion does not support the conclusion that that position is good or obligatory. The final theory discussed is existentialism, which emphasizes living rather than thinking and action rather than abstraction. Again, beyond the vague idea of living authentically, existentialism fails to provide norms of conduct or to justify one action over against another. Its chief source of failure is its subjective epistemology. In conclusion, secular ethics fails because it can neither justify a single norm of conduct nor provide guidance in making concrete decisions in daily living.
The fourth area is that of religion. The author briefly examples humanism, which is defined as the integration of personality produced by devotion to a supreme ideal. The problem with humanism is that it cannot establish what this ideal is for it varies from person to person.
Lecture Two: The Axiom of Revelation
Having shown the failure of secular philosophy, the author goes on to propose the axiom of revelation. He discusses the nature of axioms, the necessity and definition of revelation, the relationship between God, logic and scripture, analogy, and various objections to this approach.
From the previous lecture, two conclusions may be drawn. Firstly, it is not possible to construct a philosophy without presuppositions. Secondly, secular philosophers have not selected the right presuppositions to solve their problems.
Seeing that other presuppositions have failed, the author proposes that revelation be accepted as the axiom. It should be noted that axioms, regardless of the subject, are never deduced or proved from more original principles. Rather, they are tested by how well they succeed in solving the problems. A person cannot be compelled to assent to an axiom by strict logic. Instead, induced by the successful solution to the problem, he makes a voluntary choice to accept it.
It is impossible to know God apart from God revealing Himself since it is impossible to extort knowledge of God from a God who is unwilling to give it. Thus, either revelation be accepted as an axiom or there is no knowledge of God at all.
There are two different meanings of the word revelation. The first has to do with natural revelation, which is that knowledge of God found in nature and obtained by observation. But this simply brings us back to empiricism. The second has to do with verbal and rational communication of truth, i.e. through the words which God spoke to men. It is true that some knowledge of God is obtainable from nature but there has to be a prior revelational knowledge of God before that can happen.
The two immediate objections to the axiom proposed are: firstly, it assumes too much and leaves nothing to be proved, and secondly, verbal revelation covers very little. The first may be answered simply by distinguishing between axioms and theorems. An axiom which covers all the theorems that follow is most desirable. As for the second objection, it is true that the Bible does not give us all possible or desired knowledge. Nevertheless, we should be thankful for all the knowledge that it gives us because secular epistemology cannot provide us with any knowledge at all! Furthermore, every philosopher admits that there will always be spheres of ignorance.
The author next discusses the relation of logic to God and scripture. Logic or the law of contradiction is important because secular philosophy has failed to establish it as a universal truth and because without it, the scripture would be unintelligible. The scripture reveals that God is omniscient and independent and thus He is the source of His own knowledge. He is the source and determiner of truth. God is sovereign and thus a proposition is true because God thinks it so. In John’s prologue, God is identified with logic. The law of contradiction is thus not independent of God but it is God thinking. Also, the law is not subsequent to God. Logic should be viewed as the activity of God’s thinking and willing. Scripture is the mind of God, or more accurately, a part of God’s mind, and what it says is God’s thought. Thus, we find logic embedded in scripture and that the scripture exhibits a logical organization. The fact that a single word must mean one thing and not its contradictory is the evidence of logic in all rational language. Scripture rather than logic is selected as the axiom since logic alone is not sufficient to produce knowledge. But similarly, scripture rather than God as distinct from scripture is made the axiom for the word “God” apart from scripture means very little. Our knowledge of God comes from the Bible. Thus we see that God, scripture and logic are all tied together.
Next, the author looks at logic in man. Scripture teaches that God made man in His image. Colossians 3:10 identifies this image as knowledge or rationality. Without rationality, there can be no righteousness or holiness or even sin. Rationality is that which basically distinguishes man from animals. While the fall seriously damaged God’s image in man, it did not entirely destroy his rationality. In fact, the preaching of the gospel presupposes the rational remnants of God’s image in man. To avoid irrationalism, we must insist that truth is the same for God and man, and if we are to know anything at all, what we know must be identical with what God knows. Thomism denies that man has any positive knowledge of God and that his knowledge is only negative and analogical. But analogy is essentially a literary device. By itself, i.e. without literal and positive statements, it cannot give any definite knowledge. God is perfectly able to speak to man in positive, literal and non-analogical terms and to make man capable of receiving this knowledge, and in fact that is what He has done. The author then examines William Temple’s view, which essentially denies that God has given a verbal revelation to man. But such a view is inconsistent with the content of Biblical revelation. Also, it portrays God as one who is able but unwilling to talk.
Scripture places emphasis on knowledge and understanding. Christianity is based on the acceptance of an intelligible message and not on emotional experience.
Theology operates on a single axiom – the Bible is the word of God and from it thousands of propositions are thus declared to be true. But some object that our approach to epistemology cannot account for everyday “knowledge” drawn from common sense. Such an objection misses the point for common sense or common opinion is not always true and the real issue is how we can have a method to determine whether a proposition is true or false. It is true that revelation does not give us all knowledge. Nevertheless, revelation gives us the most important knowledge otherwise unobtainable.
Lecture Three: Several Implications
This chapter builds on the previous two and shows how revelation not only succeeds in the area of epistemology but also in other important areas as well. But before that, it gives a brief critique of the work of Herman Dooyeweerd, a Christian philosopher, who attempted to cover all fields of knowledge in his philosophy.
Dooyeweerd viewed the universe as exhibiting fifteen different aspects. He listed these fifteen law-spheres in order of increasing complexity from numerical to pistical. An examination of these fifteen aspects shows that some of them should really be combined and that the order in which they are given are not all correct, e.g. he puts the sphere of logic and thought in the middle whereas it should be even before the spheres of space, motion and mathematics. The author then examines his theory of cosmic time, which he defines as the indissoluble correlation of order and duration. But Dooyeweerd’s definition does not convey a definite meaning for he does not define time, order or duration and thus does not show how there can be three different kinds of time. Dooyeweerd is mistaken when he identifies logical with temporal order. For example, the validity of the syllogism does not depend on the temporal order of our stating it. The final point of criticism is in his assertion that in the sphere of faith, time takes on a special meaning and that the eschatological aspect of time goes beyond the limits of cosmic time. An example of what happens beyond the limits of cosmic time is the creative days of Genesis. But if some events did not occur in time, how does one decide which biblical accounts are historical and which are not?
The author, not wanting to be as ambitious as Dooyeweerd’s all embracing scheme, then turns his attention to a few important subjects in order to illustrate how the axiom of revelation can be used to produce concrete results. The first area is history. Secular theories may be divided into two groups. The first is a presuppositionless and objective theory of history while the second is a subjective view of history. The problem with the first is that all historical writings are coloured by the author’s state of mind. Also, there is the problem of determining what is important and what is the true cause and significance of events. The problem with the second is that it leaves one with no objective facts or truths about history. The main failure of secular history is that it cannot properly explain the significance of events for empirical procedures can neither determine causes in the past nor a goal in the future. Without revelation, there is no possibility of explaining the significance of history. Neo-orthodoxy, which denies scripture to be divine revelation, cannot answer the question of how one can distinguish between true events and mistakes and myths, what is the true significance of an event, and what is the nature of the God of history.
The second area in which revelation is tested is politics. It is not true that Christianity is indifferent to the different theories of politics. Locke and Rousseau sought to justify government on secular grounds. Both tried to avoid tyranny but their theories failed. Rousseau thought that a totalitarian government would be benevolent but his optimism is contradicted by the scriptural doctrine of depravity. Locke did much better because he borrowed much from the Scottish Covenanters. But he failed to justify government when he grounded it on the unanimous vote. Revelation provides answers to some of the most important questions on politics, for example, whether minorities have any unalienable rights or whether a government must be totalitarian. Scripture authorizes the right of individuals, capital punishment and private property. It forbids the government to persecute Christians and it exhorts Christians to submit to the government. Only a theory of government that is based on revelation will avoid the twin evils of totalitarianism and anarchy.
The third area is ethics. Secular theories fail because they are unable to reach a conclusion concerning obligation. Furthermore, it is unnecessary since God has already established normative laws. The Reformers like Zanchius, Calvin, Bucer, Luther and Zwingli taught that God is sovereign and His will determines what is just and righteous. This solves the problem of evil, which says that God cannot be both good and omnipotent. Secular theories also fail to give specific and practical directions. In contrast, revelation shows what our specific duties are. Three things may be said in response to the objection that Christians are not delivered from perplexity. Firstly, many so called perplexing problems are really matters of indifference in God’s sight. Secondly, although the Bible covers all possible moral problems, nevertheless, Christians are often perplexed because they either cannot remember what scriptures say or they cannot draw out its logical implications. Thirdly, even if scripture does not cover all possible areas of morality, still, it does cover some areas and this is far better than secular ethics which covers none. The so-called “law of love” gives no directions for conduct and is useless for ethical purposes.
The final area is in religion. Naturalism and humanism both fail because they cannot discover ideals, values or norms through experience. The author then looks at existentialism, both religious and atheistic. Kierkegaard attacked rationalism and substituted objective truth for the subjective manner in which a person thinks it. Atheistic existentialism teaches that existence precedes essence, that God does not exists and that what man is is subsequent to his existence and choice. Such a philosophy is unable to discover reality or the answers to the difficulties and perplexities of life. Truth is found in choice and action and there is no one universal eternal truth valid for all. Religious existentialism is erected on personal experience rather than doctrine. It rejects logic and valid inference. In opposition to this subjective religion, the axiom of verbal inspiration implies a religion that is intelligible and logical. This means that a non-doctrinal religion is not Christianity.
In conclusion, it has been shown that secular philosophy is a failure and that only the verbal revelation of the bible solves the problems of epistemology, history, ethics, and religion. It alone distinguishes truth from error and banishes mysticism, emotionalism and despair.
