Introduction
Currently, I’m three weeks into my last set of classes for my masters degree. In the non-thesis class, I was asked to answer a series of eight questions from The Universe Next Door by James W. Sire regarding worldview. These questions are pivotal to constructing our own worldviews. Below, I examine these questions, offering my own reasoning and answers to each by way of example, but I would encourage you as my readers to consider these questions closely for yourself as well. What you choose to believe regarding each issue raised here will be pivotal to the way you live your life and how you view the world. Philosophy is essential to every aspect of life; you will either adopt bits and pieces of everyone else’s philosophy subconsciously, resulting in a Frankenstein philosophy riddled with contradictions and monstrous in appearance, or you will consciously and purposefully think through each matter of foundational principles to decide what you will believe to build a coherent, rational philosophy that can stand free of contradictions before the rest of the world. I know my aim is to have the last, but it is up to each of us to decide which we will pursue with all of our energy.
The first is easy; it requires no thought and relies solely on how you feel about things–hence the plethora of contradictions present in those who travel this path. The second is difficult; it will be a life-long pursuit that will drive you to learn, think, pursue, and endlessly discern what does and does not fit with your philosophy as you face new issues in society around you. This second leads one never to be satisfied with simply taking things at surface level or face-value, and it is a commitment that will at times being exhausting, but it is rewarding and grounding, and it gives you the basis needed to judge on each issue that faces you in a manner that is founded on principles rather than the mere emotion or feelings of that day.
Worldview Question 1: What is Objective Reality and How do I Know it to be Reality?
A fundamental question every serious individual seeking to have a coherent worldview or philosophy must answer is this: what is reality and how do I know it to be so? This is a deceptively straightforward question, and people often answer it without much thought or dismiss it entirely. Unfortunately for those who have failed to properly consider it, their answers inform everything that is to follow about their philosophy—whether it is a conscious and internally consistent philosophy built rationally or a chimerical philosophy built subconsciously by picking up bits and pieces of whatever seems good. The more thoughtful individual recognizes this and gives some thought to the question, all it demands he consider to answer it, and the implications of whatever answer he decides upon.
My own answer is as deceptively straightforward as the initial question: objective reality is whatever aligns with God’s order, and we know that it is so because of reason. Of course, the first part of the response is already one heatedly debated, but my reason for it lies in a few key points, points which I must establish now before we can proceed any further in a discussion either of this question or any that follow.
A More Fundamental Premise to Check
First, it must be established that there is a God. That premise must be accepted before we go any further, and I believe it is an a far more fundamental question than “what is reality” because asking that question demands of us the more basic question of what reality is grounded upon. At its heart, this is digging into epistemology, how man constructs his process of thought and why he does so. If we are to understand how to construct our process of thought, we must first establish the primaries, and there is nothing more primary than whether or not there is a Creator because from this answer proceeds every other premise a man may hold.
If a man believes there is a God, his answer to “what is reality” will be much different from that of the man who rejects any notion of a Creator at all. For my part, I turn to reason first to find the answer to the first fundamental question: is there a Creator? In order to reason through this, I begin with what is right in front of me that can be objectively observed without much, or any, dispute.
When I examine the world about me, I find that mankind is undeniably oriented toward some moral order. We know on some instinctual level, if no one indoctrinates us to the contrary, that certain fundamentals are right or wrong. This is true no matter our religious affiliations, societal positions, or situations. Murder, for example, is universally acknowledged as wrong by most on a deeply instinctual level.
However, if we are asking whether there is a Creator or not and are noting this commonality of some basic moral code in mankind, then we must ask, where does this come from? What is it that makes this moral code so engrained in mankind, and why do we instinctually consider it moral? If it is to be moral, that indicates that there is something objectively right and objectively wrong. The difficulty presented then is this: why is objective right and wrong even in existence if all happens by chance and chaos—the only choice if there is no intelligence of design?
Without a higher moral authority beyond ourselves, how can we truly say on any objective basis that is a real fundamental moral code? If there is no higher authority beyond man himself, then that “code” is merely a human construct with no basis in any objective standard. There can be no such thing as right and wrong if every man has an equal right to decide on what is moral; we must admit that no man has more fundamental right than another to decide on matters of morality, God or no God, as all share the same fundamental nature whether they choose to behave better or baser than that nature or not.
Perhaps, even in absence of objective morality, a man constrains himself while murder is harmful to his self in some way, but as soon as it becomes more beneficial to that self to murder another or stand aside while others do so, what is there to demand that his action is wrong or deserves any judgment? Every man must decide what is right or wrong, then, on some non-objective basis; feeling, society, self-determination, or some other person become his only choice for determining good versus evil, and none of those are very solid or rational bases to operate from.
There is, as hinted at earlier, no basis upon which any other can judge another man wrong either, if we agree that no man fundamentally has more authority than another to decide on what is moral as we all share the same nature, regardless of the fact that we may choose to exalt some men to lead us above others. At best, then, we may say that society or the State is the final determiner, but if there is a clash between two sets of societies, which is correct? If there is no Creator, there is no higher principle than might makes right.
This is, at the heart of the philosophy of those who reject any Creator as the final determiner of reality, an evolutionary concept. It is totally consistent with the ideal that random chance created us and that survival of the fittest is the only way to continue forward. The only “moral” principle under such an ideology is that the stronger is the one in the right because he is the one who will ultimately survive, and if he survived, evolutionary ideology dictates he must have done so to perpetrate what was best for the further evolving of his kind.
It is on this principle that tyranny operates, no matter what form on the political spectrum it takes. On this same basis, we also receive Hegelian arguments that the State is the only moral principle and the individual must gladly sacrifice even his very life if the State demands. From the same fountain originates the principle that Marx forwarded that in some way, use of force in the form of a proletariat dictatorship would eventually lead to a utopia of everyone giving according to his ability and receiving according to his need.
Of course, Marx’s philosophy tries to remove the “might makes right” argument, but when acted out in reality, his philosophy boils down to much the same argument: one group has something no one else does and should not be allowed to possess it, so a greater force must make right by robbing them of it to give it to others. Ultimately, force exercised in his system always leads to “might makes right”, even if he himself was truly delusional enough to believe it would not. Certainly, this can be seen in the way that men like Lenin, Stalin, and Putin have acted on the basis of his philosophical system. They wholeheartedly adopt his ideas, but as they demonstrated time and again, his system is based on a flawed principle that leads to the devastation, ironically, of everyone Marx claimed his system would help. After all, these men proudly say, who cares if a few people die for the cause? Lives are not sacred, and if they didn’t survive it is because they were too weak. Echoing others who caused many deaths for the sake of a cause, these men tell us that it is impossible to make an omelet without cracking eggs. What a euphemistic way to say that people must die for the tyrant’s aim to be achieved!
Every system predicated on such a principle leads to the destruction of the individual, society, and any sure moral code except that having the superior force makes you the right one in the scenario. Such systems are obsessed with who has power and who does not for precisely this reason; if one does not have the force the system in question has defined as the one necessary to be the one setting the rules, then one is likely a victim. Some present it in more complex forms than others, but all become entirely obsessed with survival of the fittest and who has the most might. Not a single person can be trusted in such a world because at any moment, a friend might become an enemy seeking to force you to bend to their will.
Such a principle is an abhorrent one when faced bluntly and rationally, and yet it undergirds any belief that there is no Creator. A view that treats life as so meaningless and ugly does not fit with the world I see around me, even with all the suffering that is plainly in existence. I do not accept the premise that man is no better than any other animal, nor do even most animals treat each other with the same flippant disregard to life that humans with such a repulsive belief do. Such a view I cannot accept, but if I reject a Creator, it is the only logically consistent belief, for a life brought about by mere happenstance has no great value or purpose and it cannot matter very greatly if it is ended because it was not strong enough to survive. I cannot argue for the great and beautiful in man if it is a mere struggle for survival where might make right, nothing else matters morally, and man is little better than an animal (and often worse than any animal).
Further, such a view gives no reason at all for me to hold to an innate moral code. Chance does not make morals, so any inclination I have to avoid certain things as “immoral” and do others because they are moral must come only from my own feelings and sensitivities or from societal conditioning. There is nothing truly right about them, making their existence arbitrary. I simply cannot accept that an innate sense of morality in man is an accident with no purpose or that might makes right, the two things which I must accept if I say that there is no Creator.
Reason also gives me further reason to accept a Creator. I can look around me and, using my mind, state that it is impossible that anything I am seeing could possibly exist in such complexity by random chance. Whatever else I may conclude after, I must first start with that fundamental: there is a Creator because it defies reason and logic to argue otherwise given the complex nature of the world around me. I would never look at my car and exclaim, “Look, how wonderful! Random chance made these parts and then somehow managed to assemble them into a working vehicle that not only runs but runs well.”
Should I say such a thing, any sane and reasonable individual ought to recommend me to a good psychologist because I am not operating in the realm of reason any longer. No one could ever look at such a thing with such an obvious intellect behind the design and argue that it has no creator. Neither should anyone of a rational constitution look at the world around us, which is far more complex, intricate, and delicately balanced than any car we drive, and believe that it was the result of random chance. From that conclusion, I can further study nature and say that there are certain things I must believe about its Creator. I must believe He is logical, ordered, rational, because all these things are evident in His design and work.
It is beyond the scope of this discussion to delve into all of the specifics on how one may ascertain from here that the Bible is the Word of God, but I will give, in short, the two proofs I consider key. People claim all sorts of religious texts are the revelation of God or the gods, but the first key proof I consider evidence that the Bible is the only true Word of God is that only the Bible’s prophecies can claim the status of having all been fulfilled in Scripture, sometimes thousands of years after the original prophecy. The second proof is that only the Bible can claim to be as internally consistent as it is over thousands of years with many different people of a variety of backgrounds writing it. This would be unheard of anywhere else, and when coupled with the vast number of texts we have with the same message, the authenticity and reliability of the piece should not be in question.
Therefore, reason alone demands I accept a Creator if I reject the principles that go along with denying Him and if my own ability to examine the world around me leaves me either to accept a Creator or embrace the inanity of believing something so complex could occur through random chance with no intelligent design.
Reason as the Method
This brings me to the second point on which I said we must determine what is truly real. Anything that we can objectively observe using either our own eyes or our minds to ascertain is, by definition, reality. If we have any question as to the clarity of our own reasoning, which is admittedly flawed at times, we look back to that first fundamental: there is a Creator who has revealed Himself in His creation at the very least. If our reasoning defies natural law as it reveals the Creator’s design, we know one of our premises must be fundamentally wrong, which leads us to a conclusion that is not synonymous with reality.
Reason is fundamental to any attempt to define reality objectively; without reason, we are unable to ground our thoughts in anything rational, real, or substantial. Even those who accept that God is the ultimate definer of what is real in a moral and true sense must accept it on some reason; if they believe it only on blind faith, they are neither rational nor discerning people and have no right to expect anyone to agree with their defense of such a position.
I believe God is the ultimate definer of what is real on a moral and objective level, and I believe, for many observable, factually-based reasons, that the Bible is His revelation of Himself and creation’s reality in relation to Him. With the combination of a belief in God as the definer of reality, the Bible as His explicit definition of reality, and nature as the implicit definition of His order and definition of reality, mankind can explore every facet of reality. As a finite being, he may never himself achieve all knowledge possible, but there is nothing integral to life about reality he cannot discover by studying either the law of nature or the law of nature’s God.
Based on all I have already laid out regarding why a Creator is necessary and reasonable, I must also say that God and His Word are the definers of reality. Reason dictates that there must be a God. If there is a Creator, then He is the one who defines how that creation ought to be used and the actual parameters of what it is and how it exists and functions. The creation does not decide such things; only the creator can decide this about what he has created. So then, it is rational to conclude that not only is there a Creator, but that He is the one who has the final say on what is true, moral, and real. We may use our reason to observe, through the things He has created, the nature and facts of what is real, but we may not define for ourselves what is objectively real. We may only choose whether we will accept or deny that which is objective truth and reality.
Worldview Question #2: What is the nature of reality?
This question proceeds directly from the first, as does our answer to it. As James Sire points out in his book The Universe Next Door, “[O]ur answers point to whether we see the world as created or autonomous, as chaotic or orderly, as matter or spirit; or whether we emphasize our subjective, personal relationship to the world or its objectivity apart from us” (Sire, p. 8).
My answer to the first question perhaps prematurely indicates my answer to this second, given my emphasis on reason as the basis through which we can determine the nature of reality, but here the question is not how we determine that nature but what that nature might be. To this question, if I am to be consistent with my first premise, I can only conclude that reality’s nature is to be orderly and rational as it is defined by the God who is order and reason itself.
While it is true that there are many things we still do not understand and may, therefore, view as separate from reason or rationality—matters of faith, as some would deem them—I disagree with labeling areas we do not understand a matter of faith. Or rather, I reject this label if by faith we mean what most people usually mean in saying they just have faith that it is so, which is that we are incapable of knowing or understanding that thing at all and must blindly accept a given position because reason cannot guide us. Many things which had an objective reality and were rational were once obscure and taken on faith, sometimes with the opposite of reality being believed. The truth is that there will always be some subset of unexplored or unexplained that we will have to take on faith. Our basic premises about reality, ourselves, Creator, and nature should not be among those things when we can reason them out by what we can easily observe.
The particulars of reality may need to be further explored to explain a particular area, and in those areas, we may be required to make an educated hypothesis based on the premises we have already accepted, but we should not consider these areas outside of reason simply because we cannot yet entirely prove our own conclusions in those areas. When we have made an exploration and have an answer based in reality, we may then determine whether our conclusions were in fact in accordance with that reality or not and should adopt whatever the objective answer may be.
Reality is Objective and Independent from Man
In the end, reality is reality whether we know it or not. Its nature is objective, factual, and discoverable to us, but it is wholly separate from our whims and desires, standing apart and on its own with God’s definition no matter how anyone may seek to pervert it.
We can discover it, we can agree with it, we can deny it, but reality does not cease to be reality. It is an objective standard we will either accept or reject based on the premises we have chosen, and the reliability of those premises in accurately judging reality will be directly determined by whether we have chosen to believe something that defies directly observable reality or something that is in accord with it. How well we adjust our conclusions and premises to fit with objective reality will determine how well things go with us. Those who deny objective reality when it has been proven out do not often end well.
From a Biblical perspective, we may consider that there are some blinded to reality by their own decision to twist it or deny it. Paul clearly states this in Romans 1:18-32.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.
KJV, Romans 1: 18-21 and 28
This ought to strike caution and respect for an almighty God into all of us as a harsh reminder of what happens to those who choose to deny what they rationally know to be reality. Defying God and His definition of reality—morally or factually—never ends well, and our refusal to accept reality certainly does not constitute a restriction on God’s ability to confirm us in our rebellion against reality and Him by removing His revelation and the chance to return to reason and morality.
This ought to instill in us a strong desire to seek after the parameters which define reality, to “buy the truth and sell it not” (KJV, Proverbs 23:23) in our quest to determine the nature of reality. If we do not do our utmost to ensure we do this in our quest for the nature of reality, we are at dire risk of becoming among those who refused to retain a right view of God and reality and thereby had God’s judgment placed on them in the form of having their understanding permanently darkened and locked into the foolishness they insisted upon.
I would not like this to be true of me, so I strive in every attempt at defining the nature of reality or reality itself to ensure my definition aligns with God’s and with what I may observe rationally and objectively around me. Rather than trying to define reality’s nature and principles by my own desires, I seek to define it by what God says it is and align my desires accordingly. Reality may be a harsh mistress at times, but she is far kinder than the master of deception, which always leads to destruction and betrayal in the end.
Worldview Question #3: Why is it Possible to Know Anything At All?
This was, in part, encompassed in the initial discussion of the two premises I take to define all the rest of reality. However, I will make a more complete examination here in brief. It is possible to know anything objectively for two reasons.
A God of Reason
The first is that there is a God of reason who has revealed Himself to us. Without that first premise, it would not be reasonable to believe we could know anything at all. After all, without a God of reason to order things, there could be no way to rationally ascertain anything for certain. Whether we believe in no God at all or believe in many gods, all of whom are capricious and much like we ourselves may be in our worst forms, we must consign ourselves to a world without order, at the whim either of the god of chance or the whim of gods with a capricious and whimsical nature. Neither is conducive to knowing anything; therefore, to know anything objectively, it is imperative that there be a God of reason who gave an order and logic to the universe that is possible for us to see and reason out. Otherwise, there should be no law whatsoever to guide our attempts at discovery and no certain, unchanging principles on which to operate.
Reason in Man
The second is that God created us in His image. While not every attribute of God was granted to man and all that have been granted are impacted in any number of ways by the Fall, the Bible places clear emphasis on the command to us to be a wise and discerning people who buys the truth at any price and will not sell it. Such a command is fundamentally impossible—whether in part after the Fall or in full completion before the Fall and after our perfection in Christ following the Resurrection of the saints—if we have not been granted the reason with which to learn the fear of the Lord, which Proverbs calls the fountain of all knowledge and wisdom, or to utilize either knowledge or wisdom once we have gained them. Reason is fundamental to this command, and by creating us in His image, God—who is reason itself—granted us precisely what was needed for us to order our thoughts and our observations in such a way that it is possible to know the truth with certainty.
Worldview Question #4: How do we know what is moral?
This, again, goes back to the fundamental premise that there is a God, one argument for which was that man has a common tendency to search for morality and to either allow God to define it as the creator of reality or to try to define it himself by creating constructs to stand in the place of God’s law. One way or another—and there is no other way which we may go about it—we will define morality. If we wish to know what is moral from an objective standpoint, we must immerse ourselves in both the law of nature and the revealed law of nature’s God as seen in Scripture. Nature reveals the moral law of God only imperfectly, though we may observe certain rules—such as the rule toward authority as displayed by the pecking order nearly every animal follows—with great clarity if we are honest. Because of the imperfection of nature’s revelation, we still must look to Scripture for further definition of God’s law. There, we find His moral commandments, which are as binding on us today as they were on the men who came before us to whom the commands were initially given.
Precepts and Principles First
In our study of these laws, it is critical that we look first for precepts and principles in God’s law—direct commands that tell us “this is right and this is wrong” or concepts that would offer us insight into what God considers good or evil. These precepts and principles define for us the exact parameters of what is moral, though a principle may have a limitation to the extent or circumstance in which it applies where a precept is always an unlimited requirement. So long as it does not go against a clear precept and does not contradict principles in their appropriate parameter from God’s law, which will be in accord with nature’s as both flow from the same mind, the action may be considered moral.
Unadvisable versus Immoral
Now, here we do have to acknowledge the fact that something may be moral and still not be the best or most advisable action to take in that circumstance. To this end, as we are trying to determine not only what is moral, but how to apply moral principles, we must look to the patterns of God’s law for wisdom and pray that He will make what is best plain to us in our attempt to discern how to apply the patterns to our circumstances. He has not left us without guidance in areas that contain numerous moral choices we must choose between, and we must look to Him for that guidance in deciding between our choices. However, it must be stressed that no matter how unadvisable a decision, so long as the choice is not in defiance of a command to do the opposite or not to act in that way, the decision is still a moral one. Knowing morality itself is straightforward: it is either moral or not; there is nothing that is amoral, though there may be a great many things that are unethical or unwise in a particular circumstance. Just because it is allowed does not mean we ought to pursue that course of action.
Worldview Question #5: What is a Human Being?
With the answers to the first fundamentals given, everything else can then flow from our first premises. If there is any disagreement on this question or any that follow after the first two we have asked, we must check our premises to determine the true nature of the disagreement; it will always lead back to some point of disagreement as to the answer of the first two questions and, perhaps in some instances, from the question of how we know anything and, more particularly, how we know what is moral.
It is possible, in some instances, for both people to agree to the points in the first two questions and yet still go separate ways in answering the second two questions. This is, however, usually the result of one or both individuals contradicting the first premises they claimed to agree upon. If there is a conflict on the two secondary premises, look still to the first two premises and ask how you or the other person reasoned from them to conclude as you did regarding the secondary premises. By doing so, you will discover the error or contradiction in your own reasoning or theirs and can then proceed from there, assuming you are both rational individuals and will alter your perspective to fit reality once it has been shown.
Man as a Rational Being and Reflection of the Creator
What, then, is the correct answer to this philosophical question assuming the premises already established? It is that man is a rational being in possession of his own will and created in the image of God to be in accord and fellowship with Him and to reflect and glorify his Creator as is the proper duty of the creation. God created him for companionship with both God Himself and with other men, and He created man as the highest being in creation and the only one with His image.
This may be seen first in Genesis, where Moses writes under God’s direction, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (KJV, Genesis 1:26). It may also be seen in other places where Scripture talks about mankind ruling even over angels, beings who are certainly superior to man in force and might.
Why, then, is man considered special and higher than even beings who—according to an evolutionary perspective, at least—would be higher than him in pecking order? It is because only man was created with a will and for the sole purpose of fellowship and harmony with God.
The angels, as mighty as they may be, do not have a will separate from whichever master they follow—whether God or Satan—and they do not have the relational purpose that God gave to man to be the friends of God. They are there to do His bidding solely as servants with no will of their own and no goal but to carry out His will and to glorify Him. Man certainly was created for and to the glory of God, but he was also given the ability to choose which way to go. The Fall broke that choice by condemning all men with a sin nature that demands they choose their own whims and desires over God, but salvation returns to man that choice if it is accepted, and he may then choose either to align his will with God’s for the sake of harmony and friendship with the Creator who loved him enough to die for him or to go his own way at the expense of such a relationship.
So then, given our earlier premises, we must define man as a rational creature created in God’s image with his own will and the original purpose to delight in fellowship with God for his own good and God’s glory. He may, if unregenerate, be unable to fulfill that original purpose or may, even when regenerated, choose to walk away from that purpose to his own detriment or destruction, but that is what he was intended to be: a wonderful reflection of God in as many different expressions as is suitable to reflect the unending depths of God Himself. It is to this purpose that man, even when he denies such a purpose, strives, and when this purpose is achieved, man is at the highest pinnacle he can reach in this sin-cursed world.
Worldview Question #6: What follows after death?
On the premise of Scripture, the answer to this question is clear: judgment either to vindication under the blood of Christ or to condemnation under the sin nature. There is no other choice. As Hebrews puts it, “…it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (KJV, Hebrews 9:27-28).
If we accept Christ’s death on the cross for us and place our belief in His death and resurrection for our salvation, then we will spend an eternity with God in communion and fellowship with Him as well as in praising and glorifying Him. We will be restored to what we were intended to be, the effects of sin utterly wiped away. If we reject that sacrifice, then we will be paid the just wages for the sin nature and the breaking of God’s law: judgment and eternal separation from God. This separation is one of unending torment, not simply because of the hellfire endured but also because it will be the final and permanent severing of the connection to the Creator that is so essential to man’s being.
The removal of that connection alone is torment. Perhaps we do not recognize it in this life, busy as we are filling the hole with whatever appeals to us in the moment, but when we are faced with reality and are forced to admit to and accept it in the final judgment, we will know there is no substitute for that relationship and will regret our choices at that final moment when it is too late. The truth will be revealed, and those who rejected it will certainly come to wish they had not.
This is the fate of every man when death comes; he will either spend eternity reigning in heaven alongside Christ and glorifying His Creator as he was intended to do or he will be consigned to an eternity of darkness far from the holy, just God he denied. There is no other option if we accept the initial premise that God and His Word define reality in every matter, including the question of what happens to us after death.
Worldview Question #7: What is the purpose of history in the picture?
How, then, does history fit into the discussion? If we are considering how reality is understood and revealed, we must first turn to Scripture and reason and then to history. History is the picture that reveals God at work in the world. We can trace His work to turn bad events to good, to fulfill prophecies He has given, or to demonstrate to rebellious man his need for a Savior by looking at history. Much of the Bible itself is history. The entire Old Testament could rightly be overviewed as God’s argument for and revelation of man’s need for a Savior.
A Record of Man’s Need for Salvation
Historically, we see that after the Fall, God made certain there would be no excuse whatsoever for mankind to claim He didn’t give them a chance to solve their problem without a Savior. He made sure that if man opened his eyes, he could clearly see God’s existence and presence. This is the reason Paul can claim in Romans that He has been revealed to mankind and they are left without excuse for refusing to acknowledge Him to worship the creation—whether themselves or some other part of it. How did He achieve this? By progressively offering man more and more strict ways of controlling himself and restraining himself from sin without a Creator.
First, prior to and during the days of Noah, He gave man free reign to self-govern. They were close enough to the Fall and the days when Adam and Eve had walked with Him to know what was right and to follow the only command He had given, which was there only to temporarily cover their sin nature since the Savior had yet to come. They could not even follow that one, simple command properly, nor could they self-govern. They became so wicked God wiped out all but Noah and his family to start all over. Clearly, self-governance alone did not keep man from sinning and turning his back on God’s law.
Then, after the flood in his covenant with Noah, God first gave them a few more commands, including the order not to shed human blood, which came with God’s institution of government in Genesis 9:6 to punish any who disobeyed that command with capital punishment. Then He commanded them to replenish the earth by spreading out and having children. This too they failed in, resulting in the Tower of Babel, and human government was proven a failure at removing sin from society repeatedly.
History shows us through Scripture and the historical record, that He then chose for Himself a specific people. Perhaps with God directly ruling and giving them His commands, they could manage to avoid sin. This too was proven ineffective; the Jews did whatever they believed was right in their own minds and forsook God repeatedly.
Then the record is silent. Everything from self-governance to God’s direct government to restrain man from sin had been tried. He waited until the time was right, and then He sent His solution: a Savior who would redeem His chosen people by covering their sins with His righteousness. Human history up until that point showed the necessity of a Savior. Human history in all that follows points back to God, His providential care, and His Son as our only means of salvation.
All of it is intended to show us either God’s power or our need for Him so that by means of history as well as the nature that surrounds us, we will have no excuse for denying God or His existence. Having been given every opportunity to do it our own way with varying degrees of outside restraints, we have been irrevocably proven incapable of defeating the sin nature that condemns us without a Savior and now can have no cause to claim God was unjust in not allowing us the chance to remain righteous on our own merits.
Taking It Further: What personal philosophical stances are demanded by and consistent with this worldview?
There are many philosophical stances that this worldview demands, but there are six commitments or personal, life-altering values that are essential to it and must define us if we would behave and think in a manner consistent with what we claim we believe.
First, this worldview demands that we commit to loving and glorifying the Creator. If we accept that He exists and is the reason for our own existence, we ought to be most thankful that we exist at all. However, if we go further and accept the premise that history shows our need for a Savior—God’s own Son—and that He sent such a savior to die and rise from the dead for us, we ought to be more thankful. The only proper response to such unearned goodwill from our Creator, particularly when we had earned the opposite, is devotion, love, and praise. To deny those three is to spit on the sacrifice He made to win us and to behave in a manner most unreasonable, ungrateful, and immoral.
Second, the worldview demands a commitment to reason and objective truth. Whatever else is required of anyone who adopts the views detailed above, this is the core of it. Everything else rests on possessing reason and having—or searching out—the truth at any cost. From this commitment, the man who holds this worldview must never waver if he wishes to be deemed a consistent and rational man.
Third, this worldview demands that the first place a man go when uncertain of the truth or unable to establish it with the known facts of the day is Scripture. It is the foundation of truth, though its pages may not give us all answers to every single question we can ask. If we cannot find the answer there or principles that will help to shape our question more precisely so we can search for the answer elsewhere with the right premises, we may take it on good authority that if God did not tell us and we have not yet discovered it, the truth will still be in line with the laws He has set in order, moral or natural. Thereby, we may admit our ignorance of the answer to any given issue while still maintaining that we know the answer will turn out to be consistent with God because He is the definer of reality.
Should we find an answer that does not match this basic premise, to remain consistent with this worldview demands that we reject the answer as false and search for an explanation that does match the premises we hold. Otherwise, we must throw away the whole worldview in favor of some other, as is true of any worldview when confronted with answers that do not fit. Either they will abandon the answer in search of a better-suited one or they will abandon their premises in favor of some other that seems to fit the answer. The position of a Christian who believes what I have given must be that because they know God is real and defines reality without a shadow of a doubt, and because they know that the Bible is His revealed Word without any doubt, they must then conclude that any answer to a question that contradicts reality or the Bible must be false.
Fourth, such a view also demands a commitment to morality as God defines it. We must acknowledge our daily need for His strength to achieve this goal, but our worldview demands it of us even though we may at times find ourselves utterly unable by our own will to do what is moral. Even though we must receive help toward this end, it is a commitment we make as it regards our own lifestyle: we must denounce evil and do all in our power to stand firm in and to defend what is right.
Fifth, such a philosophy demands a commitment to the respect of others on a basic level. If we believe that man is the image-bearer of God, a reflection of the God we love, and we also believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then with the two together, we must conclude that man as God’s image-bearer demands the most basic of respect, if nothing more. We are required by this worldview not to deface that image through intentional harm and violence to another. Except in the case of self-defense, intentional harm to another in any other situation is in violation of the premises we hold if we believe God’s image is sacred and the lives of His image-bearers therefore to be respected.
Finally, such a worldview demands that we earnestly seek to share the truth with others. It does not necessitate that we never do anything except share the truth about God, reality, ourselves, and history, but it does mean we must pay the highest attention to the commitment in daily life to pray for and reach out to others. Man is God’s image-bearer. He was intended to be in fellowship with God forever, and it would be the highest degree of immorality—knowing the truth ourselves—to deny others the opportunity to hear what that truth entails, particularly when that truth might cost them an eternity of separation from God and eternal torment. Denying others an objective view of reality through our silence on crucial matters or through actions that themselves deny that reality is one of the worst sorts of deception we can perpetrate on another.
Conclusion
It is not our job, of course, to convince the person into believing us; the Holy Spirit is the one that must woo and save the soul. However, if a fellow image-bearer is to go into eternal damnation through separation from our God, let it not be because we as believers failed to warn them. It is their decision to make, and if they do reject Him, it is on their heads, but if we hold to this worldview, we will have to answer to a holy, just God for refusing to do what His commandments and reasoning from these premises demands of us. This is a demand of this worldview, then, that we should take most seriously, both by living in a way that testifies consistently to our philosophical stances and by spreading the word of the truth when any opportunity is given by God to do so.
References
Bible Hub. (2012). Genesis 1:26 KJV. Retrieved March 16, 2022, from https://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/1.htm
Bible Hub. (2012). Hebrews 9:27-28 KJV. Retrieved March 16, 2022, from https://biblehub.com/kjv/hebrews/9.htm
Bible Hub. (2012). Proverbs 23:23 KJV. Retrieved March 16, 2022, from https://biblehub.com/kjv/proverbs/23.htm
Bible Hub. (2012). Romans 1:18-21 and 28 KJV. Retrieved March 16, 2022, from https://biblehub.com/kjv/romans/1.htm
Sire, J. W., Hoover, J., & Sire, J. W. (2020). A World of Difference: Introduction. In The universe next door: A basic worldview catalog (pp. 1–11). essay, IVP Academic, an imprint of Intervarsity Press.