Dr Greg Bahnsen - Philosophy of Christianity: Six Views of the Nature of Man Part 1 (Part 22)

They were studying philosophical anthropology.

And I got to the point in my notes, I believe, where having noted the presuppositional character of the questions, the major questions that are raised in philosophical anthropology, we were looking at the similar structure of anthropological theories. That is, each of them tells you something about the nature of man or his dignity. Each speaks of the dilemma or the diagnosis of man's problem. Each speaks of the deliverance or gives a prescription for man so that he might be delivered from his problems. And on pages four to six of our textbook there is a quick contrast and comparison of two conflicting systems, Christianity and Marxism. And let's take a look at pages four to six as we get started today. Stevenson points out that each of these claims, each of these theories makes claims about the nature of the universe as a whole. He says Christianity is committed to belief in God. And Marx denied, of course, any belief in God, condemned religion as the opium of the people, distracting them from their genuine problems and answers social problems. Now, as part of their conception of.

The universe, both of these theories have.

Beliefs about the nature of history. The meaning of history for the Christian is found in its relationship to God, who is eternal. God is working out his purposes through history. And of course, God's purposes center in the death, the life and death, and we would say resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Now, Marx, on the other hand, had a philosophy of history. And he claimed that there was a pattern of progress to be found in human history. But that progress was not related to anything eternal or transcendent. The progress of history was an internal matter altogether. Marx did believe there would be an inevitable development from one economic stage to another. So feudalism gives way to capitalism. Capitalism is going to give way to socialism, socialism to communism. Now, Christianity and Marxism have different views of God, different views of history. They also have conflicting claims about the essential nature of the human being. The Christian says that man is made in the image of God and that his destiny depends upon his relationship to God. The value of man is that he survives physical death and. And he will face final judgment before God. Marxism, on the other hand, denies that there is any survival after death and therefore any judgment from God. It must, therefore deny the importance of individual moral freedom that Christianity exalts as being a very important feature of human nature. Mark says that our moral ideas and attitudes are really determined by the kind of economic class in which we find ourselves living in the period of society in which we live, the period of history and the kind of society in which we live. Now, given this different view of God, history and human beings. It's only natural that Christianity and Marxism.

Are going to have different diagnoses of.

What is wrong with mankind. The Christian says that what's wrong with man is that he's alienated from God, that he's not living according to God's purposes, that his relationship with God has been disrupted, that he's misused his freedom, that he's rejected God. Marx, on the other hand, replaces the notion of sin with the question, or, I'm sorry, with the issue or matter of alienation.

Man is not matching up to the.

Ideal standard for human life. So what should be done to help man? The Christian, because of his different view of the universe, different view of man, different view of man's problem, is going to say that he must be made right with God through his son, Jesus Christ. Whereas the Marxist is going to have a completely different answer to the ills of human life.

He's going to say we have to transform our society.

We have to get to a classless society. We must advance the purposes or the goals of economic revolution. Okay, page six. Our author points out that implicit in these rival prescriptions or deliverance schemes for man are somewhat differing visions of a future in which man is totally regenerated. What is the Christian category that's being brought up here? What do we call this in theology? A vision of the future. And eschatology? There's a Marxist eschatology and there's a Christian eschatology. The Christian vision is of man restored to the state that God intends for him, freely loving and obeying his Maker.

The Marxist vision is of a future.

In this world, a perfect society in which men become their real selves, no longer alienated by economic conditions, but freely active in cooperation with each other.

And so you have the Marxist society.

And you have the New Jerusalem as competing goals or eschatologies for man. So now this is what the book is hoping to achieve. To bring about this type of comparison between Marxism and Christianity, Marxism and Freudianism, Sartrean philosophy and Skinnerian psychology and what have you.

Now, the author does not do this for us throughout the book, however, that's.

What I'm expecting you to do on the final exam. Those two and a half pages or.

So are a pretty good model of.

What I'm looking for when you write up your three pages, comparing paragraph by paragraph, if you will, the different elements of each one of these philosophical anthropological systems. Now, on pages 122 to 124, Stevenson.

Says there are major disagreements between the presuppositions held by the seven different systems he inspects. He does allow for some complementary themes.

That is, you'll find that these systems don't differ with each other at every single point.

They complement each other, they supplement each other.

And in many points there's compatibility between the theories.

For instance, one might be an existentialist and a Marxist.

It's conceivable that you could. That you could blend them in some ways there's compatibility at many points between existentialism and Marxism. But having noted that there are these overlapping areas, similarities, harmonies and so forth.

Nevertheless, there are five major areas of disagreement.

Five major areas of disagreement between the various theories. The first major question and the reason I'm doing this comes at the end of the book. And the reason I'm bringing it up now is because as you go through formulating your answers, I think it's good that you know that this is one of the things that's really going to rub differently on each theory. These questions, I'm going to do them in reverse order from the way the author presents them, because I think the one he puts last is the one that we want to continue. The most important. What makes the biggest difference in a person's philosophical anthropology? What is the key determining factor of a person's view of man? Presuppositional base is presupposition as to what nature of man. But even more importantly than the nature of man, or if you will, determining the nature of man. The existence of God. That's right. Question of God. Give me a couple of illustrations, maybe more than a couple from the seven theories of human nature explored. Give me a few illustrations of theories that do not believe in God. Okay, Freud did not believe that there was a God.

So what does God become? I mean, a lot of people talk about God.

What is God according to Freud? What is the idea of God? Is it just a fairy tale, some story somebody made up and we all made the mistake of believing it?

Father figure left over from childhood.

Exactly. The projection of one's father. Okay, so there, if you will, there is something that takes the place of God. He's not just saying. We all have this comic book story told to us about God and we make the mistake of believing it.

There's some reason why people are impelled.

To believe in God.

They have this psychological neuroses.

They need to believe in God. It's a God figure.

Is it essential to Freud that there is no God?

Is it essential to Freudianism that there is no God?

Ultimately, yes.

Ultimately, yes. Okay, what is less than ultimate?

Okay. Nephrote might allow the existence of God at the beginning of his discussion and it would not necessarily appear to be a contradiction of his full framework. But as you look out, you're going to end up with some contradictions if he allows his existence of God.

Let's ask ourselves this. Could a Christian not a good one or a very self conscious one, but could a Christian be a Freudian?

Is it conceivable that God has so.

Made man that there is a father wish in him? I think it's not only conceivable. I think the Bible teaches that as a matter of fact, we all do have that inherent need to have a transcendent father. That's right.

So Freud says people have this inherent.

Urge to believe in a heavenly father. Does that mean that it's wrong? A lot of people assume that it is. See, we can explain your belief in God. You have the psychoanalytic need. Well, what if the answer to that is yeah, and that's the way God made me to need him? So it's conceivable that Freud and a belief in God could be harmonized.

Although the kind of God and the kind of man Freud talked about, I.

Think don't come anywhere close to the Christian conception.

Now, as a matter of fact, did.

Freud believe in God? So what is man? If there is no God? What is is man? Not the image of God, obviously not a creature. Yes. Well, man is going to have to do some of the work of God, obviously. He's going to have to create moral standards and that sort of thing. But what is man in himself?

For a Freudian, he's an animal. He's an advanced form of animal.

And therefore it only makes sense that there be a comparison between analysis of animal behavior and human behavior, as you find in Lorenz, for instance, or Skinner. Okay, let me ask you this. We've seen in what sense and how the God question can be given response by a Freudian. How about for a Sartrean? For an existentialist? For Sartrean existentialism, can there be a God?

Depends on the individual. You'd be free to choose whether.

No, I'd like to say yes, but that's just wrong. Sartre says that the key element of existentialism, the beginning point of existentialism, is that there is no God. Because if there were a God, then our essence would be determined in advance. Our essence would have to be what God says it will be. And the key point of existentialism is that man first exists and then he chooses his essence.

And since if there were a God.

I couldn't choose my essence, it would be predetermined.

There can be no God for existentialism.

So you see then how important the question of God is for all of these theories. Christianity, of course, makes the existence of God key feature of its anthropology. Notice the following. I'd give you some help in your apologetic and evangelism. You want to know how you can get into discussing religious questions with people. It turns out any controversial issue, let's say what we should do about war or about the economy, or about education, or about sexual relations, or just about anything of interest in discussion among people is going to depend upon a broader.

View of one's anthropology.

That is, you don't tell animals to pray for relief of their difficulties or all that. So clearly what a person thinks of man and society is going to determine what he does about this individual issue.

It turns out, if I'm right in.

What I'm saying here, that one's view of man is the dependent more fundamentally.

Upon his view of God. So you can see that talking about.

Any particular issue can get you into a discussion of what man is. And of course, what man is is going to depend upon what your view of God is. The only reason I'm bringing this out is because I want you to see how easy it is in a university setting or any setting to end up talking about religion. A lot of people think they have to make some kind of blunt appeal to the four spiritual laws, or they have to introduce the theory out of the blue.

But it's the most natural thing in.

The world to talk about God. God's at the center of every conversation.

Because in essence, what you think of.

God is going to determine what you think of man is what you're going to think about, what you're talking about, whether you're talking about the Cleveland Indians or whether you're talking about sexual morality. All is going to depend upon your view of man. That's not superfluous. If you have Lorenz's view of man, what do you make of the Cleveland Indians? What's happening when people go out and play competitive athletic games? That's right. What are we working out? We're working out our animal past.

Animals have this sort of.

Well, it's a warring type of instinct within them. They work out their hostility. And so that you'll find a male buck, for instance, is going to fight any other male buck that gets on his territory. So the Cleveland Indians are going to see to it that anybody, even if.

They'Re called angels, comes in, you know.

They'Re going to protect their territory.

Now, you may not think that's very.

Credible, but given somebody's view of man, when he goes to the ball game, he may, you know, have a beer and a hot dog and enjoy it like you.

But he thinks what's going on is.

That people are working out their aggression in a very civilized way. We have umpires and rules and all the rest and uniforms. We're not going to get bloody over it.

But still, that's the background for all of this.

Whereas a Christian is going to look upon the Cleveland Indians in a different way or any other team. Cleveland Indians may be a poor choice example here, but what's a Christian going to say about the athletic or, if you will, recreational activities of men? Are they working out something very deep and essential to their nature and character? No, this is, as a matter of fact, superfluous play. And we have the freedom to do that because we are free human beings. God gives us recreation. Oh, you ever thought about the word recreation? What is the word? Recreation? Recreation. Recreation, Exactly. Now, I'm not going to get into etymology, but you see, the whole background to recreation comes from the freedom we have because God has recreated us. We can harmonize with each other. We can play games and have fun and have free time and all that. It's part of the goodness of God. But of course, that isn't the view anymore anyway. The question of God is crucial to all these theories. Well, driving from the question of God, or related to how you answer the question of God, is going to be the question of the nature of moral values, the question of God, the question of morality. Moral values, first of all, are moral.

Values objective or subjective?

Are they objective or subjective? Plato asserted the objectivity of moral values.

Saying that the form of the good is the objective, trans, temporal, transhuman, transrelative.

Standard of good and evil. At the very opposite end of things, you have Skinner who says there's no.

Basis for values at all. Values are simply what's chosen by the.

Person who's doing the conditioning of another person or thing. There are people who think that the values that are held by people are determined by their society. Marx and Freud in particular. There are those who say we must.

Choose our values completely without guidance.

Sartre. So you can see how this whole.

Question of the status of moral values.

Is a critical one in each one of the theories of human nature that you're going to be looking.

I think it's interesting as we go.

Through these questions, to start looking at how the various authors of the various philosophers being examined are grouped and how they answer these questions. What basic groups can we get on the question of God? Obviously, Christianity believes in God. Is there any other theory that's being proposed that obviously is a theistic theory? Platonism comes the closest. There is some question as to whether Plato actually believed in the gods or.

Whether he's only using mythological ways of.

Speaking to express his views or to veil the fact that he was really getting away from the theism of his day. But you'd have Christianity, Plato, you know, there'd be some distance there. And then of course, on the other side, you'd have Freud, Skinner, Sartre. Who else are we studying these days? Marx and Lorenz. How about on the nature of moral values? Well, again you have Christianity and Plato holding to the objectivity of moral values. Then you have another group that says there's no basis for moral values at all. Skinner, Sartre, he says we have to choose our values. And then there'd be those who say moral values are a reflection of one's society. Freud and Marx.

Another major question that is differently answered.

By each one of these theories is the question of materialism versus dualism. Does man have a mind or a soul, or is man completely a material object? Does man only have a brain? It's what in philosophy is called the mind body problem. Is man only a body, including a brain, a physical feature of man, part of his body? Or is there a mind in man or characterizing man that goes beyond the body or the brain? Is man completely materialistic, or should you have a dualistic view of man that he's made up of two different sorts of things? Are there two different aspects to man? Materialism, dualism?

Okay, Our author says Plato is definitely a dualist.

And I agree. Plato would be over here with those who believe that man is two types of things. He is a body as well as a mind. And Skinner is clearly a materialist.

Marx is also a materialist, it turns.

Out, believes that everything develops from physical forces in man.

Is Freud a materialist?

Not quite so obvious. He does seem to speak of a psyche. Whether that's subject only to the determinants and factors of the brain is another matter altogether. And so we have to put, if you will, Freud on the line. We're not sure what to make of Freud when it comes to dualism or materialism. How about Christianity? Think before you answer. If we did not believe in the intermediate state, I think Just about everything in the Bible would lend credence to a materialistic view of man. Materialistic doesn't mean, by the way, atheistic does. It? Just simply means that man is a created being. He's created out of physical stuff of some sort. Of course, we do believe that when the body is dead, there's going to be an aspect of man, sometimes called spirit or soul, that will know communion with God. And so Christianity is dualist in one sense, that it believes that there's a spiritual aspect to man.

But whether that spiritual aspect must be.

Interpreted as a satisfaction substance, a soul in the Platonic sense is another question altogether. My guess is that will probably come as a surprise to most of you to be told that the Christian view of the soul is not necessarily what Plato was saying. Most Christians have a Platonic view of the soul. The soul is a ghost in a machine. We have the machine of our body and then we have a little spirit or ghost inside of us and the ghost goes away at death and the ghost is restored to the machine. Now a much better machine at the resurrection. Well, while that's easy enough to think about and easy enough to fall into as a conception of man, there's very little evidence that the Bible conceives of man as a ghost in a machine. So is Christianity monistic or dualistic? The tendency is to put Christianity toward Platonism just because we do believe in an afterlife. But whether we should understand that in the Platonic way is another question altogether. Now we come down to another basic question. The question of determinism versus free will. I was going to say over here on materialism and dualism. Sartre is obvious materialist as well. He doesn't believe there can be anything spiritual because anything spiritual would operate as an unknown force threatening the freedom of man to make his own decisions as to his essence and his future, his moral values and all the rest of the. Okay, now, in determinism and free will, you have those who believe that man makes his own choices. And you would have. Christianity believes that man is a morally responsible creature. Who else thinks that man has free will? Sartre. Sacrifice. Sartre thinks free will is the essence of man. Now over against Christianity and Sartreanism there would be those who think that man is determined by causes outside of himself. An obvious example, Marx. What kind of determinism does Marx believe in? Economic determinism. Skinner would be a determinist as well. What kind of determinist is Skinner? Biological or environmental? Actually, what kind of conditioned response is built in from your society? Is going to determine what you are. How about Freud? Is Freud a determinist? Yes, very definitely he is. What kind of determinism? Psychological determinism. He believes that there are, if you will, deep forces that are welling up within us like a volcano that are making us do what we do and feel as we feel those forces are built into us because of our society and our sexual nature and other things. But nevertheless there are forces that go beyond our own conscious free choices. Now, as we do, as we go through this list and make these groupings, it's of some interest to see how the different players end up on different sides of the line. Who is grouped with whom, if you will. Here we have a few where Christianity and Platonism tend to be very similar. Which explains by the way, why throughout history there's been a real urge for Christian philosophers to be Platonists because there is, if you will, formal similarity. Now we get down here. Christianity and Sartre stand over against Marx, Skinner and Frank Freud. Whereas Christianity stands over against Sartre and the others up here.

Where does Plato's been at?

I'm not sure that we get an answer to that question. I can think of different ways of approaching it. I can't think of any obvious way in which Plato would be a determinist. Plato does think that man is encased in a body, is a soul encased in a body, trapped in the tomb of the body. And so it may be that our desires and our physical nature have grip of us from time to time. But he also believes that the reasonable man, the equitable man, the just man, is one who lets reason dominate his body. And that would tend to support the idea that he has free will. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that we cannot assume that these.

Questions line up the different theories.

They don't. There is a mishmash and crisscrossing of the players and there will be like there's a question as to what to make of Freud or Plato on this.

One question, and so forth and so on. Sometimes theory gives a very clear answer.

To one of these questions. Sometimes it gives an ambiguous answer to these questions.

Sometimes it.

It finds itself set over against an.

Opponent and then later on that opponent.

Is on the side of the theory when it comes to further questions. So we mustn't think that this very simply sorts everything out. Now the fifth question, finally that seems to control various theories and set them apart from each other is a question of how innate human nature is over against its possibilities for change. The innateness or controlledness of human nature. How set is human nature over against, if you will, a flexible and changeable conception of human nature. Stevenson says how much in human nature is innate?

How much is learned from the social environment?

There are many ways of putting this contrast. This is page 121, by the way. And so let's look at the various ways of putting this contrast, the contrast.

Between the biological and the cultural. There are some people say human nature.

Is not determined by one's biology. In other words, we'll say one's culture determines what human nature will be.

Now, if it's biological, anything born into.

The specie of human being is going to have the same basic human nature.

If human nature is cultural, then of course what you find in the South.

Sea Islands and what you find in Germany of the 15th century may be completely different human natures or radically different anyway.

There's a contrast between heredity and environment.

How much is determined by our. By our background and genes and all the rest, our heredity? How much is determined by the environment that we presently are experiencing? There's a contrast between nature and nurture, which is a cute way of putting it, that is, there's an essence to man, his nature. But then there's a question of how he's nurtured, how he's brought up. When you watch stories of the world, Wolf boy on tv, the boy who was raised by wolves and so forth. And this but a popular way of raising the philosophical question of human nature. Is human nature something innate? Or is it something that's a matter of nurture? The man's brought up by wolves. Is he a wolf or is he still a human being with wolf characteristics?

Question of the contrast between the individual and society.

How much depends upon you as a.

Separate individual and what you are? How much is a reflection of the society around you?

The contrast can be stated between that of instinctual and conditioned behavior. How much do we do, just as a matter of what we are by instinct? How much is just conditioned in us? There are some people would say we have no instinct at all. It's only a matter of conditioning. Others would say that conditioning is almost nothing, that we just do what we do by instinct as other animals. Okay. Or a contrast can be stated between that which is universal, inevitable and unchangeable.

Over against that which is culture relative.

Subject to change and reform. Okay.

And our author says that Plato, Marx.

And Skinner emphasize the extent of social conditioning and our power to change individuals by changing social structures and practices.

Plato, Marx and Skinner then have if.

You will, malleable theories of human nature.

That the society round about you plays.

A very important role and is a key to determining what kind of person you, you will be.

Christianity, Freud and Lorenz emphasized the limits to such change created by one's environment.

Or society and therefore come down hard on the innate universal nature of man. The instinctual, biological, essential nature of man. These are the five questions then that.

Our author thinks are the most telling.

The ones that are not settled by the various theories. These are the theories that will are the questions that will set the theories over against each other. These are unresolved issues. It's of interest to me that he thinks this fifth question is an empirical or a scientific question. He thinks the fifth question is something that's be settled on the basis of evidence.

Let's just line up the evidence, let's.

Do our experiments and find out how malleable is human nature.

Can we actually create a wolf boy or not? Or is there something instinctual and essentially human about people? He Sundays the other four questions are philosophical in character. No amount of scientific evidence is going.

To settle the question of determinism and free will, materialism and dualism, the nature of moral, moral values or the existence of God.

Those are all questions of a philosophical order.

Are you convinced by that breakdown? It does seem to me that a person's view of the innateness or flexibility.

Of human nature is also a philosophical question. I think what you really have here are varying degrees where empirical or scientific evidence influences the way you answer the question.

There's a sense in which empirical evidence.

Will help you determine whether there's a God.

Right? We believe that a lot of empirical evidence points to the existence of God.

It's also true that the God question.

Is the furthest away from empirical evidence because what you think of God determines how you're going to approach the evidence evidence. And so if he wants to put this on a sliding scale, I tend to think the flexibility or innateness of human nature probably comes the closest to being a scientific question. But I don't believe it is as a matter of fact a scientific question.

I can imagine people knowing all the.

Same facts and having all the same data before them and nevertheless disagreeing as to the nature of, of the human being. Because they'll explain the data in different ways depending on what they actually think man is.

His differentiation is consistent with his initial discussion of verificationism.

How's that?

Well, he gives a high view of science and the fact that a theory cannot be verified doesn't mean we Throw it out. But it lacks very important crediting factor.

It's not a scientific theory. That's true. But why is it that he would make this one question scientific and the others philosophical, do you think?

He obviously is convinced that it is open to scientific inspection.

Okay, but you see, I can think of reasons why we would think it's not really open or completely determined by scientific evidence, empirical evidence. And so I'm not quite sure.

What I'm saying is, when I read that, I thought, well, that looks a.

Little arbitrary to me, even arbitrary, given his previous commitments and values as expressed in the book.

Now, if I'm right, that these are.

The five essential questions that keep arising as you study these various theories, and if I'm right that these are all essentially philosophical, which is to say philosophical theological questions, how are we going to resolve these differences? How does one, if you will, adjudicate the difference between conflicting philosophical anthropologies? How does a Christian, if you will, deal with a Marxist, a Skinnerian, a Freudian, a Sartrean? How does a Sartrean deal with a Marxist? How do they convince each other? How do they argue with each other? How do they resolve their differences? How does anyone know for sure? What kind of questions are these? These are metaphysical questions, aren't they? Apart from the this one here, which is obviously a question about the nature of moral values and that is very much dependent upon metaphysical issues itself. Here's the question. Materialism versus dualism. Has man got a soul or not? Determinism versus free will. Are we part of a causal nexus that completely takes away our freedom or not? Is our human nature flexible? Determined by something outside us or something inherent to us? Does God exist? These are all metaphysical questions. They go beyond the physical. They stand behind the physical.

These are philosophical questions.

How do you resolve metaphysical questions? Okay, I'd like to continue with this line of thought for a minute. Oh, okay, go ahead then.

Do you think the social structures over the years has that affected any of these theories? Wars and.

Oh, I think the character of one's.

Society does set an attitude and a feeling about people. Sure, there are pessimistic ages and optimistic ages. There are ages in which people can do very little philosophical reflection. It takes every bit of their strength simply to eke out a living. There are ages that see a great deal of luxury and free time, and therefore there's a lot of philosophical speculation made possible. So I think the character of one's age might be an influential factor in how he approaches the philosophy of man. But I don't believe that the character of one's age determines what he's going to think about man. I think it influences, but I don't think in any sense because there are people that hold all these different kinds of theories and all different kinds of ages.

So the changes happened to be not made them to look unto God Rather than their own philosophies of life driving them back to God. Maybe human philosophies have failed, didn't turn out to be the way they expected and give them an idea of looking back to God or changing their views at God.

Well, there's a sense in which that happens, yes, but it also is the.

Case, and I think it's more usually the case that we one's view of God determines what he makes of the success of his anthropological theory. Let us say that I believe that there is a planet beyond Pluto. Is Pluto the furthest out in our solar system? Okay. I think there's another planet in our solar system, One beyond Pluto. Now, we haven't observed it with a telescope, but, but I mean, all the activity of other planetary bodies and their orbits and all that suggests an influence.

Of another planet yet to have been observed.

Okay? And now to confirm this theory, I decide to have the United States government build the best telescope that's ever been built. Some huge, monstrous telescope really has critical abilities and magnitude and all the rest. And so we put the telescope together and we look in the sky where.

This hypothesized or projected planet is supposed.

To be, and we don't see it.

Now, at that point, I could say.

Well, my theory didn't work. I have to go back and reconsider a bunch of other things as you're suggesting somebody might do.

But I may be so committed to.

The theory that I'd say there's something wrong with the telescope.

Or I might say there was, if you will, a cloud cover, or if.

You will, there's some kind of cosmic dust that's interfering with light rays coming from the planet.

Or in other words, I could go.

Ahead and ad hoc add on to.

My theory to salvage my preconceived notions, my presuppositions. It all depends on how much I.

Have invested in how much I'm committed to my theory.

It's conceivable people living in one kind.

Of age Having one theory of man would, we would think, be led to see that their theory of man just isn't holding water, just isn't working out.

And they should go back and reconsider.

Their view of God.

But as a matter of fact, they.

Could go the other direction. They could hold on very desperately to their theory and make modifications in it. They could, you see, say that we know for sure that man is an animal. And, and therefore if he seems to be acting as a spiritual being, showing that he isn't conditioned completely by his environment, what we need is to study it more. There's always this eschatological cop out that.

Says, just give us more time, we'll.

Be able to explain this phenomenon too in terms of our theory. So it really goes both ways.

Now my question is, how do we.

Resolve metaphysical disputes of the nature that we see in the board?

Well, to ask that question is to.

Ask what epistemology does one have? How does one know anything for sure? What amounts to knowledge?

What establishes conditions of evidence and truth? If one's epistemological theory is going to.

Determine how he adjudicates metaphysical conflicts, then.

The question is going to become how.

Do we resolve the different epistemological disputes between these theories?

You see, Plato says that men know things on the basis of their intuition because of their acquaintance with the realm of the forms previous to their bodily existence.

Men pre existed as souls living in familiarity with the forms.

Now we come into this world in a body and we have a vague.

Recollection of the realm of the forms. That's why we can do geometry and math and we can distinguish ducks from.

Cats and all the rest.

We know the forms.

Marx says that what we know, we.

Know only on the basis of sense experience, only on the basis of generalizations from particular experiences that we know about because of our senses.

How are we going to adjudicate these epistemological differences? How do we know what amounts to evidence and truth and knowledge?

Well, I mean, that's one way to do it. We could say let God answer the question. But of course, if you hold to.

A theory that doesn't allow for there being a God, then he's not going to want to let God answer the question because he doesn't think there's a.

God to answer the question.

Oh, so apparently we have to answer our epistemological question. Question how to? We have to know how to know that in order to know what amounts to genuine evidence and truth and knowledge, one has got to consider his epistemological theory. I mean his metaphysical theory, what he thinks of man, the universe, reality, his.

Categories and all the rest. But that's just the difficulty.

These are metaphysical questions that are separating the theorists to adjudicate the differences on These questions of metaphysics. One has got to appeal to his epistemology or rest on his epistemology. His epistemology in turn rests on what his metaphysics.

Now, the next time somebody gives you a hard time about circular reasoning, just.

Remember the lesson of today's class. I mean, it'd be very nice if we could all say, well, we're not going to reason in a circle. You know, we're not going to be like those presuppositionalists. I mean, if it were possible not to reason in a circle when it comes to these ultimate philosophical questions, we'd.

All be happy to do.

Isn't so much that some people are preferring circular reasoning or transcendental philosophical reasoning.

Over against scientific straight line reasoning. It isn't as though you have a choice between presuppositionalism and empirical apologetics. The fact of the matter is we can't avoid circular reasoning.

Our epistemological standards are going to be influenced and determined by our metaphysical commitments, and our metaphysical commitments and conflicts are.

Going to be resolved and set down.

By our epistemological standards. And so again, we're returning here at the end of our course to the.

Beginning of our course, which is somewhat appropriate in life of what I'm telling.

You because at the beginning of the course I told you that the nature.

Of philosophical disputes is a presuppositional one. How will Freud and Skinner, how will Skinner and Sartre resolve their differences?

They're gonna have. But how do you, how do you.

Resolve the differences or the conflicts between presuppositions?

There's nothing more ultimate to which you can appeal.

Thank you. I was just going to say how soon we forget, but that is very encouraging. Today that makes my day.

We compare the worldviews, the adequacy of the worldviews, as it turns out, at best Sartre and Skinner are going to have an inter family dispute. Ironically, all these other six theories that you're going to read about in this book have one thing in common, that they're all against Christianity. And therefore when Sartre and Skinner argue, there will be a little bit, you know, they can argue back and forth and see consistencies in each other, but when all is said and done, it's going to be the Christian worldview set against all these other worldviews is the only one that can do justice to what man is, how he's operating, how he can salvage truth, significance, meaning and all the rest. If man is not what Christianity says he is, then there are going to be things that we just can't explain. There's going to be irrationality in our philosophy. Now, let me put in just a.

Little plug here, although it's not by.

Any means a complete endorsement, but it's just at this point that I think Francis Schaeffer has been found so helpful by many, by many Christians who are studying apologetics.

Schaeffer is not a rigorous apologist, he's.

Not a super sophisticated philosopher, but by any means. But I do believe there's some value.

In what Shaffer is doing because he.

Is arguing, without saying so, within the realm of philosophical anthropology. He talks about the mannishness of man and what gives man dignity and freedom and love. Schaeffer is talking about the kinds of.

Issues that are up on the board.

And what Schaeffer is pointing to by doing a comparison of worldviews.

When he does it correctly and sometimes.

He does it in a rationalistic way.

That I'm sorry to see, but when.

He is reasoning as a presuppositionalist, Schaeffer is pointing out things such as that the materialistic scientist goes home from work and at work, of course, he's living.

According to his theory, where everything is just physicalistic and a matter of material.

Or scientific or empirical laws. But he goes home and he kisses his wife. You know, he shows that he is committed to a realm of love and value and significance and dignity. Now, if man was only an animal, there'd be no room for love.

There'd only simply be physical relations between people.

There'd be no questions of justice in our law courts and all the rest. It'd just be a dog eat dog.

World, to use the metaphor.

And so even the man who holds to a certain anthropology such as materialism, betrays his anthropology in another area of his life. He can't, you see, put together a consistent world and life view, that is to say, view as well as the practice of his life just can't be harmonized. And so the value of today's lecture.

I hope, is to point out not only what the key questions are as you go through these theories, but the.

Value of today's lecture is to remind you that the only way to resolve the conflicts between these theories is going to be on a presuppositional basis, a comparison of ultimate worldviews, the total view of one's metaphysics, his anthropology, his epistemology, his ethic and how they harmonize and how they are adequate for the practices.

And the views of men.

Seems that few of the proponents, these other views are willing to Examine their recent positions.

You say few are willing to do so. Is that your suggestion? I want to make sure I heard you right.

If you mean examine in the sense, of course, I think you're undoubtedly right. Freud would probably not have wanted to question his conviction that man was an.

Animal that was conditioned by his sexual and his social nature.

That was probably not one of the.

Negotiable parts of Freudianism. There may have been other things, higher.

Level developments in his theory, but that was fundamental to it all. Marx certainly would not question the materialism.

That'S foundational to his view of economic determinism.

And as a matter of fact, Christians are not going to question the existence of God. I will question it in the sense that we'll be glad to compare worldviews, but that's because we're convinced in advance that only the Christian worldview will work out. Only the Christian view can give the preconditions of knowledge.

Now, what is the Christian view of man? Let's see if we can in remaining.

Moments here outline a Christian view of.

Man to be set over against the other six theories.

What is the nature of man?

The dignity of man according to Christianity?

The first three chapters of the Bible tell us not only the nature of.

Man, but also the of nature, nature of his problem, if you will, his dilemma.

Man is a creature of God. Man is created by God, but he's created as a very special kind of creature. He appears to be the epitome of creation. He is the, if you will, creature that is set over all other creatures and realms of creation. And he is, and he has this dignity and function or status in light of the fact that God creates him as his own image. Animals do not image God in his rationality, his morality, his personality and his dominion. But man does what man is physically. God is non physically. Man can see, man can relate.

Man can reason, reason. Man can make moral choices.

Man can exercise sovereignty. God does all these things without a physical body. And so man is the physical image of God. That isn't to say that he is in his human body, a reflection of God's body. But man is in a human body what God is without a human body. That's the dignity of man. He's positively related to God as God's own image, having abilities, a function, a character that is beyond that and unique.

With respect to the animals.

Man has a future.

He is immortal.

He will always be related to God in some way. Now it may be in a negative and cursed way, but he will never escape. If you Will his relationship, positive or negative to God? He survives, if you will, eternally. What is the nature of man's dilemma? It's moral, not metaphysical, not, if you.

Will, historical or essential.

It isn't as though man has a bad society conditioning him, or the man's made out of bad stuff.

You, like Plato says, he has a.

Physical body which is dragging him down. The nature of man's problem is moral rather than metaphysical. That is, he has chosen to rebel against God. So there's a moral difficulty in man. And the prescription for man, the deliverance.

For man, as you know as evangelical.

Christians, is by God's grace, the perfect.

Man man, the God man.

Christ Jesus dies as the sacrificial substitute. Man is reconciled morally to God, judicially to God, by the death of God's own son, the perfect man. And therefore man is in his spiritual being regenerated now and understands the promise of a physical regeneration called, called resurrection.

In the future.

Man will nevertheless die because of the consequences of sin. His body will decay, but he will know the presence of God or absence from the presence of God immediately at.

The time of his death.

And his body will one day be resurrected and will live either in communion with God or in disharmony and and.

Separation from God for all eternity.

So essentially, the Christian says that man's dignity in nature is that of the image of God. God is brought into the question immediately. The problem with man is a moral problem. He's rebelled against God. The answer is a theological answer, regeneration from God being recreated as the image of God. And that answer is worked out in two steps. Spiritually now, physically later. And so that shows us something about.

The character of man too, that there.

Is a physical and a spiritual aspect to his being. As we go through the six theories on Friday and look at what each one of them says about the nature, the problem and the answer, a solution for man. I'd like to take this very brief thumbnail sketch of Christian anthropology and use it as a foil over against each.

One of the other theories so we can see the uniqueness of the Christian world and life view when it comes to philosophical anthropology.

Rather than jumping into that right now.

We'Re only a few minutes from when we should stop, and I think we'll stop here after I give you a chance for questions. Any questions? Questions on today's lesson or last time we continue to talk about Christianity as a monolithic belief. Yes. When you do, are you referring to it, that we follow it as if it was written? It would be monolithic? We Don't.

What I will take as Christianity is biblical Christianity, that is, Christianity is defined by the Bible.

Now, immediately you're going to say, but people interpret the Bible differently.

I grant that. But I do not grant that the.

Bible is a wax nose to be formed in any shape or direction as you want it to be formed.

While we have because of sin, the difficulty of disagreements and obscurities and confusions.

In the interpret in mistakes and the.

Confusion of the Bible, I do believe as a presupposition of Christian theology, the Bible has one message, not many messages.

You recall how Paul says when he writes to the church, our letter to you was not yea and nay.

Paul says we didn't write some kind.

Of dialectical theology to you where you could take it this way or take.

It that Paul says, I have a.

Very definite message for you and there.

Is a definite message in the Bible.

Although Christians, because of the remaining sin in them, are going to differ over as to what that is.

For the most part in this class I've tried to hold to a pretty.

If you will, center of the road.

Evangelical approach to Christian theology. Most of what I'll be saying about anthropology, just about any evangelical Christian, I think would grant.

We've had points, obviously when it comes to free will and determinism, where some.

Differences among evangelicals have played a part. But that's inevitable.

I mean, since I don't believe the.

Bible equivocates, I have to think the Bible teaches one way and not the other. And at those points, my own theological.

Convictions have been determinative in the lectures.

And with anthropology, the same will be true.

It's just I don't see a whole lot of room for controversy over, for instance, since my view of anthropology is just outlined, most evangelicals would say that.

Most neo orthodox would not.

Okay, so I mean, there's always going to be a question of, you know.

The circle within which you are operating.

As a scholar and I'm operating within the evangelical orbit.

Other questions, the fifth problem of the innateness versus flexible. I agree with the way you put it up there.

However.

Our sin nature is exchanged, we are changed. How does that fit in? Seems that that's being defined in a way that we have an essential nature rather than a changing nature.

Well, what changes, of course for us is our spiritual relationship to God. It doesn't seem to me that our human nature changes. Okay, now, little insight. This is the traditional Reformed view of.

The image of God. There is an image of God in.

The narrow sense and in the Broad sense. In the broad sense, everybody is God's image, He, even unbelievers, because they are distinct from the animals and they maintain.

Their human dignity as a special creation.

Set apart for a special task by.

God, having immortality, the ability to reason, make moral decisions and so forth.

Okay, but in the narrow sense of the image of God, actually imaging God.

Morally or spiritually doing what you're supposed.

To do, not all of us are, if you will. It's kind of like a car. Cars going different directions on the interstate are both cars, although they're going different directions. Now, if it so happens that cars have been made to go one direction and only one direction, then those that are going the opposite are rebellious cars. But they're rebellious cars and not non cars. And so I'm maintaining that they. There is an essential human nature and it will be essentially human even in hell. But there are some people who are, even though they are not non human.

Are acting in an anti human way.

They are acting contrary to their human.

Nature in the narrow sense of what God created them to be.

So I should say what changes is essentially the moral aspect of man and.

Not the metaphysical aspect of man.

The fall and redemption are not metaphysical matters. Even unbelievers will be resurrected, but to.

The resurrection of damnation, they will suffer in their physical bodies for all eternity. And so that is a crucial point in Reformed theology, by the way, that the fall and redemption are not metaphysical. Now they are in Roman Catholic theology, and I tend to think they are in Arminian theology to some degree as well. But really, Reformed theology has consistently stressed that the fall of man is moral in character and therefore his redemption.