In the early 60’s, as a teenager in high school, a science teacher was dutifully covering his curriculum guidelines for the day. I do not remember his name, but it was not a good day for him; I am sure. As “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” took up their positions on the black board underneath “mutations” and “natural variations” it began to dawn on me: that, if such an assertion as that which was being taught were true, then not only were all the moral exhortations I was given as a child wrong and non-authoritative, but the restraint, guilt, and punishment of the last 15 years or so would also be painfully arbitrary.
Don’t misunderstand me here; I was not about to throw off my certainty of right and wrong. That was too clearly ingrained in me, having been highly polished off by my grandmother who reared me. With the Bible in one hand and a switch in the other, she taught me the scriptures from the seat up. I provided her with ample opportunity, and faithful as she was, she redeemed the time for the days were evil. She was a very good driver when it came to driving folly out of the heart of the child. No, my friend, good-n-evil and right-n-wrong were not brought into doubt that day. What settled in my brain was the stark contrast between: what I knew to be true, and the ludicrous moral implications of the assertions my teacher was claiming as scientific fact.
His day turned bad when the student in the back left corner of the room attempted to decent from his indoctrination and point toward the moral question. Initially rebuffed, the student refused to be so arbitrarily and officiously denied his point. Rising to his feet, the student offered the teacher a demonstration he could not fail to grasp. Threatening to hoist the desk, approach the board, and take his natural position “the fittest” in place of diminished teacher, the student asked what rational non-arbitrary reason could the teacher plead in his self protection. The silence was not the teacher grasping the point. It turned out: the weasel was planning his escape. Misreading my theatrics, he ran off to the principal’s office to get help.
Well, he had no rational, non-arbitrary, defense; and he had no physical defense either. So he did the natural thing. He should have done the reasonable thing, and given an answer. But then I can reasonably say that, having --as I do-- revelation as my absolute. Any “should” is not a meaningful word in “nature” as evolution sees it. Even this: that the fit “should” survive: is meaningless. I guess “run” is the best one can do. Lie, hide, and cheat are OK too, as is all else. As a Christian, or even as then (an unsaved Bible raised kid), I can and did use these “should” words with the authority God gave every man. He has put his laws into all men, writing them on their hearts (understandings), so that they show this always in their moral excuses of themselves and condemnations of others. That teacher tried to condemn me to the principal. But there could be no ethical reason for him to do so within his belief system. God’s laws were on his heart too, even though he was rigorously trying to deny them. All men know they will be judged and they know the absolute law by which they will be; they judge and acquit each other all the time. With the principal, a much more intelligent man, we were able to iron all these things out, and I went back to class the next day.
So this brings me to my point in this note: Knowledge in general and moral knowing in particular must be founded on an absolute authority. Without an absolute infallible verbal revelation from man’s creator, man by reason and logic can not overcome the obstacles of irrationality, radical skepticism, and non-arbitrariness in all his thinking. Man can not be an authority unto himself; at least not rationally as his own reason and logic would demand with consistency, non-contradiction, and non-arbitrariness. Natural men try all the time, but they are inconsistent and show forth the fact, that they are created in God’s image: his logic and laws written on their hearts. They hold to rights and wrongs, they know some things, and they think. They are all a “self”: where do you think that comes from?
In the beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with God, and the LOGOS was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John knew exactly what man was as he set out to write his gospel, so that they might believe on his name, and that believing they might have eternal life.
Don’t misunderstand me here; I was not about to throw off my certainty of right and wrong. That was too clearly ingrained in me, having been highly polished off by my grandmother who reared me. With the Bible in one hand and a switch in the other, she taught me the scriptures from the seat up. I provided her with ample opportunity, and faithful as she was, she redeemed the time for the days were evil. She was a very good driver when it came to driving folly out of the heart of the child. No, my friend, good-n-evil and right-n-wrong were not brought into doubt that day. What settled in my brain was the stark contrast between: what I knew to be true, and the ludicrous moral implications of the assertions my teacher was claiming as scientific fact.
His day turned bad when the student in the back left corner of the room attempted to decent from his indoctrination and point toward the moral question. Initially rebuffed, the student refused to be so arbitrarily and officiously denied his point. Rising to his feet, the student offered the teacher a demonstration he could not fail to grasp. Threatening to hoist the desk, approach the board, and take his natural position “the fittest” in place of diminished teacher, the student asked what rational non-arbitrary reason could the teacher plead in his self protection. The silence was not the teacher grasping the point. It turned out: the weasel was planning his escape. Misreading my theatrics, he ran off to the principal’s office to get help.
Well, he had no rational, non-arbitrary, defense; and he had no physical defense either. So he did the natural thing. He should have done the reasonable thing, and given an answer. But then I can reasonably say that, having --as I do-- revelation as my absolute. Any “should” is not a meaningful word in “nature” as evolution sees it. Even this: that the fit “should” survive: is meaningless. I guess “run” is the best one can do. Lie, hide, and cheat are OK too, as is all else. As a Christian, or even as then (an unsaved Bible raised kid), I can and did use these “should” words with the authority God gave every man. He has put his laws into all men, writing them on their hearts (understandings), so that they show this always in their moral excuses of themselves and condemnations of others. That teacher tried to condemn me to the principal. But there could be no ethical reason for him to do so within his belief system. God’s laws were on his heart too, even though he was rigorously trying to deny them. All men know they will be judged and they know the absolute law by which they will be; they judge and acquit each other all the time. With the principal, a much more intelligent man, we were able to iron all these things out, and I went back to class the next day.
So this brings me to my point in this note: Knowledge in general and moral knowing in particular must be founded on an absolute authority. Without an absolute infallible verbal revelation from man’s creator, man by reason and logic can not overcome the obstacles of irrationality, radical skepticism, and non-arbitrariness in all his thinking. Man can not be an authority unto himself; at least not rationally as his own reason and logic would demand with consistency, non-contradiction, and non-arbitrariness. Natural men try all the time, but they are inconsistent and show forth the fact, that they are created in God’s image: his logic and laws written on their hearts. They hold to rights and wrongs, they know some things, and they think. They are all a “self”: where do you think that comes from?
In the beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with God, and the LOGOS was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John knew exactly what man was as he set out to write his gospel, so that they might believe on his name, and that believing they might have eternal life.
It is all scripture that this text makes its assertions of. And so this text clearly reveals (not witnessing to it, but proposing it to us directly in words) that the Bible is inspired by God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2). This is what one must believe; it is the truth. If it were only a witness to the truth, then the proposition the verse contains would have no objective meaning at all, and anyone's encounter with it would become his "truth" with a small "t" (and to each his own). Were this the case, logic and the law of contradiction would disappear, and in the resulting irrationality, there would be nothing for any one at all to say about anything. I will try to say more later, and comment on the rest of your response. But this should at least show you where I am coming from.
