Introduction
As our world spins and continues the orbited path set
into motion, the future looks bleak with optimistic
skepticism. A decrepit world, tainted with moral
relativism, subjective truth, and religious autonomy;
what can be done? The ambience is set, the world has come
to
. . .'Go on, do me in, you bastard
cowards, I don't want to live anyway, not in a
stinking world like this one.' I told Dim to lay off
a bit then, because it used to interest me sometimes
to slooshy what some of these starry decreps had to
say about life and the world. I said: `Oh . . . And
what's stinking about it?' He cried out: `Its a
stinking world because it lets the young get on to
the old like you done, and there's no law nor order
no more . . . What sort of a world is it at all? Men
on the moon and men spinning round the earth like it
might be midges round a lamp, and there's not no
attention paid to earthly law nor order no more. So
the worst you may do, you filthy cowardly hooligans.'
So we cracked into him lovely, grinning all over our
litsos . . .[1]
Since Anthony Burgess wrote Clockwork
Orange in 1962, we have succumbed to `no law nor
order no more' on behalf of lewdies'[2] declared independence from God.
People have defined within themselves the value of
values. When morals and values are reduced and accepted
as subjective and personal, the `no law nor order no
more' has replaced truth. "Exchanging the truth of
God for a lie,"[3]
"we remove the organ and demand the function. We
make men without chests and expect of them virtue and
enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find
traitors in our midst."[4]
As society continues, are we shocked about our current
situation of starving children, abortion, drive by
shootings, police corruption, sexual promiscuity and
human rights violations? Has society really succumbed to
`no law nor order no more?' I think not! As long as
people continue to ask `why' are things the way they are,
there is hope for our decrepit society.
From the time of Moses to C.S. Lewis, men
of God have been striking at the heart of humanity to
give up, surrender, deny themselves, and follow God for
the sake of society and their souls. But our present
spiritual atmosphere is one of `no law nor order,' and
our society is on the brink of doom. As Christians, we
look for prophets, men whose iron chains are bound to God
by their gonads;[5] holy
men, righteous men, those men who seek God's thoughts and
take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.[6] One such man is C.S.
Lewis.
No healthy writer ever arises de novo.
Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was a Fellow of Magdalen
College and University Lecturer in English, and spent a
short time teaching philosophy. Lewis was for many years
the center of a group of friends called `The Inklings,'
which included writer and lay theologian Charles
Williams,[7] J.R.R.
Tolkien and a selected few others. `The Inklings' met at
a pub called the Eagle and Child "so that members
could read unpublished compositions aloud, and ask for
comments and criticisms."[8]
During the meeting years of `The
Inklings' (1939-1962), Lewis wrote many books including The
Screwtape Letters, Abolition of Man, The Great Divorce,
and Mere Christianity. Lewis is considered the
best known apologist of this century, and his popularity
continues to benefit Christians in providing reasonable
defenses for believing in the Christian concept of God.
His works "are characterized by his command of lucid
and enjoyable English, [and] enough philosophy to make
his arguments coherent and persuasive without becoming
technical."[9]
Thesis Statement
The purpose of this study is to expose
the reader to the "transcendental argument"
which is available to the Christian because God is the
necessary presupposition of all human activity. C.S.
Lewis has implemented this type of argument in many of
his apologetic writings.
This study will explain transcendental
arguments and focus upon Lewis' apologetic methodology
and illustrate how he uses the transcendental argument
which parallels Cornelius Van Til's apologetic
disposition. It is important to remember that Lewis'
method is independent of Van Til's, however, both are
rooted in Kant's "transcendental argument."
Lewis uses Kant's "transcendental argument" in
his defense of Christianity. Lewis wrote in his book
entitled Miracles that "Kant was at the root
of it."[10] The three
aspects of Lewis' defense which I will address are:
epistemology, morals, and myth. It is important to
remember these three aspects of Lewis' defense are rooted
in the transcendental argument of Kant.
Rationale for the Study
"Why study anything?" we may
ask ourselves. Do we write and research people and places
because some professor who stands at the head of a
classroom gives the order? I hope not. We study because
God has given to man the gift of knowledge (Prov 1.7).
And with the gift of knowledge, there are people who
excel, people who are unlike anybody else in this world
of learning. I believe God gives to his people, men and
women alike, the ability to create and shape ideas in
such a way that make readers read in awe. Those who read
C.S. Lewis and appreciate his intelligence agree he
offers a penetrating insight into the current state of
affairs. Lewis is a postmodernist's nightmare, an answer
to atheism, and an encourager for Christians.
The "transcendental arguments"
prove the existence of an omnipotent and sovereign God;
and that God is true and provable. Provable simply means
that God is independent of man's assertion, independent
of creation, however, coterminous, and self-attesting.
God is absolute (John 5.26; Acts 17.25). God is
sufficient unto Himself. Provable pertains to the
"transcendental argument" although men have
composed this proof of His existence by the Holy Spirit.
The idea that God is ontologically true
and ontologically provable is foreign to many Christians.
Many Christian writers and apologist writing today will
say God's existence is probable or preferred. The truth
of God's existence has nothing to do with the
psychological makeup of the person arguing. An example of
the psychological makeup would refer to the kinds of
people arguing for the existence of God. The truth has
nothing to do with the man arguing. The structure of
mathematics will not become probable or preferred if a
mathematician is convicted of rape and murder. The truth
of God is separate from ourselves and is an objective
state of affairs. Of course, this separation does not
separate God as a personal God.
There is a difference between proof and
persuasion. The truth of God's existence does not mean we
can persuade people to the transforming grace of Jesus
Christ. Plato said, "A man who is convinced against
his will, is of the same opinion still." The
greatest argument will never convince a man's heart to
turn his eyes upon Jesus. The "transcendental
argument" is not persuasion but proof of God's
existence. Without the truth of God's existence, the
"transcendental argument" would not exist.
Many Christian writers and apologist
writing today will say God's existence is probable or
preferred. An example of this is in Rebecca Manley
Pippert's book Out Of The Saltshaker and Into The
World. Pippert writes: "As Christians we do not
have absolute proof for our belief in Jesus. There is in
fact no absolute proof for any ultimate proposition,
whether Christian or Buddhist or atheist or
whatever."[11] If
the Christian can no more prove his/her religion to the
Buddhist, why do we maintain that there is a difference
between a Christian and a Buddhist? Who is to say the
Buddhist may be correct in their worldview based upon
Pippert's claim that nothing is absolutely provable? The
Rev. Joe Brown, minister of the 10,000 member Hickory
Grove Baptist Church, told his congregation: "I
cannot prove faith to you any more than I can prove to
you that strawberry ice cream is good."[12] The existence of God
and proving that strawberry ice cream is enjoyable cannot
be determined the same way.
The unbeliever will attempt to ask
questions in this way because the unbeliever "must
always strengthen itself by drinking deep of the dregs of
the evil rancor of its own malice."[13] Our apologetic defense for the
self-existent God, cannot rest upon pedantic arguments
seen in Pippert's and Brown's statements. As warned by
Kuyper, the unbeliever's malice objections to the risen
Lord Jesus Christ must be answered by careful scholarship
and not by irrational skepticism.[14] Greg Bahnsen,
philosopher and theologian, said so eloquently in a
debate between atheist philosopher Dr. Gordon Stein:
Stein claims the question
"Does God Exist?" in the same way we answer
all other questions. I call this the "crackers
in the pantry fallacy." Do we answer the
question of God's existence [or our faith] in the
same way we answer the question are there crackers in
the pantry? No! of course not. An English professor
does not analyze a poem to determine its beauty the
same way a biologist analyzes a frog . . . How then
do we resolve the conflict between the atheist and
the Christian Worldview? We can prove the existence
of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The
transcendental proof for God's existence, is that
without Him it is impossible to prove anything.[15]
Since the fall of man "the Bible
teaches plainly that Adam and Eve's fall into sin was not
just an isolated act of disobedience but an event of
catastrophic significance for creation as a whole."[16] This fall into sin, by
all ("we too all . . . by nature children of
wrath" Ephesians 2.3), speaks of the need for a
redeemer. This need for a redeemer was brought upon our
own shoulders by our wickedness and sin, however, grace
is solely a gift from God to those He has chosen
(Ephesians 1-2). We cannot, by any biblical means, lower
the claims of God upon man. The burden of truth rests
solely upon the self-existent and self-attesting God of
the Scriptures.
Unfortunately, what Pippert and many
Christian writers do when they say things like this is
reduce the Christian experience to: nothing is provable.
This type of apologetic method leads to an
epistemological fallacy. In a sense, Pippert is
attempting to prove her statement while at the same time
says nothing is objectively provable. Greg Bahnsen says:
This is not Christian thinking.[17] As Christians, we must realize that
all thinking must rest solely upon the self-existent,
self-sufficient transcendence´ of God. We must realize
that God is "independent in everything . . . in His
virtues, decrees, works, and so on . . . by which He is
free from all limitations"[18] and that man and his thoughts,
limited and derivative since created, come from God (Prov
1.7; Job 28.28; Ps. 111.10). "God is true being, the
source of all being, the creator of all things which
exist other than Himself"[19] whether material or immaterial in
nature.
One must note, Lewis at his best uses the
"transcendental argument" when writing
apologetics. Lewis saw that when non-believers resist the
factual arguments for the existence of God,[20] as he did
before belief, one must think preternatural and realize
that "He is the source from which all . . .
reasoning power comes . . . [and that] God designed the
human machine to run on Himself."[21]
Statement of Presuppositions
Before heading out of our house, we must
first dress ourselves for the occasion. For a day of
recreation, we may wear shorts and t-shirt, and for a
formal dinner a tuxedo would suffice the occasion. What
one wears can raise a certain question. If a person is
wearing a tuxedo, we can suspect the person is not going
water skiing. If a person has on a pair of shorts and
running shoes we can say that this person is going to
exercise. When we approach a certain activity or task, we
have many different choices of clothing to wear. In
philosophy, what one wears to extrapolate a certain
theory will fabricate his/her opinion on the matter at
hand. "Everyone who weighs a theory has certain
beliefs as to what constitutes an acceptable sort of
theory on the matter under consideration. We can call
these control beliefs." [22]
The importance of knowing one's own
control beliefs or presuppositions will show the
foundation of one's thought and approach toward the task
at hand: is one's thinking rooted in the ontology of God
or the autonomy of man? There are two kinds of people,
and regeneration
breaks humanity in two, . . .
being begotten anew . . . establishes a radical
change in the being of man, be it only potentially,
this change [grace] exercises at the same time an
influence upon his consciousness . . . but one is
inwardly different from the other, and consequently
feels a different content rising from his
consciousness.[23]
This radical change from apostasy, now
fellowship with God, must press upon the heart of the
changed man to conform his thinking to be like the mind
of Christ's. Because in Christ, all the treasures of
wisdom is stored (Col. 2.3), and the Christian is called
to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ
(2 Cor. 10.3-5). One's ultimate presupposition must be
God's word which "is inspired by God and profitable
for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training
in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate,
equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3.16-17).
When study is guided by the Holy Spirit, Scriptures are
always the foundation for one's work and the testing
ground for one's work.
It is with this presupposition that this
author will place the Scripture in authority over
self-reason by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. From this
inspired Bible, the infallible document written by holy
men of God guided by the Holy Spirit, we must derive our
doctrines. May God be praised and glorified by and
through this study. Paul encourages us to "sanctify
Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make
a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for
the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and
reverence" (1 Peter 3. 15). Upon His Rock, we shall
build His church for the glory of the Kingdom.
The "transcendental argument"
is an apologetic task. It involves much study and
devotion to the word of God. With Christ set apart in
one's spirit and mind, the "transcendental
argument" provides proof for the existence of God
who is our hope in Christ Jesus. Christian, rejoice in
the now (hope) and in the not yet (victory in Christ)!
Nature of the Transcendental Argument
The term transcendental[24] was first used by the philosopher
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) who is considered the greatest
figure in modern philosophy.[25]
Kant was not an orthodox Christian, but he did believe in
some form of the existence of God. Kant was dismayed with
the intellectual propositions of the philosopher David
Hume, whose philosophy, like Kant's, promoted
intellectual autonomy apart from any type of
authoritative revelation. However, it was Hume's
empiricism (the belief that everything is reduced to
sense experience), skeptical as it was, that could not
"prove any propositions concerning physical causes,
moral values, God, human freedom, or the human
self."[26]
Kant once stated, "Hume interrupted
my dogmatic slumber." He dismissed Hume's'
empiricism[27] and
adopted what he called the "transcendental
method." By this Kant means
To isolate the factors that
make possible the kind of sense perception we as
human beings are subject to. It is concerned, to
put it a little more technically, with the
analysis of the condition (or preconditions)
presupposed by knowledge. It is a method of
investigation that starts with some facts about
our experience and then asks: What are the
conditions that make this fact possible, that
explain this fact?[28]
Kant argued that human thought was
incapable of knowing the "real" world-things as
they really are. When we look at an object, such as a
table, we will agree that the object under examination is
a table. Kant would say "all knowledge that is
concerned, not with objects, but with the way in which a
knowledge of objects may be gained, so far as that is
possible a priori. "[29] In other words, how and why do we
call the table a table? The only way, according to Kant,
of achieving a dependable knowledge of our own experience
is by asking the question, "What are the conditions
that make thought possible?" Van Til and Lewis would
agree with Kant,[30]
however, both Van Til and Lewis' "dogmas of the
faith provide the necessary preconditions of
intelligibility and meaning."[31]
Cornelius Van Til, theologian and
philosopher who studied at Princeton University in the
1920s, advocated a type of transcendental method that was
strictly Christian. Although Van Til uses Kant's idea,
Van Til's conclusion was radically different because of
his Christ-centered thinking. Van Til saw the
transcendental principle as not mere fact, but an
argument for the existence of God based upon presupposing
his existence.[32] "The
argument is `transcendental,' even presuppositional in a
sense."[33] Van Til
and Kant are both asking: "What are the assumptions
necessary for life and knowledge to be possible?"[34] Presupposing the
existence of God, Van Til believes is the only way we can
prove anything at all; he states:
that we argue, therefore, by
presupposition. The Christian, as did Tertullian,
must contest the very principles of his opponent's
position. The only proof of the Christian position is
that unless its truth is presupposed there is no
possibility of proving anything at all. The actual
state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the
necessary foundation of proof itself.[35]
We understand reality through the
use of knowledge, and we understand knowledge because
we must posit a transcendent God "from whom we
receive a transcendent standard to judge and
understand human temporal experience."[36] The
transcendental argument examines any fact of
experience and seeks to determine what the
presuppositions of such a fact are. This process,
called transcendental argument (thinking), finds what
makes the fact what it is. "Thus the
transcendental argument seeks to discover what sort
of foundations the house of human knowledge must
have, in order to be what it is. It does not seek to
find whether the house has a foundation, but
presupposes that it has one."[37]
Why is the "transcendental
argument" important to the Christian? With
transcendental reasoning, one's thought will be forced to
worldview considerations.
A person's worldview stipulates how the
world ought to be in relation to politics, education,
family, arts, environmental concerns, and religion just
to name a few.[38] The
"transcendental argument" forces a person's
worldview to consider the preconditions for a particular
worldview. A worldview is the way we look at the world,
and a person's worldview (in order to be consistent) must
ask tough philosophical questions, as well as, be
prepared and ready to answer tough philosophical
questions. How we know what we know; how we live our
lives in conjunction to our experiences, and how we make
these questions intelligibly? "For Christians, the
ultimate criterion by which we judge our worldview is the
Bible. It is God's revelation of reality. Paul tells
Timothy that the Scriptures have a purpose; they are to
teach, reprove and correct us, and to train us in
righteousness so that we may be equipped for a life of
good work (2 Tim 3.17-17) As our worldview is informed,
corrected and shaped by the Scriptures under the guidance
of the [Holy] Spirit, we will receive direction for our
way of life."[39]
We can see how the transcendental argument leads to
worldview considerations because the existence of God is
true and provable.
First, the unbeliever opposes the
Christian faith, not in tiny abstract sediments of
thought nor piecemeal criticisms. The unbeliever attacks
the Christian worldview "at its foundation. The
particular criticisms utilized by the unbeliever rest
upon basic, key assumptions which unify and inform his
thinking."[40] John
Cage, a well known philosopher, musician,[41] and amateur mushroom-grower, cannot
live consistently within his worldview of chance and
randomness.[42] Cage, in
order to stay alive, has to accept some form of order
when picking mushrooms to eat from his garden. Mushrooms
can poison you and may cause death. In a chance universe,
they would not, because nothing would exist. Cage cannot
live consistently within his worldview without borrowing
from the Christian worldview which proclaims absolute
truth. In order for him not to grow poisonous mushrooms
and eat them, he must presuppose the Christian worldview.
C.S. Lewis offers a penetrating insight for the Christian
worldview to critique the chance universe Cage proclaims.
Lewis expresses:
It begins to look as if we shall
have to admit that there is more than one kind of
reality; that, in this particular case, there is
something above and beyond the ordinary facts of
men's behaviour, and yet quite definitely real-a real
law, which none of us made, but which we find
pressing on us . . . a real law which we did not
invent and which we know we ought to obey.[43]
The chance worldview John Cage adheres to
will not display order in the universe or absolute truth,
however, in the depth of his heart, conscience tells him
something different. It tells him there is order in the
universe and that poisonous mushrooms can kill you if
ingested into the body. Cage simple borrows worldview
considerations[44] from
the Christian to justify that he is living in a chance
universe which is impossible. The apostle Paul writes
with authority: "For although they knew God, they
neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but
their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
were darkened" (Rom 1.21). The only reason Cage can
borrow from the Christian worldview is God has revealed
Himself to every man (creational revelation). Man simply
chooses to suppress the transcendent omnipotent God who
has revealed Himself against all the godlessness and
wickedness of man (Rom 1.18). It can be clearly shown
that a worldview presupposing a chance universe is
allergic to worldview considerations. As shown, man
cannot be homo autonomous nor can he be nomos
autos, because "Modern [Worldly] philosophy is
allergic to worldview considerations. Modern philosophy
(non-Christian worldviews) is very narrow and
transcendental reasoning gives a broad framework"[45] in refuting the
unbeliever's claims against the objectively true and
provable God which the Scriptures reveal.
Secondly, Lewis offers more helpful
insight in The Problem Of Pain by using a
transcendental argument. Lewis believes that this awe to
explain the Numinous[46]
"is not the result of an inference from the visible
universe."[47] In
agreement with Paul, Lewis echoes the words of the
apostle in agreeing to: "But a natural man does not
accept the things of the Spirit of God" (1 Cor
2.14). Had Lewis quoted this in such a way that we can
explain the Numinous from the visible universe, this
would have been a direct mischief into the sceptism of
Hume's empiricism, therefore contrary to the teachings of
Scripture. In order for the Supernatural to be explained,
Lewis says: "Most attempts to explain the Numinous
presuppose the thing to be explained."[48] As in the
beauty of something, Lewis says:
Just as no enumeration of the
physical qualities of a beautiful object could ever
include its beauty, or give the faintest hint of what
we mean by beauty to a creature without aesthetic[49] experience, so
no factual description of any human environment could
include the uncanny and the Numinous or even hint at
them.[50]
Thirdly, just as something that
illustrates beauty, a sermon may have the same type of
aesthetic aspect as in a beautiful painting or a
beautiful woman. However, just as the beauty in a
painting or a woman may so be determined, this opinion
does not come from the finite temporal mind of man,[51] but is given by God.
"A sermon, for example, has an aesthetic aspect but
it must not be primarily evaluated according to norms of
aesthetics. It must be judged primarily by the Holy
Scripture, the norm of faith,"[52] which is the foundation for judging
something valid or invalid; beautiful or unattractive.
Van Til was well known for presenting his
"two circle diagram" which signifies that the
theist recognizes in his worldview a Creator/creature
distinction. Van Til insisted "Christianity has a
`two-circle' worldview, as opposed to secular thought,
which has only `one-circle' thinking."[53] Van Til is showing
that reality as a whole consists of the Creator (the
ultimate starting point) and creation (the actual
derivative from the starting point). Lewis as well
recognized that the metaphysical makeup of the universe
has a reality which is made up of two levels. Lewis said:
"I think Kant is at the root of it." Both Van
Til and Lewis used Kant's transcendental method in which
to understand the universe and its disposition. In an
unbelievers' worldview, the one circle of reality is
limited to the material or temporal observation in
seeking out the preconditions of any fact. Lewis states:
We are prepared to believe either
in a reality with one floor or in a reality with two
floors, but not in a reality like a skyscraper with
several floors. We are prepared, on the one hand, for
the sort of reality that Naturalists believe in. That
is a one-floor reality: this present Nature is all
that there is.[54]
It is pressing to note that Lewis'
concept as stated above is not proving something is
transcendent or that there is something out there, he
specifically recognizes that there is reality with a
ground floor (creation) and,
then above that one other floor
and one only-an eternal, spaceless, timeless,
spiritual Something of which we can have no images
and which, if it presents itself to human
consciousness at all, does so in a mystical
experience which shatters all our categories of
thought . . . Most certainly, beyond all worlds,
unconditioned and unimaginable, transcending
discursive thought, there yawns for ever the ultimate
Fact, the fountain of all other facthood, the burning
and undimensioned depth of the Divine Life . . . it
is rather in Him that all places exist.[55]
Another example of how Lewis uses the
"transcendental argument" is by the following
example. Lewis says that the whole of Christian theology
could be deduced by two facts: "(a) That men make
coarse jokes, and (b) That they feel the dead to be
uncanny."[56]
Regarding the coarse joke, men either
find these funny or they object to them. Why must an
unbeliever object to a crude joke or find it tickling him
or shocking to his insides? This "shock" and
"laughter" cannot be a part of the one floor of
reality; this one floor of reality cannot explain or make
intelligible these types of experiences. This
"shock" and "laughter" rings outside
the Naturalists (unbelievers) worldview. Using facets of
a transcendental argument, Lewis says:
It is very difficult to imagine
such a state of affairs as oringinal-to suppose a
creature which from the very first was halfshocked
and half tickled to death at the mere fact of being
the creature it is . . . The explanations which
Naturalism gives both of bodily shame and of our
feeling about the dead are not satisfactory. It
refers us to primitive taboos and superstitions-as if
these themselves were not obviously results of the
thing to be explained. But once accept the Christian
doctrine that man was originally a unity and that the
present division is unnatural, and all the phenomena
fall into place.
Summary of the Transcendental Argument
The book of Proverbs instructs us, in
defending our faith against the unbeliever. Christians
must "Not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest
you also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly
deserves, Lest he be wise in his own eyes" (Proverbs
26.4-5). An unbeliever, upon his autonomous
presuppositions, will deny the existence of God. Lewis'
atheism led him to say, "My argument against God was
that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had
I got this idea of just and unjust?"[57] The unbeliever's worldview cannot,
according to his own folly, make intelligible choices or
sense out of the universe without borrowing from the
Christian worldview. Many unbelievers think the universe
is unjust. Thinking like fools (Ps. 14.1), the
unbeliever, upon this presupposition warrants a valid
argument for the non-existence of God. The nonbeliever
cannot see this universe as unjust unless they deny the
laws of logic. In order to do so, one must affirm the
laws of logic to deny the laws of logic. This type of
thinking is wishful thinking upon the nonbeliever's
worldview.
What has been simply pointed out is the
"transcendental argument" does not look away
from objects or facts; it explores the realms of its
depths, discerning what lies behind the fact to make it
an interpreted intelligible fact. This argument
establishes the very possibility of anything existing at
all. Van Til says:
Therefore the claim must be made
that Christianity alone is reasonable for men to
hold. And it is utterly reasonable. It is wholly
irrational to hold to any other position than that of
Christianity. Christianity alone does not crucify
reason itself . . . The best, the only, the
absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity
is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no
proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being
the very foundation of the idea of proof itself.[58]
The transcendental argument Lewis uses
involves three different facets.[59] Arguments from epistemology,
morality, and mythology are three of Lewis' arguments for
the defense of Christianity which have a
"transcendental countenance." The following
chapters will examine these areas.
Transcendental Arguments from
Epistemology
Epistemological arguments start with the
phenomenon of human rationality and studies the nature
and basis of experience; it asks what we know and how we
know it. The only reason we know anything at all, as
Proverbs 1.7 says, "The fear of the Lord is the
beginning of all knowledge." The non-believer uses
reasoning skills; that is not in debate, and the only way
the non-believer reasons is he borrows from the Christian
worldview. Since Christians believe that God is the
creator of the universe; the only way things can be known
is by presupposing the existence of God. The non-believer
cannot give an account for the preconditions necessary to
make use of logic, reason, learning, certainty, and
truth. The Christian worldview demonstrates the foolish
rationality of the non-believer by showing the
non-believers system of thought is arbitrary,
inconsistent with itself and lacking the preconditions
for the intelligibility of knowledge. By showing the
non-believer this, the Christian shows how the
non-Christian worldview has to assume the Christian
worldview in order to deny it. We have to agree that both
the believer and non-believer are made in the image of
God, however, "Metaphysically, both parties have all
things in common, while epistemologically they have
nothing in common."[60]
What this means is simply the Christian and the
non-Christian have opposing philosophies and how one
comes to know anything is contrary to one another.
Epistemology has a transcendental
necessity because how we come into knowing anything must
presuppose the fear of the Lord. The believer does so
through obedience to Christ; the non-believer does so by
suppressing the sovereign Lord and borrowing from the
Christian worldview.
C.S. Lewis believes the Naturalist[61] system of thought
contradicts itself. In fact, he devotes a whole chapter
in his book Miracles titled, `The
Self-Contradiction of the Naturalist.'
Lewis demands for naturalism to explain
every finite thing or event.[62]
He defines Naturalism as "the doctrine that only
Nature- the whole interlocked system-exists."[63] Therefore the
Naturalist believes that everything in the universe is
one thing with no God or gods. This type of thinking
creates a contradiction in the thinking of the
Naturalist. The Naturalist believes the make-up of the
universe to be of irrational causes, however, a
naturalist will ask `why' apart from what `is.' Lewis
finds that when a Naturalist is confronted with an
irrational cause, he will choose the rational. He says,
When a sober man tells you that
the house is full of rats or snakes, you attend to
him: if you know that his belief in the rats and
snakes is due to delirium tremens you do not even
bother to look for them.[64]
But why should the Naturalist think any
differently? If the mind is irrational and only a product
of the natural system, how can it be that the Naturalist
does not believe the man suffering from DT's, and yet
believes the sober man? The Naturalist contradicts
himself by choosing to believe the sober man, because the
sober man's reasoning has values. The Naturalist believes
the universe is irrational, but he knows better than to
trust thoughts produced by alcohol or lunacy. Lewis says:
"The Naturalist cannot condemn other people's
thoughts because they have irrational causes and continue
to believe his own which have (if Naturalism is true)
equally irrational causes." A Naturalist claims to
know no truth, but undermines his own claim by this very
assertion. How can the Naturalist claim to know anything
"truthfully" if there is no truth? Lewis says,
"You can argue with a man who says, `Rice is
unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a
man who says, `Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying
this is true.' "[65]
Lewis saw how the Naturalist's arguments
fall short in asking questions about the makeup of the
universe. If a Naturalist asks the question,
"why"? then he is measuring what "is"
by a standard independent of what "is."[66] In Miracles,
Lewis uses the transcendental argument showing how the
Naturalist falls short in answering the question Dr. Greg
Bahnsen was known to ask: "What are the
preconditions of the intelligibility of human
experience?"[67]
Lewis portrays how the Naturalists neglect the
preconditions of using reason:
All these instances show that
the fact which is in one respect the most obvious
and primary fact, and through which alone you
have access to all the other facts, may be
precisely the one that is most easily
forgotten-forgotten not because it is so remote
or abstruse but because it is so near and so
obvious. And that is exactly how the Supernatural
has been forgotten. The Naturalists have been
engaged in thinking about Nature. They have not
attended to the fact that they were thinking. The
moment one attends to this it is obvious that
one's own thinking cannot be merely a natural
event, and that therefore something other than
Nature exists.[68]
Naturalists can think and use reason;
this is not in question here. What Lewis is arguing is
`window thinking.' I have coined this term stemming from
his analysis of a person concentrating and identifying a
particular object. The object in view for a Naturalist
"is to ignore the fact of your own thinking, and
concentrate on the object."[69] Lewis goes on to say,
In the same way the proper
procedure for all limited and particular inquires is
to ignore the fact of your own thinking, and
concentrate on the object. It is only when you stand
back from particular inquiries and try to form a
complete philosophy that you must take it into
account. For a complete philosophy must get in all
the facts. In it you turn away from specialized or
truncated thought to total thought: and one of the
facts total thought must think about is Thinking
itself . . . It is therefore not in the least
astonishing that they should have forgotten the
evidence for the Supernatural.[70]
Lewis argues that since the Sixteenth Century, when
Empiricism came to power, men have focused on mastering
nature in order to know nature. Lewis believes, because
of Empiricism, truncated thought was the master of these
men. Truncated thought is the "scientific"
habit of the mind- this would lead a person to Naturalism
because this tendency towards truncated thought was
"metaphysically and theologically uneducated."[71]
The inconsistency of the Naturalist
worldview as stated above cannot give an account for the
use of reason, explanation, interpretation, certainty,
and the intelligibility of anything without borrowing
from the Christian worldview. The Naturalist will deny
borrowing from the Christian worldview, however, the
Scriptures teaches, "All wisdom and knowledge are
hid in Christ" (Col 2.3-8). At this point, the
non-believer's choices are either "to acknowledge
the truth revealed by God's word (and repent of his sins,
including intellectual autonomy) or to reject rationality
itself." If the Naturalist rejects rationality, what
will he use to reject it? It is obvious that epistemology
has a "transcendental" facet since it seeks to
ask, how we know and what we know, beyond the natural
world.
Transcendental Argument from Morality
John Frame says: "Moral values,
after all, are rather strange. We cannot see them, or
feel them, but we cannot doubt that they exist."[72] We all know morals
exist because we all either help someone in time of need
or we acknowledge when harm is done to a certain group of
people or individual. What `is' and what `ought' to be
are categorically different ways to look at morality. For
example, a tow truck driver who dents the front of a
customer's car may not say anything to the customer
because he believes waking up at three in the morning to
tow this person's car is a favor. However, I'm sure the
customer, whose front end is now dented, would see it
differently. The tow truck driver will prosper if he
hides the damage to the vehicle, whereas the customer who
has done nothing morally wrong gets the raw end of the
deal. The Psalmist is right when he says the wicked
sometime prosper and the righteous sometimes die
penniless. The tow truck driver is bringing good
consequences to the stranded motorist; however, the tow
truck driver has performed an act that is morally not
good. He dented the front end of the stranded motorist
and has neglected to tell him.
Some would say that moral values are
subjective and therefore left to individuals. To the
Naturalist, values are random and are collisions of
subatomic particles. Moral laws must be either personal
or impersonal. The Naturalist assumes they are relative.
But where do these moral principles come from? How can an
impersonal moral law make us obligated? Lewis again
offers insight and arguments for a personal God who is
responsible for moral values.
In addition to using logic and making
decisions that affect our lives, we also make moral
judgments. What Lewis raises is a fundamental question
about morality and why we choose to make moral decisions.
There are two distinct entities which make up morality:
good and evil. We reason about matters of fact; "men
also make moral judgments --'I ought to do this'-- `I
ought not to do that.' " Lewis believes that moral
decisions are rationally perceived.[73] Since our epistemology has a
transcendental aspect, Lewis is consistent with his view
of morals being rationally perceived. It is somewhat the
same as the trickle down effect in former President
Ronald Reagan's idea about economics. There is a relation
between epistemology and morals; because, how we come to
know something has a transcendental foundation and how we
make moral decisions is based upon our epistemology.
If the ought and ought not (morals) can
be explained by Naturalism, then the ideas of ought and
ought not are illusions.[74]
Lewis argues that these concepts cannot be explained by
irrational and non-moral causes.[75] If morals are simply chemical
conditions and random collisions of protons and neutrons,
by what standard can the Naturalist argue that natural
disasters, children dying, victims of cancer, and ten
million Ukrainians slaughtered in World War II are acts
of immorality? The Christian can argue and prove that the
way things `ought to be' are because paradise has been
lost. Can a Naturalist live consistently with his
premises? No, he cannot. Is the killing of 6 million Jews
in Germany morally wrong? In a Naturalist worldview this
act would be part of chemical conditions and random acts
of chance of particles that make up our universe. The
Naturalist cannot live by "To hell with your
standard."[76] The
Naturalists' therefore must borrow from the Christian
worldview due to their inconsistencies within the whole
system of thought contained in their worldview. Commons
grace makes it possible for the Naturalist to condemn
Hitler's Germany and also contribute to the field of
science, writing, and inventing (Matt. 5.45; Acts
17.25-26; 2 Thess. 2.6-7). Van Til says: "Every man
can contribute to the progress of science. Every man must
contribute to it. It is his task to do so. And he cannot
help but fulfill his task even if it be against his will
. . . [but] Only on the basis of the work of Christ,
then, does the unity of science actually exist and will
it be actually consummated."[77]
As humans, we are subject to certain
non-negotiable laws such as the laws of gravitation and
biology. These types of laws we share with animals, but
Lewis indicates there are laws that apply to us and not
to other things. Lewis says, "but the law which is
peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share
with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the
one he can disobey if he chooses."[78] The tow truck driver mentioned
earlier would have been upset had the customer dented the
hood of the tow truck; however, the tow truck driver
could care less about the customer's hood. The conclusion
must be that the tow truck driver does not believe in a
real right and wrong until this right and wrong puts him
in the center. Lewis concludes:
Whenever you find a man who says
he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you
will find the same man going back on this a moment
later. He may break his promise to you, but if you
try breaking one to him he will be complaining `Its
not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson. . . .
that human beings, all over the earth, have this
curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain
way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that
they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the
Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the
foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and
the universe we live in.[79]
Morals work both ways, even to those who
deny them. This puts the Naturalist in a position where
he, whether he knows it or not,[80] operates by moral choices. Here
again, the Naturalist has been exposed of his foolish
thinking about asking `why?' As explained, the question,
"why?" is a powerful witness for the existence
of the God dictated in the infallible Scriptures.[81]
Transcendental Argument from Myth
Before myth[82]
became fact for Lewis, he underwent numerous long night
talks with J.R. Tolkien and H.D. Dyson, friends of Lewis'
from undergraduate days. He also had in depth
conversations with Owen Barfield who had "shown
Lewis that Myth has a central place in the whole of
language and literature."[83] Lewis once referred to myths as
"lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed
through silver."[84]
For Lewis, myth at this time in his life was simply a
mirage and this myth, beautiful as it may be, is just
lies. Until Tolkien convinced Lewis that myths held truth
(that, indeed, the Gospel was the grandest of myths, yet
rooted in historical truth) Lewis rejected both gospel
and myth.
Lewis understood the power of myth but
could not bring himself to believe that myths held any
truth. Tolkien explained to Lewis that myths were not
lies. Tolkien proved to Lewis that man was not ultimately
a liar, but that, man perverted his thoughts into lies.
Tolkien believed that man's ultimate ideals come from God
because man comes from God. Tolkien continued to explain
to Lewis that not only do our abstract thoughts come from
God "but also our imaginative inventions must
originate with God, and must in consequence reflect
something of eternal truth."[85] Tolkien says: "Fantasy remains
a human right: we make in our measure and in our
derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made,
but made in the image and likeness of a Maker."[86] Tolkien explained to
Lewis that fairy stories and myths, although created in
our minds, actually reflected a fragment of true light.
Tolkien went on to say that pagan myths "are
therefore never just `lies': there is always something of
the truth in them."[87]
Tolkien presented his argument to Lewis
compellingly:
`Dear Sir,' I said- `Although now
long estranged, Man is not wholly lost nor wholly
changed. Dis-graced he may be, yet is not de-throned,
and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned: Man,
Sub-creator, the refracted Light through whom is
splintered from a single White to many hues, and
endlessly combined in living shapes that move from
mind to mind. Though all the crannies of the world we
filled with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to
build Gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sowed the seed of dragons-'twas our right (used
or misused). That right has not decayed: we make
still by the law in which we're made.[88]
Tolkien continued over a period of time
to convince Lewis that myths have truth contained in
them. Lewis was unsure how the death and resurrection of
Christ could have saved the world. Tolkien had been
explaining earlier how myths were "God expressing
himself through the minds of poets, and using the images
of their `mythopoeia' to express fragments of his eternal
truth."[89] Tolkien
proceeded in telling Lewis how Christianity was a myth
but different because God invented it with actual history
and the people were real. Lewis responded: "You
mean," asked Lewis, "that the story of Christ
is simply a true myth, a myth that works on us in the
same way as the others, but a myth that really happened?
In that case, he said, I begin to understand."[90] Tolkien had explained
to Lewis how there was actually a real dying God with a
precise point in history with historical consequences.[91]
Lewis was fond of myths and never
questioned the story behind the Balder and Adonis myths
or any other myth that portrayed a dying God. Tolkien
challenged Lewis' position about myth and drove him back
to his presuppositions (Lewis' belief that myth was
`breathed through silver'). While Lewis appreciated myth
and the stories portrayed in them, he had failed to stop
and think about his thinking. Lewis assumed that
"myths were lies" but never thought about how
they could be true coming from a Naturalist worldview he
once believed.
Twelve days after Lewis had talked with
Tolkien concerning Christianity and myth, he wrote to
Arthur Greeves saying: "I have just passed on from
believing in God to definitely believing in Christ-in
Christianity. I will try to explain this another time. My
long night talk with Dyson and Tolkien had a good deal to
do with it."[92]
Lewis eventually understood Tolkien's argument about myth
being true and beyond our experience. Already fond of
myths, Lewis now defended them as conveyers of something
that is true but yet beyond reason. William Van Gemeren
says:
Mythology supplies an
interpretation of human experience and custom. It is
more comprehensive framework within which individuals
and society understand themselves and in terms of
which they explain all that is beyond rational
explanation.[93]
Myth has a transcendental facet because
myth goes beyond the natural world to explain truths and
reality. By transcendental,
We understand that which-enclosed
in cosmic time-is a necessary prerequisite for
temporal existence, to make possible the concrete
reality. Transcendental does not itself belong to
concrete things, but it belongs to what is general
and what exceeds the variable individuality of things
. . . It refers to what is at the foundation of
reality as the necessary prerequisite of temporal
experience.[94]
Lewis said "myth is the isthmus
which connects the peninsular world of thought with that
vast continent we really belong to . . . Now as myth
transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. The
heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a
fact."[95] He says
in An Experiment in Criticism, "Myth is
always, in one sense of that word, `fantastic.' It deals
with impossibles and preternaturals."[96] Lewis recognizes in order to
understand the Gospel message, one must transcend his
thinking and go beyond the natural world for this Dying
God myth to be real.
In The Pilgrim's Regress, Lewis
writes about how our imagination can lead to the truth
about God:
But then another voice spoke to
him from behind him, saying: `Child, if you will, it
is mythology. It is but truth, not fact: an image,
not the very real. But then it is My mythology. . .
This is my Inventing, this is the veil under which I
have chosen to appear even from the first until now.
For this end I made your senses and for this end your
imagination, that you might see my face and live.[97]
We see how the use of myths offer
glimpses into a less tainted world than the one now
called earth, the fallen and `bent' world. The better
world according to Lewis is "Deep Heaven" and
"But Heaven is not a state of mind. Heaven is
reality itself. "[98]
Lewis stresses here that reality is not something of the
natural mind, the state of it, but Heaven is what makes
reality. "God the trumpeter, Myth the trumpet, Joy
the tune."[99]
We have seen how Lewis has portrayed myth
and how it seeks to go beyond our experiences. On October
24, 1931, Jack wrote a letter to his brother Warnie about
the idea of God. He wrote: "...it is arguable that
the `idea of God' in some minds, does contain, not a mere
abstract definition, but a real imaginative perception of
goodness and beauty beyond their own resources."[100] Our faith in God does
not rely upon a mere abstract thought, but we must
realize that our faith "is not one of the many
functions of man like feeling, thinking or love, but it
lies on a deeper level. Faith belongs to the transcendent
dimension."[101]
Summary
The primary goal of this study has been
to examine, understand and develop a cognitive synthesis
of the "transcendental argument" and examples
used by C.S. Lewis. Understanding of this specific type
of argument for the existence of God does not come easy
for some and will not come to those without the saving
grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. First of all, it is
logical to conclude that an unbeliever cannot and will
not defend the existence of the Christian God, since it
is man's internal nature to resist the things which are
righteous and good (Romans 3.9-20).
The Reformed Christian must understand
and bear in mind that the existence of God is true and
provable, because without God nothing could be proven.
The ontological being of God does not rest upon the
assumption of man, God exists without man caring to know
or wanting to know. The Christian can prove His existence
by presupposing His truth only by the working of the Holy
Spirit; which, presses upon man to repent and come to the
saving grace of Jesus Christ. This is the heart of the
transcendental argument.
In order to understand reality, reality
must have a transcendental aspect or we cannot understand
anything at all. Lewis said, "But human reason
cannot be explained by rational or naturalistic causes;
rather, it must come from a self-existent reason, a
supernatural reality that can be called God."[102] To understand this
universe and all that is contained within it, man must
think beyond, into the realms of philosophy and theology.
What has been the purpose of studying
philosophy and theology within the contours of C.S.
Lewis? Do we simply read Lewis because we are required to
do the assignments? No! We read and study for the glory
of God. The life of faith is an ongoing sanctification
and learning more about the God we serve is our obedience
to him. "Christian Education, simply defined, is the
ministry of bringing the believer to maturity in Jesus
Christ."[103]
Paul says the Christian must have his/her mind renewed
(Rom. 12.2). By understanding the transcendental argument
and the epistemological, moral, and myth facets Lewis
uses enables Christians' to share with unbelievers a
defense of our faith with certainty that an omnipotent
sovereign God exists. Reading and studying Lewis is one
way of having our minds renewed and living out this call
to sanctification.
Endnotes
[1]Anthony
Burgess, A Clockwork Orange (New York: Ballantine
Books, 1962), 20-21. Burgess said this about Lewis:
"Lewis is the ideal persuader for the
half-convinced, for the good man who would like to be a
Christian but finds his intellect getting in the
way."
[2] People
[3] Romans 1:25
[4] C.S. Lewis, The
Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company, 1947), p. 35.
[5] For an excellent
example of this, look at Peter Kreeft, Ecumenical
Jihad: Ecumenism And The Culture War (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 1996), p. 15.
[6] 2 Corinthians 10.5
[7] Williams role in
Lewis' life during World War II was like a `spell'
according to J.R.R. Tolkien. He was admitted into the
literary circle that surrounded Lewis. Williams' novel The
Place of the Lion influenced Lewis immensely. Lewis' That
Hideous Strength, The Great Divorce, Till We Have Faces,
and The Four Loves echoes Williams' influence upon
Lewis.
[8] Humphrey Carpenter, The
Inklings (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1979), p.
57.
[9] R.L. Sturch,
"Clive Staples Lewis," in New Dictionary of
Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F.
Wright, and J.I. Packer. (Illinois: Intervarsity Press,
1988), p. 383.
[10]C.S. Lewis,
Miracles. (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1978), p.
154.
[11] Rebecca Pippert, Out
Of The Saltshaker and Into The World. (Illinois:
Intervarsity Press, 1979), p. 154.
[12] Ken Garfield,
"Showing People Heaven," The Charlotte
Observer, 14 June 1997, sec. G, p. 1.
[13] Abraham Kuyper, His
Decease at Jerusalem. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946),
p. 36.
[14] What I mean by
saying this is by simple restating Pippert's claim that
ultimately there is no proof for any proposition. If
that's the case, I do not exist, therefore I ain't using
the word ain't in this sentence nor has anyone else in
this world. Yes, ultimately I declare Pippert as a
genuine skeptic in her writings, not her heart which I
believe belongs to Jesus.
[15] "The Great
Debate?" The Great Debate: Does God Exist? Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein. Audio cassette. 1985.
[16] Albert M. Wolters, Creation
Regained. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1985),
p. 44.
[17] "Four Types of
Proof." Transcendental Arguments: Nuclear
Strength Apologetics. by Greg Bahnsen. Audio
cassette. 1995.
[18] Louis Berkhof, Systematic
Theology, rev.4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1939/1941), p. 58-59.
[19] William Hasker, Metaphysics:
Constructing a Worldview (Illinois: Intervarsity
Press, 1983), p. 105.
[20] Christian theism.
[21] C.S. Lewis, Mere
Christianity (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1952),
p. 52, 54.
[22] Nicholas
Wolterstorff, Reason within the Bounds of Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,1993), p. 67.
[23] Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedia
of Sacred Theology: Its Principles (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1898), pp. 152,154.
[24] That which lies in
and behind concrete things.
[25] S. Morris Engel, The
Study of Philosophy (San Diego: Collegiate Press,
1990), p. 171.
[26] John Frame, Apologetics
to the Glory of God (New Jersey: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing, 1994), p. 70.
[27] Even Bertrand
Russell observes that "Hume's philosophy, whether
true or false, represents the bankruptcy of
eighteenth-century reasonableness." Colin M. Brown, Philosophy
and The Christian Faith. (Illinois: Intervarsity
Press, 1968), p. 70.
[28] Engel, 325-326.
[29] Engel, 326.
[30] Gordon Spykman,
Dutch-American Theologian, agrees that Kant was the great
mastermind of the Enlightment and in him, we all walk in
his shadow. "Thus in one fell swoop Kant, while
drawing on more than a millennium of Western Christian
theology, radically overthrew it. He exploded the idea of
natural theology, of philosophy providing a rational
foundation for theology, of faith supported by reason,
and of reasoned Prolegomena as introduction to dogmatics.
In the process Kant swept aside and thoroughly
discredited the classic rational proofs for the existence
of God as philosophical underpinnings for Christian
theology." Gordon Spykman, Reformational
Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1992), p. 30.
[31] Greg Bahnsen, Always
Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (Texarkana:
Covenant Media Foundation, 1996), p. 75.
[32] Frame, 70. Also see
John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1987),
p. 175.
[33] John Frame, Cornelius
Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (New Jersey:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1995), p. 418.
[34] Ibid., p. 418.
[35] E.R. Geehan, eds. Jerusalem
and Athens: Critical Discussions On The Philosophy And
Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (New Jersey:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), p. 21. See also online
http://reformed.org/apologetics/My Credo van til.html
[36] Stanley W. Bamberg,
"Why Do We Ask Why," A forth coming article in The
Reformed Apologist On line Journal at www.Reformed
.org
[37] Cornelius Van Til, A
Survey of Christian Epistemology (New Jersey:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1978), p. 11.
[38] J. Richard
Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, The Transforming Vision
(Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1984), p. 32
[39] Ibid., p. 39.
[40] Greg Bahnsen, Always
Ready: Directions For Defending The Faith.
(Texarkana: Covenant Media Foundation, 1996), p. 67.
[41] Robert Fripp,
founder of the music group King Crimson (he is an
excellent guitarist) in the late 60's and early 70's has
attempted to make music which seeks to prove chance exist
through music. Explore the King Crimson Web page and
Robert Fripp's philosophy of "Music from
silence."
[42] John Frame, The
Doctrine Of The Knowledge Of God. (New Jersey:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1987), p. 150.
"Rather, he [Cage] presupposes an order, a world of
law."
[43] C.S. Lewis, Mere
Christianity. (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1984),
p. 30-31.
[44] Considerations in
the sense of ethics, morality, logic, and order in this
universe that he has to borrow from the Christian
worldview to make rational and coherent judgments.
[45]"Four Types of
Proof." Transcendental Arguments: Nuclear
Strength Apologetics. By Greg Bahnsen. Audio
cassette. 1995.
[46] The feeling of
dread, awe, and fascination which a person feels in the
presence of the Supernatural.
[47] C.S. Lewis, The
Problem Of Pain. (New York: Macmillan Publishing,
1986), p.19.
[48] Lewis, 20.
[49] This is in regard
to an underlying principles which bring forth artistic
sensibilities.
[50] Lewis, 20.
[51] Is. 3.18; Ps. 50.2
[52] J.M. Spier, An
Introduction To Christian Philosophy. (New Jersey:
The Craig Press, 1966), p. 94.
[53] John Frame, Cornelius
Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (New Jersey:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1995), p. 53.
[54] C.S. Lewis, Miracles. (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1978), p.
154.
[55] Lewis, 154-155.
[56] ibid., 127.
[57] C.S. Lewis, Mere
Christianity. (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1984),
p. 45.
[58] Cornelius Van Til, The
Defense of the Faith. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing, 1955), p. 396. Note: this is from
the first edition.
[59] Lewis never used
the term `transcendental argument', but he uses the
meaning behind this argument. Lewis clearly thought
beyond the natural world.
[60] Cornelius Van Til, Common
Grace and the Gospel (New Jersey: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing, 1977), p. 5.
[61] Naturalism: Matter
exists and is all there is. God does not exist. The
universe assumes the position of God. Carl Sagan says,
"The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will
be." Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random
House, 1980), p. 4.
[62] C.S. Lewis, Miracles ( (New York: The Macmillan company, 1955), p. 23.
[63] Ibid., 23.
[64] Ibid., 27.
[65] Lewis, 31.
[66] Stanley W. Bamberg,
"Why Do We Ask Why."
[67] This question is
used by Greg Bahnsen in many of his books and debates he
has been involved with. For a stunning and thrilling
example of Bahnsen's debating skills and the use of
transcendental arguments, you may purchase for $15 the
Bahnsen/Stein debate from Covenant Media Foundation. Call
1-800-553-3938.
[68] C.S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: The Macmillan company, 1955), p. 51.
[69] Ibid., 52.
[70] Ibid., 52.
[71] Lewis, 52.
[72] John Frame, Apologetics
to the Glory of God (New Jersey: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1994), p. 93.
[73] C.S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: The Macmillan company, 1955), p. 43.
[74] Ibid., 44.
[75] C.S. Lewis, The
Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company, 1947), p. 62.
[76] C.S. Lewis, Mere
Christianity (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company,
1952), p. 17.
[77] Cornelius Van Til, The
Defense of The Faith (New Jersey: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing, 967), p. 154-155.
[78] Lewis., 18.
[79] Lewis, Mere
Christianity p. 19, 21.
[80] This would refer
back to epistemology.
[81]Stanley W. Bamberg,
"Why Do We Ask Why."
[82] Lewis' view of myth
and Rudolph Bultmann's view of myth are incongruous.
Bultmann wanted to demythologise Christian beliefs. Lewis
held the position that in order for the events in the
Bible to be true they must be remythologised. Lewis
criticizes Bultmann's belief and calls it
"uneducated" in Christian Reflections.
Lewis believes that Christianity has history and real
consequences, Bultmann believes the contrary. "This
involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely
misunderstood history (as Euhemerus thought) nor
diabolicalillusion (as some of the Fathers thought) nor
priestly lying (as the philosophers of the Enlightment
thought) but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam
of divine truth falling on human imagination. The
Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they
were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen
mythology" (Miracles, p. 134).
[83] Humphrey Carpenter,
The Inklings (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1979), p. 41.
[84] Ibid., 43.
[85] Ibid., 43.
[86] C.S. Lewis, eds. Essays
Presented to Charles Williams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1974), p. 72
[87] Carpenter, 43.
[88] C.S. Lewis,eds. p.
71-72.
[89] Carpenter, p. 44.
[90] Humphrey Carpenter,
Tolkien (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977),
p. 148.
[91] Carpenter, p. 44.
[92] Carpenter, p. 148.
[93] Willem Van Gemeren,
Interpreting the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p. 21.
[94] J.M. Spier, An
Introduction To Christian Philosophy, Translation by David
Freeman, (New Jersey: The Craig Press, 1966), p. 58.
[95] C.S. Lewis, God
In The Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1970), p. 66.
[96] C.S. Lewis, An
Experiment in Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988), p. 44.
[97] C.S. Lewis, The
Pilgrim's Regress (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1996), p. 169.
[98] C.S. Lewis, The
Great Divorce (New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company, 1946), p. 69.
[99] This is from a
revised version of material originally presented on April
10, 1995, to the class on `the Theology of C.S.
Lewis." Lectured on the campus of Reformed
Theological Seminary Jackson, Mississippi. By Dr.
Chamblin.
[100] W.H. Lewis, eds. Letters
of C.S. Lewis (New York: Harvest Books, 1966), p.
144.
[101] Spier, 268.
[102] George Sayer, Jack:
C.S. Lewis And His Times (San Francisco: Harper and
Row Publishers, 1988), p. 186.
[103] Perry G. Downs, Teaching
for Spiritual Growth. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House,1994), p. 16.
Bibliography
Bahnsen, Greg. Always Ready: Directions for Drefending
the Faith. Texarkana: Covenant Media Foundation,
1996.
___________. "The Great Debate?" The Great Debate:
Does God Exist? Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein.
Audiocassette. 1985.
___________. "Four Types of Proof." Transcendental
Arguments: Nuclear Strength Apologetics. by Greg
Bahnsen. Audio cassette. 1995.
Bamberg, Stanley. "Why Do We Ask Why," A forth
coming article in The Reformed Apologist On line
Journal at www.Reformed .org
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, rev.4th ed.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939/1941.
Brown, Colin. Philosophy and The Christian Faith.
Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1968.
Bultmann, Rudolph. Kerygma and Myth, ed. Hans
Werner Bartsch. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1961.
Burgess, Anthony. A Clockwork Orange. New York:
Ballantine Books, 1963.
Carpenter, Humphrey. The Inklings. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1979.
________________. eds. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981.
________________. Tolkien. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1977.
Downs, Perry. Teaching For Spiritual Growth. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994.
Engel, S. Morris. The Study of Philosophy. San
Diego: Collegiate Press, 1990.
Ferguson, Sinclaire B., David F. Wright, and J.I. Packer.
New Dictionary Of Theology. Illinois: Intervarsity
Press, 1988.
Frame, John, Apologetics to the Glory of God. New
Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1994.
_________. Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought.
New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1995.
_________. The Doctrine Of The Knowledge Of God. New
Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1987.
Geehan, E.R., eds. Jerusalem and Athens: Critical
Discussions On The Philosophy And Apologetics Of Cornelus
Van Til. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 1980.
Kreeft, Peter. Ecumenical Jihad. San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 1996.
Kuyper, Abraham. Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology: Its
Principles. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1898.
______________. His Decease at Jerusalem. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1946.
Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company, 1955.
________. An Experiment in Criticism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988.
________. eds. Essays Presented to Charles Williams.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.
________. God In The Dock. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1970.
________. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan
Publishing, 1952.
________. Miracles. New York: Macmillan Company, 1955.
________. The Great Divorce. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1946.
________. The Pilgrims Regress. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1996.
________. The Problem Of Pain. New York: Macmillan
Publishing, 1986.
Lewis, W.H., eds. Letters of C.S. Lewis. New York:
Harvest Books, 1966.
Middleton, J. Richard and Brian J. Walsh. The
Transforming Vision. Illinois: Intervarsity Press,
1984.
___. Truth Is Stranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical
Faith in a Postmodern Age. Illinois: Intervarsity
Press, 1995.
Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian. New
York: Simon and Schuster,1957.
Sagan, Carl. Cosmos. New York: Random House, 1980.
Sayer, George. Jack: C.S. Lewis And His Times. San
Francisco: Harper and Row,1988.
Spier, J.M. An Introduction To Christian Philosophy.
New Jersey: The Craig Press, 1966.
Spykman, Gordon. Reformational Theology: A New
Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1992.
Van Gemeren, Willem. Interpreting the Prophetic Word.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books, 1990.
Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics. New
Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976.
___. Common Grace And The Gospel. New Jersey:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1977.
___. The Defense Of The Faith. New Jersey:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1955.
Walsh, Chad. C. S. Lewis: Apostle to the Skeptics.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949.
Wolters, Albert. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics
For A Reformational Worldview. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1985.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Reason within the Bounds of
Religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1993.
Tommy
Allen is a graduate of Montreat
College currently pursuing a M.Div. at Reformed
Theological Seminary , Jackson.
This Issue /
Index / CAPO
Copyright © 1997 PREMISE All rights
reserved
This page optimized for use with
Microsoft Internet Explorer and screen resolution of 640
x 480.
|
