Category: Uncategorized

To understand the depth of our present social and political divisions, we need to examine their roots. For a Christian, this means understanding the “two ways” identified in Psalm 1. Following are some of the important scriptural teachings on these two ways.

1. The root of all divisions is found in the Genesis account of “the fall”. The original way was to hear and submit to the one creator-God. The second way was to acquire an autonomous human capacity to discern for ourselves “good and evil”, and thereby become “like god”.
2. The tower of Babel account presents an archetype of mankind’s attempt to ascend to heaven, and thereby exalt ourselves in a united global kingdom, acting as “god” to rule the world. This is the alternative to the way of humbly exercising dominion as the faithful “image of God”. In response, God restrains the evil and limits its destructive potential by creating cultural-political divisions.
3. God called a special people, and established a special nation, that would exemplify the way of submission to the one true God. They were to be clearly separated from the way of all other nations and peoples, who exalted themselves as gods through their idolatry.
4. The division of the two ways later became typified by the city of Babylon and the city of Jerusalem.
5. In wisdom literature, the two ways are best characterized by those who “fear the LORD” and those who are “wise in their own eyes”.
6. One representation of the two ways in the New Testament is the identification of all people, as sinners, as being originally “in Adam”. The other way is the way of those who are being saved “in Christ”, the second Adam.
7. For the early church, the two ways were particularly represented by either submission to Caesar as Lord and “son of god”, or to Jesus Christ as Lord and Son of God. In Revelation, the people of the two ways are identified by receiving either the mark of the beast, or by being sealed by God.

So, how do these two ways relate to today’s political divisions and choices? Underlying all these descriptions and representations of the two ways are the basic attitudes of either fearing the LORD, or being wise in your own eyes. I see a close correspondence between these alternative ways and Thomas Sowell’s two visions (as set forth in “A Conflict of Visions”). His “unconstrained” vision is the way of human arrogance, which aspires to ascend to heaven, to become god, and to create the perfect utopian society on earth. It is a way that is based on a faith in autonomous human knowledge and wisdom, especially the superior wisdom of the elite. His “constrained vision”, however, recognizes that no man has ever been nor ever shall be wise enough and righteous enough to create and implement such a utopian society, and should never be entrusted with the power to attempt it. Sowell later described those of the unconstrained vision as the “anointed” (chosen to rule), and those of the constrained vision as the “benighted” (humbly confessing their limitations). For the former, a consequentialist ethic (teleological) takes precedence over virtue (deontological). They believe in their power to achieve desired consequences, and therefore justify compromises of virtue to attain the desired end. For the latter (the benighted), a virtue ethic (deontological) takes precedence over consequentialism (teleological). Ethical responsibility is proportionate to one’s power, and they acknowledge they have very limited power over consequences, but complete power and responsibility for internal character (virtue).

The unconstrained vision is the basis for the Jacobins, Marxism, Marcuse and their progressive derivatives. The constrained vision is that of John Locke, the Federalist Papers, the U.S. Constitution, Edmund Burke, and today’s conservatives. In the past few decades, two additional factors have been added to the progressive unconstrained vision: post-modern rejection of any absolutes or universals, and critical-theory rejection of reason. This means it is no longer possible to find a common ground of principles or values or use of rational discourse to resolve the differences between progressives and conservatives. The only path offered by progressives to establish their unified utopia is that of physical coercion and manipulative deceit.

For the Christian, the only possible realization of the perfect society is the Kingdom of Heaven, which is not of this world, and whose only worthy King is Jesus Christ. Any attempt to establish a humanistic utopia on earth, by earthly means, results in a realization of the “Beast of the Sea” in Revelation. Those who embrace such an unconstrained vision belong to the Beast, and bear his mark. The alternative, the constrained vision, even among those who have no faith in Christ, is the way that has been influenced by the Christianized Western culture, so as to recognize the vanity and the threat posed by the arrogant ways of Babylon and the Beast.

These two ways are therefore radically different, and irreconcilable; the division is ultimately intractable, admitting no humanistic political solution. Everyone must choose one or the other, and a nation must ultimately be dominated by the one or the other. We must also accept that warfare between the two, at a spiritual level if not physical, is inevitable. Christians are to live peaceably with all men, as far as possible. But at the level of spiritual identity and conviction and ultimate loyalties, there can be no peace between Jerusalem and Babylon, between Christ and the Beast.

I would offer three observations about the limits to human knowledge:
1. There are boundaries, and it’s good to know where they are
2. It can be quite profitable to explore those boundaries
3. It can be risky to cross the boundaries

On the first point, Ecclesiastes speaks of the mysteries: “What has been is remote and exceedingly mysterious. Who can discover it?” (Eccles 7:24). Also, “The secret things belong to God” (Deut 29:29). In line with this, Agur reckoned himself to be “stupid” (Proverbs 30:2). And so did Socrates. It is essential to wisdom to know its limits, to gain some humble appreciation of the immensity of our ignorance. This is a mark of genuine science and genuine theology.

Secondly: The most profitable place for learning and growth is at the boundaries, where we explore the limits of knowledge and understanding. It is in the investigation of paradoxes and anomalies that existing doctrines and hypotheses are subjected to testing, critique and correction. Boundary phenomena inspire paradigm shifts.

Because of this, we are irresistibly drawn to the boundaries, by the lure of wonder and mystery and beauty. It is the driving force of human development, and it is the mental appetite of the soul (nephesh), which draws us to God. It entices us to acquire wisdom, and it is one of the ways in which we should retain childlikeness: an eagerness for discovery, unimpeded by the agendas, the prejudices and the overall jadedness of adulthood.  Consider Agur, (Proverbs 30:18-19), Malick’s “To the Wonder”, and Tarkovsky’s “The Stalker”.

And then to the third point: the boundaries are the locations of greatest risk for errors. We should approach and venture to cross these boundaries humbly, with circumspection. Moses wanted to see God’s glory, but limits were set (Exodus 33:18-23).

In summary: It is of great value to know where our boundaries are, to have the courage to explore them, but with prudence and humility.

I’ve always been uncomfortable with assertions that God is “infinite”. Infinity is a mental concept that is not directly applicable to anything  concretely real. It is useful in mathematics, especially the concept of the infinitesimal in calculus. But it is improper to apply it as an adjective for anything that is real.

One can truly say: “It is not possible to set a limit to what God can do.” But this does not imply: “there is no limit to what God can do.” In mathematics, one can add and multiply the largest imaginable numbers, any number of times, and the result is still finite. The theological analog is that anything you can imagine God doing, He can do more. But it will still be finite.

God transcends space-time, but this transcendence should not be described as “infinity”. Transcendence of space-time is not the same thing as a limitless expansion of space-time. All of His actions within the creation are constrained by the finiteness of the creation. To the extent that He interacts with the world, He is finite. We can say that in His transcendence, He transcends finitude; and in His immanence, He partakes of finitude. But in neither case is the concept of infinity applicable.

Omniscience means He knows all things. But this is necessarily finite since the object of His knowledge, all things, is finite. Some people believe He also knows all possible future contingent counter-factuals, which may be construed as infinite. But I regard this “middle knowledge” hypothesis as highly speculative and misguided. Similarly, His omnipotence is finite, in that His power is exercised upon finite objects. And furthermore, His omnipresence has meaning only within the realm of space-time, which is finite. These “omnis” do not imply infinity.

Is anything lost by discarding the claim of infinity? I think not. The qualitative gap between God and the creation is preserved, in that He alone is non-contingent, and He alone transcends space-time. By shedding this element of irrationality, our testimony and our faith become more credible. So, I believe it is best to affirm only what scripture affirms, without adding to it. It is sufficient to say: “He is all-knowing and almighty, and there is no other like Him.”

I’ve recently been enjoying  lectures posted by Ronald Nash (BiblicalTraining.org) on philosophical theology, which has stimulated  thoughts about what he calls the rationalism of Plato versus the empiricism of Aristotle. I have generally held to a  kind of scientific realism, as per Einstein’s philosophy of science, and T. F. Torrance’s applications to theology (“Transformation and Convergence in the Frame of Knowledge”); but I’m a nominalist when it comes to Plato’s forms.  Conceptual categories (forms) of “things” are surely constructs. But there must be laws of nature that are  timeless, universal and real – and these are laws that we “discover”, rather than construct.  These laws define relationships: 1) causal relationships in science, pertaining to the dynamic reality of becoming (rather than being), in the tradition of Heraclitus; and 2) the logical relationships of mathematics. They are not universal forms that are imitated by particular things; they are rather universal rules that govern particular relationships. We infer this unseen reality from sensible phenomena, i.e. empirically,  and construct models that correspond to it adequately for practical purposes.  By God’s grace, the world is  intelligible.

By analogy, I think it proper to say that moral imperatives are  real, in that they are also “rules of the game” that specify ultimate consequences of behaviors (as taught in Proverbs), albeit in a rather nuanced way that transcends understanding (as per Job and Ecclesiastes).  Virtues, on the other hand, are constructed conceptual categories.

Extrapolating to the ultimate reality, God is observable and known only in  His activity (i.e. empirically), in creation and in history (e.g. Exodus 33:18-23). Consider also Hebrews 11:3, that the unseen cause of all that is seen is His word. This word, either as the Hebrew Torah or as the Greek Logos, is the organizing principle, the power, the Wisdom of God, which overcomes the chaos. Events in this space-time world – events of creation, providence, incarnation – reveal the timeless reality of the will (i.e. love) of God. And so His will and His Word are the final realities, and they can be known. At the level of the physical creation, the phenomena of supposed substance are ephemeral constructs, but the laws governing their dynamics are real. At the highest level of the “unseen”,  the concept of “the Good” is a human construct, but the true reality is the One who is named: “I will be what I will be”.