A Foretaste of the Book on Natural Theology
If you wonder what I do when I take off for two weeks a month to write, here is a sample section from chapter seven on Biblical Anthropology that I wrote this week.
Humanism and the Death of Anthropology
The greatest mega-shift in Western philosophy was the collapse of essentialism and the triumph of existentialism. “Essentialism” or “ontology” was the long-held Western belief in and search for the “essence” or “nature” of the “being” of reality as a whole or the objects around you. Once you discovered the “essence” or “nature” of the “being” of something, then you understood its “meaning.”
The Greek philosophers fought over how and where to find the “essence” or “nature” of “being” and whether the external form of something indicated its true essence/nature/being. Plato pointed “up” to the World of Ideas and claimed that the essence or meaning of something was “up there” somewhere and could be retrieved by rationalism. Aristotle pointed to the object and said that its meaning is not “up there” but “in there,” i.e. in the object. We need to “grasp” its meaning/essence/nature “inside” of it empirically.
Subsequent Western philosopher believed that, instead of the meaning or nature of things being “up there” or “in there,” meaning was in the mind of man and in the object at the same time. We are born with “innate” ideas in the brain and when they come into contact with the inner essence or nature of something, they connect and knowledge happens. Thus meaning is “in here” and “in there” at the same time.
As time went by, it became obvious to everyone that there was no agreement as to what ideas were innate or even how to define the words “innate” and “ideas.” Thus the essence or nature of things still remained out of reach.
Modern Philosophers concluded that meaning, essence, nature, and being were only in the mind of man, i.e. “in here.” Things in themselves did not have any meaning, essence, nature or being. We impose or project our own meaning upon the world around us. Kant was the greatest of the German philosophers who abandoned any idea of meaning being “out there” somewhere. Meaning was produced in the categories of the mind.
It wasn’t long before Western philosophers woke up one day and realized that if meaning, essence, nature, and being were only in the mind of man, and there was no agreement as to how they got there or how to define any of the key terms, the whole thing was stupid and a waste of time.
The reason why no one was able in the history of philosophy to discover the meaning, essence, nature or being of reality as a whole or in an object is that there is no meaning, essence, nature or being to find. They do not exist, except as a figment of the mind. And, even if they did exist, no one knew how to discover them. Thus the knowledge of them is impossible. And, if no one can know them, then why waste time talking about them?
Essentialism collapsed and Existentialism was born. It taught that all we can know is what exists in front of us for the moment. What is, is. That’s all.
There is no “higher” or “inner” meaning or essence to things. There is no “being” behind or beneath things that reveal to us their true “meaning.” What you see - is all you get.
What does this have to do with anthropology? Modern philosophy no longer believes that we should try to discover the “essence” or “nature” of the “being” of man. What makes man man is no longer a politically correct question. There is no such thing as a permanent, continuing “human nature” that makes man distinct from other life forms on the planet. Man qua man is a pipe dream. The day Essentialism died, Anthropology died with it.
If anthropologists no longer believe there is such a thing as “human nature,” what do they teach at the local junior college or university? Anthropology has now been reduced to:
Biology: Man is only a primate. Thus “man” does not exist as a separate category. This is why there are so many TV programs focusing on lemurs, chimpanzees, and orangutans. “See, man is only one primate among many,” shouts the humanist on National Geographic or Nature.
Psychology: Man is only a self-conscious animal. This is why there is such a desperate search to find some animal somewhere that is as self-aware as man is. Gorillas, dolphins, and other animals are often portrayed as self-conscious animals just like man. If they can only teach a gorilla to do sign language, this will reduce man to the animal level. “See, man is not really unique!”
Sociology: Marxism and socialism are so popular in Western education today because man is understood only in terms of sociological units and relationships. Humanists have given up trying to define what man is. Instead, they discuss man as a social animal interrelating and interacting with each other as a troop of primates. This why there is a flood of TV programs following the social interactions of meerkats, lemurs, monkeys, etc. “See, people are only the same as meerkats!”
The truth is clear that modern Western education no longer believes that there is any truth to find, any morals to follow or any meaning to life. Biblical Christians rejoiced to see that humanism was now officially D.O.A. The Revelation given to us in Scripture is the only Light in a world of philosophic darkness and despair.
This is what makes us so sad when we see religious humanists pick up the baton where the secular humanists dropped it. Natural Theology and Natural Law boldly proclaims, “Just give us until tomorrow and we will discover truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty independent of and apart from God and the Bible. Man starting only from himself, by himself, through himself, can discover these things autonomously through human reason, experience, feelings or faith.”
How sad! Just when unbelievers finally admit that without God there is no truth, justice, morals, meaning or beauty, religious humanists come along and give comfort and aid to them. What makes it so stupid as well as sad is that they do so in the name of helping unbelievers to believe! But, believe in what? To believe in themselves!
The Need for Biblical Anthropology Today
The present crisis in philosophy underscores it is time to proclaim God’s view of man as revealed in Scripture. Why waste time on the failed attempts of Plato, Kant or Sartre? Why whip a dead horse?
The Bible has a lot to say about man because it was written to explain the Creation, Fall, and Redemption of man. Man is always understood in the context of these three pillars of Special Revelation. Man is not man in any other context.
Dr. Robert Morey
16 Comments, Comment or Ping
Derek Manning
Excellent, Dr. Bob. Now if we can just get these humanistic cowards to come out from hiding and debate.
Feb 9th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Dr. Morey, you have us licking our chops! I pray that your book will be used by the Lord to provoke discussions concerning the issues you address. You’re right on when you say,
“If anthropologists no longer believe there is such a thing as “human nature,” what do they teach at the local junior college or university?”
This reminds me of a discussion I had with a friend of mine, a Princeton grad (PhD - Liberal) that taught theology at Bethel along side Boyd and the rest, and now is Professor of Systematic Theology at a Liberal university in Europe. He wrote a paper and gave a lecture for NIME (Nordic Institute for Missiological and Ecumenical research) regarding the psychological turn to alterity wherein which he said,
“the way in which we understand the nature and functioning of human persons will shape our dialogical practices and goals.”
Knowing that he is a Lib, and seeing how extremely influential he is as arguably the emerging church movement’s top scholar, it caused me to question “which” anthropology he was assuming for the cited statement.
I asked him, “Can Psychology, apart from biblical influence, provide an accurate, meaning: not contradictory to Scripture, description of human persons and function with usefulness within authentic Christianity?
Since he is a professing Christian, I was curious as to how he would answer. Since he basically stated that anthropology shapes practice and goals, I told him, “My concern is with which understanding does the shaping.”
This was his answer: “I don’t think we can refer simply to the “biblical view” of the person. We find a variety of anthropologies, from ancient semitic to middle platonic, shaping the biblical authors’ articulation of the experience of redemption.”
A task in theology these days (for them) is integrating humanism and religion. Your book will disrupt their solace by casting light on what humanism is, as well as what religion is. If these bozo’s were pressed to examine their teaching in light of Scripture, they would dissolve in three seconds - or less. Humanism as well as “r”eligion is bankrupt. Natural Theology and Natural Philosophy is a pretty superstructure built on loose sand. Then the Morey Tsunami comes along and bye-bye baby. We should write a song like the “Itsy-bisty Spider” with hand motions and all, teaching our kids that Natural Religions emerge, Revealed Religion wipes them out. Then they come back, but Scripture wipes them out again. Perhaps by God’s grace, a few generations from now, the time in between emerging and wiping out will increase!
Thanks for the foretaste!
Feb 9th, 2008
Mario
This is the M.O.A.B. (Mother Of All Bombs) that needs must be dropped! How God be blessed for causing us to rest securely in His grace! Greek thought is interlaced into modern Christianity. The result is that people are truly trusting in themselves and not on the revealed Word of God! May this book affect those who are sleeping and or lost in the abyss of the unrelated within the bankrupt teaching found in churches today! Keep it coming by God’s Grace Doc! Onward Christian Soldier! You are in our prayers.
Feb 9th, 2008
Fred B
Dr. Bob,
When is it going to be published? Do you have a specific time for us to be looking for it?
Fred
Feb 10th, 2008
Dr. Morey
It is going to take a year to finish the book. I have to define, document, and defend what I say. The following is what I wrote around 4AM in the morning. The footnotes will be in the book. They would not copy over for some reason.
———————–
Existentialists such as Paul Sartre openly admitted that without God, life has no meaning, no morals, no truth, no justice, etc. The Natural theologians deny this and try their best to give unbelievers hope that they can have all these things without God. What does the Bible say on this issue?
First, in the Book of Ecclesiastes, the smartest man who ever lived stated thirty seven times that without God all of life is meaningless. This is the theme of the book from the very beginning.
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”
(Ecc. 1:2)
The standard commentaries on Ecclesiastes agree on this point.
After identifying himself as the author, Solomon declared
most emphatically that everything is futile or meaningless.
Five times in this one verse he used he?el, the Hebrew
word for “meaningless.” Four of those times are in a twofold
repetition of a Hebrew superlative construction which the
KJV renders “Vanity of vanities” and the NIV renders
Meaningless! Meaningless! and Utterly meaningless!
As indicated in the Introduction’s “Theme and Purpose,”
he used this metaphorical term throughout the book to refer
to what is without real substance, value, permanence,
significance, or meaning. Here at the outset he applied
this to everything, by which he meant all human endeavors,
as is obvious from verse 3 and his argument throughout
the book.
He now starkly sets forth the theme of his book in a
manner befitting the theme itself: “Everything is
meaningless.”
The major theme of Ecclesiastes is the pointlessness of human
activity…The expression still endures today to point out to
many the meaningless of life without God.
Vanity. This traditional KJV rendering of a key word in this
book is correctly translated by the NIV as “meaningless.”
Solomon’s search for meaning in life apart from God and
divine revelation was futile. Like modern existential
philosophers, Solomon concluded that life is meaningless.
How good to know that God’s revelation of Himself and
His purposes give a meaning to your life and mine which
can be found in no other source.
LIFE IS MEANINGLESS: THE PROBLEM (1:1–11)
1:1–11 “Nothing matters! All is meaningless!” Solomon
began his discourse on life by declaring, “Everything is
meaningless” (1:2; see 12:8; Ps. 39:5–6). He illustrated
this meaninglessness from the realms of nature (1:1–7)
and human experience (1:8–11). Sunrises and sunsets
come and go. The winds blow and the rivers flow, but
for no apparent purpose. The human experience could
be summarized as, “Been there, done that!”
God warns us that if you try to interpret life without His
revelation in Scripture, i.e. “under the sun,” you will end up
believing that all of life is meaningless.
Second, not only does “without God” mean “without meaning,” it also means “without hope.” In Eph. 2:12 and 1 Thess. 4:13 the Apostle Paul emphatically states that those who are “without God” are as a result “without hope.”
As Dr. Wiersbe pointed out in his commentary on 1 Thess. 4:13,
Revelation: We Have God’s Truth (1 Thes. 4:13, 15a)
How can mortal man penetrate beyond the grave and find
assurance and peace for his own heart? From Old Testament
days till the present, mankind has tried to solve the riddle of
death and the afterlife. Philosophers have wrestled with the
question of immortality. Spiritists have tried to communicate
with those who have gone beyond.
In our modern world, scientists have investigated the
experiences of people who claimed to have died and
returned to life again. They have also studied occult
phenomena, hoping to find a clue to the mystery of life
after death.
Paul solved the problem when he wrote, “For this we
say unto you by the Word of the Lord” (1 Thes. 4:15).
We Christians need not wonder about death or life after
death, for we have a revelation from God in His Word.
Why substitute human speculation for divine revelation?
God gave Paul a special revelation concerning the
resurrection and the return of Christ (see 1 Cor. 15:51–54).
What Paul taught agreed with what Jesus taught (John 5:24
–29; 11:21–27). And God’s revelation is based on the
historic fact of Christ’s resurrection. Since our Saviour
has conquered death, we need not fear death or the future
(1 Cor. 15:12ff). The authority of God’s Word gives us
the assurance and comfort we need.
Other commentators agree.
Those who have no hope is literally “the others” or “the rest,
who do not have hope.” These are the same group of people
whom Paul has just called “those outside” (v. 12), that is,
those who are not members of the Christian community.
The contrast is not between kinds or degrees of grief, but
between two groups of people; that is, Christians, who have
reason to hope, and non-Christians, who do not.
Who have no hope. Only believers have hope of life
after death. The speculations and surmisings of pagan
philosophy do not amount to a hope.
In Eph. 2:13, Paul gives us a very startling view of what life is like “without God.”
Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ,
excluded from citizenship in Israel, and
foreigners to the covenants of the promise,
without hope, and
without God in the world.
A.T. Robertson and other commentators point out that Paul was emphatic that if you are “without God,” then you are “without hope” for anything.
Having no hope [elpida m? echontes]). No hope of any
kind. In Gal. 4:8 [ouk] (strong negative) occurs with [eidotes
theon], but here [m?] gives a more subjective picture
(I Thess. 4:5). Without God [atheoi]. Old Greek
word, not in LXX, only here in N.T. Atheists in the
original sense of being without God and also in the sense
of hostility to God from failure to worship him. See
Paul’s words in Rom. 1:18–32. “In the world” [en t?i
kosm?i] goes with both phrases. It is a terrible picture
that Paul gives, but a true one.
having no … hope—beyond this life (1Co 15:19).
The CONJECTURES of heathen philosophers as to a
future life were at best vague and utterly unsatisfactory.
They had no divine “promise,” and therefore no sure
ground of “hope.” Epicurus and Aristotle did not
believe in it at all. The Platonists believed the soul
passed through perpetual changes, now happy, and
then again miserable; the Stoics, that it existed no
longer than till the time of the general burning up
of all things.
(4) Hopeless: “having no hope”
This follows very naturally, for the Christian’s hope is
based on the divine promise. Accordingly, since in
the earlier period the covenant-promise had not been
revealed to the Ephesians, as has just been indicated,
hence they also lacked hope: solid, firmly-anchored
assurance of salvation. Such hope is one of God’s
most precious gifts, and is mentioned alongside of
faith and love (1:15, 18; cf. I Cor. 13:13). It is knowledge
of God’s promise plus confidence with respect to its
fulfilment (cf. II Cor. 1:7). It is the proliferation of faith.
It amounts to the conviction that all things will be well,
even when all things seem to be wrong (Rom. 4:18).
It never disappoints, because it, too, like faith and love,
is a divine gift (Rom. 5:5).
In their state of unbelief the Ephesians had lacked this
hope. Instead, they had been filled with fear and despair.
The Greek and Roman world of Paul’s day was, indeed,
a hopeless world.
The readers had no hope and (5) were without God “in the
world” (RSV). The phrase “in the world” characterizes both
conditions (TEV you lived in this world; also TNT; NEB is
good: “Your world was a world without hope and without God”).
Hope probably has the broadest sense possible; it is doubtful
that it is restricted to “hope in the Messiah,” as some think
(see “without hope” also in 1 Thes 4.13). You lived…without
hope may be expressed as “you lived without anything good
to look forward to” or “you lived without being able to
imagine that any good would come to you.” Without God
here means that though pagans have their own gods they
do not have the knowledge of and relation with the one true
God, the God of Israel; there is no implication in the Greek
word that God abandoned or rejected them. You lived…
without God may be expressed as “you lived without knowing
God” or “…without being related to God.”
The choice is simple. Without God as the Origin, there is no truth, justice, morals, meaning or beauty. All is meaningless!
Feb 10th, 2008
Will
Devastating, Dr.Bob! Get big rolls of paper- like Jack Kerouac- and don’t stop writing! (except you won’t need the drugs, obviously!)
Feb 11th, 2008
Jesus Saenz
I have been waiting anxiously for this book since my homie, Gene Cook interviewed Dr. Morey on this topic.
@Will, pretty funny… I just got an image of a Beatnik reading of some of Dr. Morey’s work
Feb 12th, 2008
Will
Without God as the Origin, we’re just like that horrible 70’s song states: “…dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind…” Such bilge. Sadly, this is the theology that children are being indoctrinated with in America today.
Feb 12th, 2008
Frank
May God bless you in the writing of this book. Darwinian anthropology has long troubled me. Its proponents, who view primitive tribes as remnants of man’s evolutionary climb toward a higher culture, often want these primitive areas preserved. An example is Margaret Mead, author of Coming of Age in Samoa. After finding nothing objectionable to the sexual promiscuity of Samoan teenagers, she later opposed the work of Christian missionaries who persuaded the Samoans to repent of their immorality.
Darwinian anthropology opposes the great commission, which includes our Lord’s command to teach disciples to observe His every command. God, in contrast, wants us to bless the nations, not leave them as they are. May your book be an encouragement to all who spread the Gospel.
Feb 13th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
John Owen has a lot to say on this subject. Pick up his Biblical Theology work that came available in 1994. It is separate from his set.
Though a technical glance. When you discuss humanism, you should use the adjective “secular” Humanism.
Case in point that Christian Humanism was a reaction (during the reformation) to the scholastics. Luther was trained in humanism (though didn’t care for it) as was Calvin (who used it in his writings), and of course C.S. Lewis and Dorthy Sayers were humanists (though probably not Christians).
Though I believe both are essentially bad, one is absolutely anti-thetical to the other.
So I recommend an analysis of this dichotomy since some Christians humanists adhere to natural theology, and while the Christians who are not christians humanists (like yourself) don’t. This is a categorical (taxonomy) which I don’t think you may have considered.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin.
Apr 11th, 2008
Dr. Morey
Dear Jean,
As Van Til and Schaeffer use to say, “Humanism is humanism regardless of how you dress it up!” Religioius (i.e. Christian) humanism is secular humanism with some religious terminology as window dressing. All those who believe in human autonomy, ontolgical thinking, that man is the Measure of all things, and the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty are HUMANISTS.
I realize that the word “humanism” has various meanings from giving a piece of bread to the poor. But, in theology and philosopy, the issue is who is the Measure and the Origin? God or man. Those who side with humanity are humanists.
Apr 12th, 2008
Dr. Morey
Dear Brothers,
It has come to my attention that a new “Liars Club” out there in slander-land and gossip-hill is claiming that I am not writing a book on on Natural Theology! If you run across these liars, rebuke them in the name of Jesus. Some of you have even proof read chapters for me.
Remember, all liars shall have their place in the lake of fire. (Rev. 21:8).
In obedience to the Word, I do not consider the “Legion of Doom” members, (eg. Joel, Clark, Tom, etc.) fellow-Christians. As long as they continue to run their “Liars Club,” they give no evidence of regeneration. When the book comes out, they will no doubt say I did not write it! They would not know the truth if it jumped up and bit them!
This is why I have been writing an autobiography for several years. It
will give the sad truth about such people for the historical record. They
will be remembered in church history for their hatred of my ministry and their lies, slander, and gossip.
Apr 12th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Dear Dr. Bob~
I can’t imagine the pain that you and Anne have experienced with the wickedness that has been done to you.
I’m glad you are journaling your biography because I think it will be an encouragement to the “young preacher boys”, as you like to say , when they grow up to have thier own churches. Solomon was right there really is “nothing new under the sun”!
Our family sends a big hug to you today…we are so thankful to our God who has given us you and Anne. You have taught us well, encouraged us mightily and modeled God’s Sovereignty tirelessly.
We are with you…God’s grace
Apr 12th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Dr. Morey,
I understand what your’re saying about humanism. And to some degree you are absolutely right. Though the community I am part of now has a classicial grammar school based off of Dorthy Sayers’ writings on education.
Dorthy Sayers I believe was a non-christian (they disagree). The group that adopts her thinking (in education) are mainstream reformed. In fact, if I said their names, they would probably be well known (among reformed circiles)
This Reformed church and classical school teach in the mode of “Christian Humananism.” However, they do NOT claim autonomy and actually argue their faith along the line of Van Til’s apologetics.
Christian Education in terms of humanism is simply the study of the humanities. Their philosophical system is that Education is the means to a moral lifestyle (I disagree on this point). Christian humanist historically speaking was a reaction to scholasticism (e.g. Aquinas, Duns Scotus, etc). (I too hate scholasticism)
So yes, while humanism is humanism, their is a very fine distinction between secular humanism (autonomy), Christian humanist (autonomy) and Christian humanist (theonomy) in the 21st century.
The hermenutical principle of “usus loquendi” is all that I have in mind here. Christian humanism has eroded systems of theonomist thought.
Their is a distinction, though perhaps it is such a specific detail it’s not worth mentioning. As a scholar it would just deem fitting to distinguish. If that is not your intent, then the adjective “autonomist” humanist would suffice the ambiguity.
Looking forward to reading it when it comes out.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 14th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
One last note: I have read enough of your work to know that you know what you’re talking about. This would just avoid the logical fallacy of equivication.
Just a structural critic.
Respectully,
Jean Cauvin
Apr 14th, 2008
Kyle Dodson
I think Dr. Morey should write a book about Norman Geislers book Chosen But Free.
Jul 18th, 2008
Reply to “A Foretaste of the Book on Natural Theology”