Return to Contents
Ramm, Bernard. Christian apologist and philosopher Bernard Ramm (1916-92) was born in Butte, Montana. Ramm began his academic career in 1943 at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola University). He finished his career at the American Baptist Seminary of the West (1959-74; 1978-86). Ramm was author of eighteen books and more than one hundred articles and reviews. His works on apologetics include Problems in Christian Apologetics (1949); Protestant Christian Evidences (1953); The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954); “The Evidence of Prophecy and Miracle” in Revelation and the Bible (1958); Varieties of Christian Apologetics (1962); and The Witness of the Spirit (1959). The God Who Makes a Difference (1972) was his major apologetic work.
Ramm’s Apologetic Approach. Although Ramm’s earlier approach stressed the evidences for Christianity, his mature view was a form of presuppositionalism similar to that of Edward John *Carnell. His logical starting point was akin to the scientific method.
Rejection of Theistic Arguments. Like other presuppositionalists, Ramm rejected traditional theistic arguments for God’s existence. He offered three reasons: First, God cannot be known apart from faith (Ramm, Witness of the Spirit, 82-83). Second, the noetic effects of sin prevent theistic proofs from being effective (Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidences, 29). Third, such proofs are abstract and do not reach the God of revelation (ibid., 41-42; cf. Carnell, Philosophy of the Christian Religion, 101-4).
Verification of the Presupposition. According to Ramm, there are three concentric circles of verification. These represent three stages in the confirmation of the Christian truth claim.
Internal witness. In the first circle of verification, the sinner hears the gospel and is convinced of its truth by the Holy Spirit. The primary verification of religion must be internal and spiritual, or verification is by a process alien to religion (ibid., 44). This persuasive influence of the Holy Spirit is inward but not subjective (see Holy Spirit, Role in Apologetics).
God’s action in history. Ramm affirmed that the primary function of Christian evidences is to provide a favorable reception for the gospel. These evidences are not the gospel and do not replace it. God’s action in history, the second circle, verifies that the biblical God makes a difference and “does come into our time, our history, our space, our cosmos. . . . Because God makes this difference, we know that we are believing truth and not fiction or mere religious philosophy” (ibid., 57).
Thus, Christianity is confirmed by objective facts. Miracles and fulfilled prophecies provide the best evidence (see Miracles, Apologetic Value of; Prophecy, As Proof of the Bible). “Evidentialists believe that the evidences do establish the divine origin of the Christian faith”
(Ramm, God Who Makes a Difference, 55). Supernatural events validate the theological. Revelation is tested by reason.
Adequacy of worldview. Christianity is also tested by its ability to provide a synoptic vision of the whole of the world, humankind, and God. The third circle is that Christianity is true because its principles make the most sense out of life and the world. A *worldview is “that pattern or that picture which has the most appeal to him, that puts things together for him in the most meaningful way” (ibid., 60). “A responsible synoptic vision” must have taken into account the facts, must be testable from some kind of criteria, and must be internally coherent (ibid., 67).
E. J. Camell, A Philosophy of the Christian Religion.
N. L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics.
S. J. Grenz and R. E. Olson, Twentieth-Century Theology.
G. Lewis, Testing Christianity's Truth Claims.
B. Ramm. A Christian Appeal to Reason.
---, The Christian View of Science and Scripture.
---, 'The Evidence of Prophecy and Miracle.”
---, The God Who Makes a Difference.
---,Problems in Christian Apologetics.
---, Protestant Christian Evidences.
---, Varieties of Christian Apologetics.
---, The Witness of the Spirit.
Rand, Ayn. Ayn Rand (1905-77) was an atheist (see Atheism) writer and intellectual. Born in Russia and educated at the University of Leningrad, Rand emigrated to the United States in 1926. Her most important works, written during the late 1950s and early 1960s, included Atlas Shrugged, For the New Intellectual, Fountainhead, and The Virtue of Selfishness (1961).
Influences on Rand. Rand was an atheist. Her philosophy, called objectivism, combined elements from Aristotelian rationalism (see Aristotle), Nietzschean atheism (see Nietzsche, Friedrich), Adam Smith’s capitalism, Sigmund *Freud’s illusionism, and hedonistic egoism She populated her novels with heroic men and women who, by their courage and independence, changed the face of the earth.
Rand’s Beliefs. Rand created her own unique form of optimistic and egocentric atheistic capitalism She wrote: “I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: I” (Rand, For the New Intel!ectural, 65).
With Sigmund Freud she saw belief in God as an illusion: “And that is the whole of their shabby secret,” she wrote. “The secret is all their esoteric philosophies, all their dialectics and super-senses,... is to erect upon that plastic fog a single holy absolute: their Wish” (ibid., 149). Rand chides all believers that “those irrational wishes that draw you to their creed, those emotions you worship as an idol, on whose altar you sacrifice the earth, that dark, incoherent passion within you, which you take as the voice of God or of your glands, is nothing more than the corpse of your mind” (ibid., 151).
Evaluation. Some of the difficulties with Rand’s philosophy can be noted in such articles as Atheism; Evolution, Biological; Freud, Sigmund; Humanism, Secular; Morality, Absolute Nature of. On the inadequacy of naturalism, see Miracles, Arguments Against.
B. Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand.
N. L. Geisler, Ethics, chap. 8.
N. L. Geisler and W. Corduan. Ph ilosophy of Religion .
A. Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
--, For the New Intellectual.
--, The Virtue of Selfishness.
Rational Presuppositionalism. See Clark, Gordon H.; Presuppositional Apologetics
Rationalism. Rationalism as a philosophy stresses reason as the means of determining truth. Mind is given authority over senses, the a priori over the a posteriori. Rationalists are usually foundationalists (see Foundationalism), who affirm that there are first principles of knowledge, without which no knowledge is possible. For a rationalist, reason arbitrates truth, and truth is objective (see Truth, Nature of).
Although *Aristotle (384-322 BC) believed that knowledge began in the senses, his stress on reason and logic made him the father of We stern rationalism Rene *Descartes (1596-1650), Benedict *Spinoza (1632-77), and Gottfried *Leibniz (1646-1716) were the chief modern rationalists.
Most worldviews have at least one major rationalist proponent. Leibniz embraced *theism Spinoza held to *pantheism AynRand (1905-77) professed *atheism Most deists (see Deism) held some form of rationalism Even pantheism is represented by strong rationalistic proponents, such as Charles Hartshorne (b. 1897). *Finite godismhas been rationally defended by John Stuart *Mill (1806-73) and others.
The reason that various worldviews all have forms of rationalism is that rationalism is an epistemology, whereas a worldview is an aspect of metaphysics. Rationalism is a means of discerning truth, and most worldviews have exponents who use it to determine and defend truth as they see it.
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologica.
R. Descartes ,Meditations on First Philosophy.
J. Edwards, The Mind.
N. L. Geisler and W. Corduan, Philosophy of Religion.
G. Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics.
A. Rand, For the New Intellectual.
B. Spino/a. Ft hies.
Realism. Realism is the view that there is a reality external to our minds that we can know (see Epistemology). This view is opposed by skepticism, *agnosticism, and solipsism Christian realists believe that there is an infinite Spirit (God) and a real, finite world comprised of both spirits (angels) and human beings. In contrast to dualists, realists believe that all finite beings are created and not eternal. Contrary to idealists (e.g., George *Berkeley), they believe that there is a real, extra-mental, material world.
Realists also believe that there is a correspondence between thought and thing, between the mind and reality (see Truth, Nature of). For classical realists, such as *Aristotle and *Thomas Aquinas, this correspondence is made possible by means of *first principles of knowledge. Since Immanuel *Kant, it has been customary to distinguish critical realism from classical realism The former begins with the premise that we know the real world, and the latter senses an obligation to prove we do. To state it differently, the post-Kantian realist sees a need to address Kant’s *agnosticism, since the Kantians do not believe we can know reality.
Knowledge of Reality. What is at question is whether our thoughts correspond to the real world. Or, more basically, whether the principles by which we know are adapted to reality. Without such principles of knowledge, classical realists believe that our knowledge of the real world is impossible. Aristotle and Aquinas, for example, held that there are undeniable first principles by which the real world can be known.
Classical realists believe first principles are self-evident. That is, once the terms are known, it is clear to a rational mind that they are true. For example, once we know what wife means and what married women means, it is self-evident that “all wives are married women.” However, for classical realists such as Aquinas, self-evident does not necessarily mean a priori or independent of experience. For the realists, first principles are known because the mind knows reality. In fact, these epistemological principles have an ontological basis in reality.
Without such valid principles of knowing reality, it is impossible to really know. There must be a relationship between thought and thing, between the principles of knowledge and the object of knowledge. But what is it, and how can it be established? This is the critical problem for a critical realist. Hence, realists reject both skepticism and *agnosticism
T. Aquinas, Summa Theologicci.
R. Flint. Agnosticism.
R. Garrigou-Lagrange, God.
N. L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics.
N. L. Geisler and W. Corduan, Philosophy of Religion.
E. Gilson, The Unity of Philosophical Experience.
D. Hume, The Letters of David Hume.
A. Mahan, The System of Mental Philosophy.
J. Maritain, Existence and the Existent.
E. L. Mascall, Existence and Analogy.
W. Montague, The Ways of Knowing.
L. M. Regis. Epistemology.
T. Reid, A« Inquiry into the Human Mind.
S. Hackett, The Resurrection of Theism, part 1.
Redaction Criticism, New Testament. See Bible Criticism.
Redaction Criticism, Old Testament. A redactor edits or changes a text composed by another. Redaction criticism of the Bible claims that subsequent editors (redactors) changed the text of Scripture. If such alleged changes were substantial, it would seriously damage the credibility of Scripture (see Bible, Evidence for). We could not be sure what was in the original text. For redaction critical views regarding the New Testament, see the article Bible Criticism.
Nature of Redaction Views. Redaction views are held by both evangelicals and nonevangelicals. The latter are more radical in their assertion of the kinds of changes they believe have occurred in the text.
Radical Views. Emanuel Toy is often quoted in support of the redacted-canon view. On the alleged redactions of Jeremiah, he argued that both minor and major details were changed. He believed these changes were apparent in:
1. text arrangement
2. the addition of headings to prophecies
3. repetition of sections
4. the addition of new verses and sections
5. the addition of new details
6. changes in content (Tov, 217)
Of courses, substantial changes in content would undermine the credibility of the Old Testament and particularly its apologetic value. How could one be sure that the prophecies were not tampered with later to make them fit what had actually happened?
“InspiredRedactors. ” Some evangelicals have attempted to accommodate redactional models by proposing an “inspired redactor.” In this way they hope both to explain the evidence for redaction while maintaining the inspiration of the Scriptures (see Bible, Evidence for; New Testament Manuscripts; Old Testament Manuscripts). For example, Bruce Waltke claims “that the books of the Bible seem to have gone through an editorial revision after coming from the mouth of an inspired spokesman.” In the same passage, he speaks of “later editorial activity.” Waltke claims there is evidence of redaction from 1800 BC to AD 200 (Waltke, 78, 79, 92). However, respondents to Waltke’s proposal strongly reject his position (ibid., 133). Even his concessions tend to undermine the biblical text.
Arguments for Redactors. Attention is focused here on the Old Testament redaction, especially as held by Waltke and some other evangelical scholars who insist that “inspired redactors” made substantial changes in the biblical writings. Along with more critical redactors, they believe that the content of biblical writers underwent continual changes until it reached its final form
In support of this position, the following arguments are sometimes offered.
1. Someone after Moses, possibly Joshua, wrote the last chapter of Deuteronomy (chap. 34), since it is not prophetic and records Moses’s death.
2. Certain sections of Deuteronomy (2:10-12, 20-23) show evidence of a later redactor. They are editorial and parenthetical in nature.
3. Arrangement of the psalms into five books or sections is undoubtedly the work of compiler-editors.
4. Proverbs passed through the hands of editors after Solomon(10:l; 22:17; 25:1; 30:1; 31:1), some of whom lived in Hezekiah’s day, two centuries after Solomon (25:1).
5. Some books, such as Jeremiah, survive in two substantially different versions. The longer (Hebrew) version is one-seventh larger than the Greek Septuagint version, an example of which survives in fragments from Qumran (4 QJerb).
6. The books of Chronicles present themselves as being based on prior prophetic records
(1 Chron. 9:1; 27:24; 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 13:22; 16:11; 20:34; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:19; 35:27; 36:8), which were redacted by the author(s) of Chronicles.
Response to Arguments. None of the arguments advanced in support of inspired redaction are definitive. Merrill Unger granted only slight “editorial additions to the Pentateuch, regarded as authentically Mosaic.” But he flatly rejected the notionthat later non-Mosaic additions were made to the Pentateuch by redactors, inspired or not (Unger, 231-32). The response to the “inspired redactor” theory will follow the order of the arguments given above.
The Account of Moses ,s Death. For a full discussion of this point, see Pentateuch, Mosaic Authorship of. That Moses might not have written Deuteronomy 34 has long been accepted by conservative scholars, even Unger. However, this is not a redaction in the content of anything Moses wrote. It is an addition of events that, humanly speaking, Moses could not have written about, namely, an account of his own funeral (Deut. 34). Of course, it is always possible that Moses could have written this by supernatural revelation, but there is no claim or evidence that he did. Completion of the book by another inspired prophet, Joshua in particular, would not compromise its authority.
Editorial Comments in Deuteronomy 2. This is also discussed in Pentateuch, Mosaic Authorship of. The parenthetical sections in Deuteronomy 2 need not be later redactions. They fit into the text, and there is no reason Moses could not have included them to amplify and clarify. If these additions were made by later scribes, they are uninspired and subject to the same textual skepticism as Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11. Lacking evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to consider these to be editorial comments by Moses.
Adding and Rearranging. Simply compiling and arranging inspired writings (individual psalms) is not proof of the redaction model. Adding psalms to the psalter as they were written fits perfectly with the prophetic model of the canon. What the redactional model would have to prove is that later inspired writers made deliberate content changes in Psalms (or other books) already in the canon, not simply rearranging what was there. There is no proof of this in the Psalms.
Small editorial additions to a text are not the problem The inspired redactor view accepts substantial changes in content.
Proverbs Shows No Proof of Redaction. None of the passages cited from Proverbs prove that the original author’s writing (whether Solomon [1-29], Agur [30], or Lemuel [31]) was not accepted by the believing community immediately and continuously without subsequent content changes. The phrase “copied out” (25:1) does not mean “changed in content” but merely transcribed onto another manuscript. Whether this process involved a selection and rearrangement of what Solomon had previously written is irrelevant. As with Psalms, there is a big difference between rearranging what Solomon wrote and redacting (changing) its content. There is no evidence of the latter.
Two Editions by Jeremiah. Conservative scholars acknowledge that there may have been two versions (editions) of Jeremiah that originated with Jeremiah himself, possibly through Baruch his scribe (Archer, 361-62). This would account for differences found in the manuscripts. In this case, there is no need to posit a later redactor. Jeremiah himself, while alive, could have directed a later version of his book with more prophecies in it. Jeremiah preached and prophesied as the occasion called for it. It is understandable that the collection of his writings would grow. The Septuaginf s scholars may have had access to a preliminary version.
Citing Other Sources. The passages cited in Chronicles (1 Chron. 9:1; 27:24; etc.) do not mean that the writer of Chronicles (possibly Ezra) was redacting some other books. Rather, he used them as sources to write his own book, just as Daniel (9) used Jeremiah (25), and 2 Samuel 22 used Psalm
18. Luke evidently used other records (Luke 1:1-4).
Further, it is not necessary to take all these Old Testament citations as being from inspired writings. Some were court records (e.g., 1 Chron. 9:1; 27:24; 2 Chron. 20:34). The books by “Samuel
the Seer and Nathan the Prophet” (1 Chron. 29:29) may be the prophetic writing now known as 1 Samuel. Still others may have been uninspired commentaries (e.g., 1 Chron 13:22). Paul used uninspired sources in his works (cf. Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12). This is not making changes in an inspired book.
Problems with “Inspired” Redaction. The inspired redactors view that editors made deliberate and substantial changes in the content of previous prophetic material is unacceptable.
It Is Contrary to God’s Warning. God gave repeated warning to his prophets not to “add to the word which I [God] am commanding you” (Deut. 4:2; cf. Prov. 30:4; Rev. 22:18-19). This, of course, does not mean that another prophet could not have added separate revelation to complete Deuteronomy. It does mean that no one was permitted to change (redact) the revelation God had given to another prophet, or, for that matter, to himself. No one was to add to or take way from what God had spoken (cf. Rev. 22:19).
It Confuses Textual Criticism and Canonicity. The redaction view confuses canonicity and lower textual criticism (see Bible Criticism). Canonicity (Gk. canon, rule or norm) deals with which books are inspired and belong in the Bible. Lower textual criticism studies the text of canonical books, attempting to get as close to the original text as possible. The question of scribal changes in transmitting a manuscript of an inspired book is one of lower textual criticism, not canonicity. Likewise, if material was added later, as in 1 John 5:7 (KJV) or John 8:1-11, this is a matter of textual criticism to determine whether it was in the original writing. It is not properly a question of canonicity.
Lower textual criticism is a legitimate discipline because it does not seek to change or redact the original text but simply to reconstruct it from the available manuscripts.
It Is Contrary to the Meaning of Inspired. The so-called inspired redactors view is contrary to the biblical use of the word inspired or God-breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16. The Bible does not speak of inspired writers but only of inspired writings (see Bible, Evidence for). An inspired author would be infallible and inerrant, not simply the author of an infallible and inerrant book.
It Is Contrary to Inspired Autographs. This redaction view is contrary to the evangelical view that only the autographs (original texts) are inspired. The autograph is the original text (or an exact replica) as it came from the prophet. Only this is believed to be inspired and, therefore, without error. Copies are inspired to the degree that they accurately reproduce the original.
But according to the inspired redactors view, the final redacted version is inspired. If this is so, then the original writings were not the ones breathed out by God. For God cannot err (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18), nor change (Mai. 3:6; Heb. 1:12; 13:8; James 1:17). If there was an inspired redactor, God made content changes in his successive inspired editions.
Further, the inspired redactors view requires rejection of the evangelical view of a definite written original that God breathed out through a given prophet. Instead, the autographs would be a fluid manuscript in process, perhaps over centuries. It would in effect promote scribes to the rank of prophets. God would have to breathe out the copies (including their errors) as well as the originals.
It Eliminates Verification of a Work. Inspired redaction eliminates the means by which a prophetic utterance could be tested by those to whom it was given. According to the redaction view, the prophetic work as such was not presented to the contemporary believing community. Rather, it was finished and endowed to the church by someone decades (or even centuries) later. When there was need, God confirmed his prophets by signs and wonders (cf. Exod. 3-4; 1 Kings 18; Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3-4). Contemporaries of the prophet could test the man of God’s claims (cf. Deut. 18). But if the inspired redactors view is correct, there is no way to confirm whether that writing (in its eventual edited form) actually came from a prophet of God. Only if the original and unchanged message was confirmed by the original audience can we have assurance of its rightful place in the canon.
It Shifts Authority Away from Scripture. The redaction model shifts the locus of divine authority from the original prophetic message (given by God through the prophet) to the community of believers generations later. It is contrary to the principle of canonicity that God determines canonicity and the people of God discover what God determined as inspired. In effect, the redaction model locates the authority in the church rather than in the God-given prophetic message to the church.
It Involves Deception. A redaction model of canonicity entails acceptance of deception as a means of divine communication. In significant ways, a message or book that claims to come from a prophet came actually from later redactors. As applied to the Gospels, redaction criticism claims that Jesus did not necessarily say or do what the Gospel writers claim he did. Redactors literally put their own words in Jesus’s mouth. But this involves intentional misrepresentation, which is deceptive (see New Testament, Historicity of). The same criticism applies if later redactors changed what a prophet wrote. That would be a deception, misleading the reader to believe that God directed what original writers had said. But God cannot lie (Heb. 6:18).
It Confuses Proper Editing with Redacting. The redaction model of the canon confuses legitimate scribal activity, involving grammatical form, updating of names, and arrangement of prophetic material, with the illegitimate redactional changes in actual content of a previous prophet’s message. It confuses acceptable scribal transmission with unacceptable redactional tampering. It confuses proper discussion of which is the earlier text with improper claims that latter prophets changed the truth of earlier texts.
It Is Refuted by Jewish History. The redaction theory assumes there were inspired redactors well beyond the period in which there were prophets (viz., fourth century BC). There can be no inspired works unless there are living prophets. And the Jews recognized no prophets after the time of Malachi (ca. 400 BC). Josephus, the Jewish historian, explicitly referred to revelation ceasing by “the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia” (Josephus, Against Apion, 1.8). He added: “FromArtaxerxes until our time everything has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased” (ibid.).
Additional rabbinical statements on the cessation of prophecy support this (see Beckwith, 370): Seder OlamRabbah 30 declares, “Until then [the coming of Alexander the Great] the prophets prophesied through the Holy Spirit. From then on, ‘Incline thine ear and hear the words of the wise.’” Baba Bathra 12b declares, “Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the wise.” Rabbi Samuel bar Inia said, “The Second Temple lacked five things which the First Temple possessed, namely, the fire, the ark, the urimand thummim, the oil of anointing and the Holy Spirit [of prophecy].”
Thus, any changes in the Old Testament text after this time could not have been inspired, since there were no prophets. Therefore, they are a matter of textual criticism, not canonicity.
It Is Refuted by Textual Criticism. The scholarly discipline of textual criticism refutes the claims of redaction criticism For the history of the biblical text is well known (see New Testament Manuscripts). Thousands of manuscripts trace the changes. The original text can be reconstructed with a great degree of confidence. There are no redactions in the content of the prophetic message by either inspired or uninspired editors. Most changes have to do with form, not content. They are grammatical, not theological. The scribes were faithful in copying the text. This being the case, there is no reason to believe the original message of the biblical writers has been redacted. The brief time gap and the large number of manuscripts compared to other works of antiquity vouch for the fact that the content of the biblical texts has been unchanged.
G. L. Archer Jr .,A Survey of Old Testament Introduction.
R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. N. L. Geisler and W. E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible.
F. Josephus, Against Apion.
--, The Antiquities of the Jews.
E. Tov, 'The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History.”
M. Unger, Introductory Guide to the Old Testament.
B. K. Waltke, "Historical Grammatical Problems.”
Reductio ad Absurdum. This procedure refers to a logic-based argument that reduces opposing views to the absurd by showing that two or more of its central premises, or those that follow logically from them, are logically contradictory (see Logic and God). One system of Christian apologetics, the rational presuppositionalismof GordonH. *Clark, depends entirely on this type of argument (see Presuppositional Apologetics).
Reid, Thomas. Thomas Reid (1710-96) was a founder of the Scottish philosophy of common sense. In 1764, he published his Inquiry into the Human Mind and began teaching at Old College in Glasgow. His two major works were Essay on the Intellectual Powers of Man (1785) and Essay on the Active Powers of Man (1788).
Philosophical Views. Unlike David *Hume, Reid believed that conceptions rise from the innate powers of conception in the mind that manifest themselves in accordance with original first principles of the mind. Evidence is the ground of belief and arises out of the use of intellect. We know these faculties are trustworthy because, however we try to refute these principles, they prevail. Further, all thinking depends on the assumption that they are reliable. In response to skeptics who distrust their faculties, Reid observes that even Hume trusted his senses in practice and was guilty of pragmatic inconsistency.
By virtue of his belief in active powers, Reid held that he was the active cause of his own acts.
Free acts are not the result of antecedent causes but of will. Free actions are neither determined by another nor fortuitous (see Indeterminism) but are caused by oneself (see FreeWill).
Reid taught that common sense beliefs are “the inspiration of the Almighty.” One does not have to believe in God in order to hold them, but they are imposed by our created nature. When we try to explain them, we understand that God gave them to us. Indeed, we have the same evidence for God that we have for intelligence and will in another person. So those who reject God should also reject the existence of other minds. Reid’s common sense realism had an extensive influence, particularly on the Old Princeton tradition including J. McCosh, Charles *Hodge, and B. B. *Warfield (see Princeton School of Apologetics) in America (see Martin).
S. A. Grave, The Scottish Philosophy of Common Sense.
C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1.
T. Martin, The Instructed Vision.
J. McCosh, The Scottish Philosophy.
T. Reid, Essay on the Active Powers of Man.
--, Essay on the Intellectual Powers of Man.
--,An Inquiry into the Human Mind.
Reimarus, Hermann. See Jesus, Quest for the Historical.
Reincarnation. Reincarnation means literally “to come again in the flesh.” This is not to be confused with Christ’s “incarnation,” as when he came “in the flesh” once and for all (1 John 4:1-2)
(see Christ, Deity of), ^-incarnation means that after death the human soul attaches to another body and returns to live another life.
There are many forms of reincarnation. The most common spring from *Hinduism and Buddhism (see Zen Buddhism) and are based in the inexorable law of karma. Under the law of karma, what one sows in this life is reaped in the next. Every action in this life has a reaction or consequence in this life or in the next.
Cycles of Life. Popularity of Reincarnation. Reincarnation is not only the dominant belief in Eastern religions but has also gained increased popularity in the Western world. Nonetheless, the Bible and orthodox Christian belief reject reincarnation.
Source of the Doctrine. Reincarnation has a long history. Many believe that the original source of the doctrine appears to be the Hindu Vedas (Scriptures). Buddhist, Jainist, and Sikh (see Sikhism) forms seem to have been derived from these, as have teachings of transcendental meditation and Hare Krishna. Some Western forms may have arisen from Greek philosophy without direct influence from the Hindu teaching, beginning with the Pythagoreans. Psychic Edgar Cayce and adherents of the late-eighteenth-century theosophical movement, including writer Helena Blavatsky, were influential teachers about multiple lives. Several Christian theologians have attempted to harmonize forms of reincarnation with Christianity, among them Geddes MacGregor and John *Hick.
Kinds of Reincarnation. Philosophically, reincarnation is wrapped up in Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism It is strongly rejected by Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. But it was never confined to the East. Some early Western philosophers also believed that the soul lives on indifferent forms. Pythagoras (ca. 580-ca. 500 BC), *Plato (428-348 BC), and *Plotinus (205-270) all believed that the spirit or soul was eternal and could not be destroyed (see Immortality).
Other forms of the doctrine of reincarnation differ with regard to what happens at the point of death and the nature of the ultimate state of moksha, but the general pattern is retained. Buddhists say that the unconscious soul (vinnana) continues, but the self (intellect, emotions, and consciousness) is obliterated at death. Its karma remains in the cycle of rebirth called samsara. There are four interpretations of the final state in Buddhism, nirvana, which is attained by the grace of Buddha. Jainism and Sikhism follow the same patterns as personal and impersonal Hinduism, respectively.
Most unorthodox Christian forms of reincarnation do not differ in their basic concept but are influenced by other factors. Most important, during human existence, a decision is made about whether to accept or reject Christ. In the simplest model, those who accept Christ go to be with God, while those who reject him are reincarnated. The cycle will continue until all recognize Christ. In this way, all will eventually be saved (see Universalism). Some Christian reincarnation theories provide ultimate punishment for those who are lost causes. In MacGregor’s view, the punishment is annihilation (see Annihilationism). Hick’s theory is somewhat novel in that he supposes that humans are reincarnated to lives on other planets.
Reason for Belief. Several rationales are given to justify belief in reincarnation Three of the most basic reasons are the belief in an immortal soul, psychological evidence of past lives, and the argument from justice through reincarnation
Immortality of the Soul. Plato’s main reason for believing in transmigration of souls (another name for souls going to a different body) was that he considered the immaterial part of each human being to be uncreated and indestructible. It existed before we were born, and it continues to exist after we die. Nothing, either good or evil, can corrupt it. If that is the case, then, reincarnationists argue, it is likely that it appears in the world in different bodies at various times. This is part of its perfecting process. In the same way, pantheistic philosophies assume that all is eternal and divine, so the soul is equally incorruptible.
Psychological Evidences. Ian Stevenson, a parapsychologist and researcher of past-life recall, has said that “the idea of reincarnation may contribute to an improved understanding of such diverse matters as: phobias and philias of childhood; skills not learned in early life; abnormalities of child-parent relationships; vendettas and bellicose nationalism; childhood sexuality and gender identity confusion; birthmarks, congenital deformities and internal diseases; differences between members of monozygotic twin pairs; and abnormal appetites during pregnancy” (Stevenson, 305).
Past-life regression, through hypnosis or other altered consciousness states, has been helpful to some to explain feelings that the patient cannot account for or overcome. By finding some experience in a past life, many have been relieved of feelings of fear, depression, or unwantedness. Though many psychologists and hypnotists who work with past-life recall do not really believe that the events recounted by their patients are real, they use it because it works. As one therapist said, “ft doesn’t matter if it is real or imagined if it helps someone make sense out of their lives. ... If it works, who cares?” (Boeth, H3).
Need for Justice. To many, the idea of having more than one chance at life seems to be the most equitable solution. Karma is just. If you do bad things, you pay the price; if you do good, you get a reward. Punishment is in proportion to how bad your karma is, not all or nothing. The idea of condemning someone to an everlasting *hell for a finite amount of sin sounds too harsh. Also, suffering in this life can be justified if it is really an outworking of karma from past lives. This explanation eliminates the need to make God responsible for suffering. All suffering can be explained as the just outworking of bad deeds done in former incarnations.
As Quincy Howe observes, “One of the most attractive aspects of reincarnation is that it removes entirely the possibility of damnation” (Howe, 51). The doctrine of eternal punishment seems totally incompatible with the love of God to many people. Reincarnation suggests a way in which God can punish sin (through the law of karma), demand faith in Christ (during at least one lifetime), and still save everyone ultimately. Someone who rejects Christ gets more chances. This even protects human freedom, because God does not coerce anyone to believe; he merely gives them more time to exercise their freedom Moral progress and spiritual growth can also occur during successive lifetimes, which will allow individuals to understand the love of God better. Some think that moral perfection cannot be attained without reincarnation.
Finally, it is argued that reincarnation is just because it makes salvation a personal matter between the individual and God. Rather than dealing with problems of imputed guilt from Adam’s sin or being reckoned righteous by faith, everyone is responsible for taking care of his or her own karma. Howe, arguing that the atonement by a substitute is no longer valid, says, “Man himself must make his peace with God” (ibid., 107). MacGregor says, “My karma is particular to me. It is my problem and the triumph over it is my triumph.” This eliminates the injustice of being punished in any way for Adam’s sin and the injustice of Christ dying for sins that he did not commit. Instead, Jesus’s death becomes our inspiration, “the perfect catalyst” for working out our salvation and assuring us that we stand in the unfailing light of God’s love. He died as our example, not as our substitute. In these ways, reincarnation satisfies justice.
Evaluation. Response to the Arguments. The arguments for reincarnation are without real foundation. At best, they show only the possibility of reincarnation, not its reality.
Immortality does not prove reincarnation. Even if one could demonstrate the *immortality of the soul on purely rational grounds, it would not thereby prove reincarnation. The soul could survive forever in a disembodied form Or the soul could be reunited once with its body in a permanent immortal resurrection body, such as orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Christians believe.
Past-life “memories ” do not prove reincarnation. There are other ways to explain the so-called memories or past lives. First, they may be false memories. Many other so-called memories have been shown to be false. Some people have “remembered” things that were empirically proven not to have happened. Many people have recovered from the false memory syndrome. Second, these so-called memories of previous lives are more abundant among those who have been reared in cultures or contexts where they were exposed to the teaching of reincarnation. This suggests that they received these ideas when they were young and later revived them from their memory bank. Third, there are notable cases, such as Bridie Murphy, in which the alleged memories of past lives turned out to be nothing more than stories her grandmother read to her when she was a little girl. Other false memories have been implanted by hypnosis (the power of suggestion) or guided imagery therapy during counseling or teaching sessions. The false memory syndrome is recognized by psychologists today.
Reincarnation does not solve the problem of justice. Rather than solving the problem of unjust suffering, reincarnation simply says that it is just after all. The innocent are not really innocent because the karma of their past lives is causing suffering. Reincarnationists complain that a Christian faced with the grieving mother of a dying four-month-old can only say, “I don’t know.” But the law of karma can give her an answer: “Your sweet, innocent angel is dying because in an earlier incarnation she was a scumball.” This is not a solution to the problem; it is merely a subversion of it. It doesn’t deal with the difficulty; it dismisses it.
Is it really fair for God to punish children for the sins they don’t even remember committing? It seems morally repugnant and terribly unjust to mete out judgment on someone who does not even know what his crime was. Besides this, by putting the guilt back one lifetime, one begins an infinite regress of explanations that never really pays off with an explanation. If the suffering of each life depends on the sins of a former life, then how did it all begin? If there was a first life, where did the karmic debt come from to explain the suffering in that life? Is evil an eternal principle, right alongside God? You can’t keep “backpedaling” forever to solve the problem of evil. The law of karma fails to resolve the conflict. It merely pushes the problem back into previous lives without ever coming to a solution.
One gets the impression, and some argue, that karma is the same as the biblical law—a rigid, universal moral code. However, karma is not a moral prescription. It is a system of retribution only; it has no content to tell us what to do. It is an impersonal, amoral law of act-consequence relations. Even comparisons with the act-consequence relationship in Proverbs fail to recognize that the Old Testament puts these forth as general principles, not absolute, unbreakable sanctions of retribution. For that matter, the law was not as unalterable as karma—it was part of a higher law of forgiveness and grace. The comparison is invalid.
Arguments against Reincarnation. Not only do the arguments for reincarnation fail to prove it is so, but there are arguments against reincarnation. Several of the most important can be summarized.
The moral argument. In pantheistic systems, there is no source for the moral standards that karma enforces (see Pantheism). Why punish people for some wrong if there is no moral standard of right and wrong? For in pantheism, there is no ultimate difference between good and evil. Karma is not a moral law. As for morality, all is relative. Allan Watts, a spokesman for Zen Buddhism, has written, “Buddhism does not share the Western view that there is a moral law, enjoined by God or by nature, which it is man’s duty to obey. The Buddha’s precepts of conduct—abstinence from taking life, taking what is not given, exploitation of the passions, lying and intoxication—are voluntarily assumed rules of expediency” (Watts, 52).
This relativism poses real problems for reincarnation. Relativism is an impossible positionto hold in ethics. You can’t say, “Relativism is true,” or even, “Relativism is better than absolutism,” because these statements assume an absolute value that contradicts relativism As C. S. *Lewis explains:
The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures the two things is something different from either. ... You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. (Lewis, 25)
In order to say that relativism is right, you have to assume that some absolute Right exists, which is impossible in relativism Unless something is absolutely right, nothing can be actually right; and if nothing is right (or wrong), then karma has no business punishing anyone for it (see Morality, Absolute Nature of).
The humanitarian argument. Reincarnation is ultimately anti-humanitarian. It generates no social compassion. Anyone who helps the thousands of poor, crippled, maimed, homeless, and starving people on the streets of India is working against the law of karma. People suffer to work off their karmic debt, and if you help them, then they will have to come back again and suffer even more to work off that debt. According to traditional Hindu belief, anyone who helps the suffering is not increasing their karma but one’s own. The social compassion that exists in India is the result of non-Hindu, largely Christian, influence. Hinduism did not produce Mother Teresa.
The psychological argument. Reincarnation depends on the premise that an individual had a highly developed sense of self-consciousness before birth, so as to receive and store information for later recall. It is a scientific fact that this ability does not develop until one is about eighteen months of age. This is why we do not remember when we were one year old. To assert that every human being somehow mysteriously “forgets” his or her past highly developed consciousness and that most never regain it—unless they are trained and “enlightened” to do so—is highly implausible. The hypothesis is without foundation and is entirely Deus ex machina.
The scientific argument. Scientifically, we know that an individual life begins at conception, when the twenty-three chromosomes of a male sperm unite with the twenty-three chromosomes of a female ovum and form a forty-six-chromosome human zygote. At that point a unique, new human life begins.
It has life (soul) and a body. It is a unique individual human being. It did not exist before. To claim that its soul (life) existed in a previous body has no scientific basis. The scientific evidence points to human conception as the point of origin of an individual human being.
The social argument. If reincarnation were correct, society should be improving. After all, if we have had hundreds, even thousands, of chances to improve over millions of years, then there should be some evidence of it. There is no evidence that such moral progress is being made. All we have improved is the means by which we can manifest hate, cruelty, racism, and barbarism toward other human beings. Even a realistic optimist who hopes for a better day must acknowledge that there is no indisputable evidence that any significant moral improvement has occurred over the thousands of years we know about.
The Problem of Evil and Infinite Regress. If suffering in this life always results from evil done in a previous life, then there would have to be an infinite regress of previous lives. But an infinite regress in time is not possible, since if there were an infinite number of moments before today, then today would never have come. But today has come (see Kalam Cosmological Argument). Therefore, there was not an infinite number of previous lives as traditional reincarnation seems to entail.
On the other hand, if there were not an infinite number of lives before this one, then there must have been a first life in which a previous incarnation was not the cause of its evil. But this is what *theism holds, namely, that evil originated because of an individual’s free choice in that first lifetime (e.g., Lucifer among the angels and Adam the first human) (see Evil, Problem of).
The Problem of Infinite Time and Lack of Perfection. Even on the reincarnationisf s assumption that there has been an infinite amount of time before today, his view faces another serious problem In an infinite amount of moments, there is more than enough time to achieve the perfection of all souls, which reincarnation is designed to do. In short, all souls should have received oneness with God by now, if there had been an infinite amount of time to do so. But they have not. Hence, reincarnation has failed as a solution to the problem of evil.
Biblical Arguments. Human beings are created. Fundamental to all the biblical reasons to reject reincarnation is the doctrine of creation. The Bible is the inspired Word of God (see Bible,
Evidence for). As such, it has divine authority in whatever it teaches. According to the Bible, human beings were created (Gen. 1:27). God is eternal (1 Tim 6:16). All other things were created by him (John 1:3; Col. 1:15-16). Everything else exists only because God brought it into existence from nothing (see Creation, Views of). This was not only true of Adam and Eve, the first human beings, but of all other human beings after them (Gen. 5:3; Ps. 139:13-16; Eccles. 7:29). All humans since Adam begin at conception (Ps. 51:5; Matt. 1:20). This being the case, there can be no preincarnate existence of our souls.
The intermediate state is disembodied. Scriptures teach that, upon death, the soul leaves the body and goes into the spirit world where it awaits resurrection. The apostle Paul wrote, “We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). Second, contemplating death, Paul added, “I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (Phil. 1:23). The “souls” of those who had just been martyred were conscious in heaven. “When he [Christ] opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained” (Rev. 6:9). Jesus promised the repentant thief on the cross conscious bliss that very day of his death, saying, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Even Moses and Elijah, who had been dead for centuries, were consciously engaging in conversation about Christ’s death on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). Even the disembodied souls of the lost are conscious. For the beast and false prophet who where thrown alive into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20) were still conscious “a thousand years” later (Rev. 20:10). There is not the slightest hint anywhere in Scripture that the soul after death goes into another body, as reincarnationists claim It simply goes into the spirit world to await the resurrection.
The state after disembodiment is resurrection. Reincarnation is the belief that, after death, the soul passes on to another body. By contrast, the Bible declares that, after death, the same physical body is made incorruptible at the resurrection (see Resurrection, Evidence for). Rather than a series of bodies that die, resurrection makes alive forever the same body that died. Rather than seeing personhood as a soul in a body, resurrection sees each human being as a soul-body unity. While reincarnation is a process of perfection, resurrection is a perfected state. Reincarnation is an intermediate state, while the soul longs to be disembodied and absorbed in God. Resurrection is an ultimate state, in which the whole person, body and soul, enjoys the goodness of God.
The differences between resurrection and reincarnation are as follows:
|
Resurrection |
Reincarnation |
|
happens once |
occurs many times |
|
into the same body |
into a different body |
|
into an immortal body |
into a mortal body |
|
a perfect state |
an imperfect state |
|
an ultimate state |
an intermediate state |
So there is a vast difference between the Christian doctrine of resurrection and the doctrine of reincarnation. The Bible teaching of the resurrection (e.g., in John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15; Rev. 20:4-15), therefore, is contrary to the doctrine of reincarnation.
Humans die only once. According to Scripture, human beings die only once, followed by the judgment. For “just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Heb. 9:27). We are born once, we live once, and we die once. But according to reincarnation, we live many times.
We are born and reborn over and over again. The Hindu apologist Sarvepail Radhakrishnan recognized that this verse spelled the definitive difference between Christianity and Hinduism He wrote, “There is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Hinduism; it is said that it consists in this: that while the Hindu to whatever school he belongs believes in a succession of lives, the Christian believes that ‘it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment’” (Radhakrishnan, 14, 118).
Judgment is final. Not only do human beings live and die once, followed by judgment, but the judgment is final (see Hell). Once one goes to his destiny, there is a “great gulf fixed” that no one can cross (Luke 16:26). Indeed, the judgment is described as “eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9) and “everlasting fire” (Matt. 25:41). If it lasts forever, then there is no possibility of a reincarnation into another body. There is resurrection into one’s own body, which receives the final judgment of salvation or of damnation (John 5:28-29).
Jesus rejected reincarnation. When asked whether a man’s sin before birth was the cause of his blindness, Jesus replied, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life” (John 9:3). Whereas this is probably a reference to the false Jewish belief that one could sin in the womb before birth, thus producing physical deformity, Jesus’s reply excludes any belief in prebirth sins and karma. Elsewhere, Jesus made it clear that one person’s unfortunate lot in life is not necessarily because of sin (Luke 13:4-5). This is true whether one is referring to early life, prenatal life, or alleged preincarnate life.
Grace is contrary to reincarnation. Reincarnation is based in the doctrine of karma, which dictates that whatever one sows in this life, one reaps in the next life. Karma is an inexorable law, with no exceptions. Sins cannot be forgiven; they must be punished. If one does not get his due in this life, he must get it in the next life.
But according to Christianity, forgiveness is possible. Jesus forgave his enemies who crucified him (Luke 24:34). Christians are to forgive as Christ forgave us (Col. 3:13). Forgiveness is contrary to the doctrine of karma and renders reincarnation entirely unnecessary. Salvation is a “gift” (John 4:10; Rom 3:24; 5:15-17; 6:23; 2 Cor. 9:15; Eph. 2:8; Heb. 6:4) that is received by faith. Rather than working to merit God’s favor, the believer is given grace or unmerited favor and pronounced righteous. God’s justice is satisfied because Jesus was punished for the sins of the whole world in his death. Our sins were not simply ignored or swept under the rug. Jesus paid (Rom 3:25; Heb. 2:17;
1 John 2:2; 4:10) God’s demand for justice by bearing our guilt as our substitute. This penalty paid by Christ is contrary to the karmic doctrine and strikes at the heart of the need for reincarnation.
Summary. The doctrine of reincarnation, based on karma, is without objective evidence. It is contrary to common sense, science, sound psychology of human development, and morality. Further, it is opposed by clear teaching of Scripture. Hence, in spite of its popularity, even in the West, it is without rational and evidential foundation.