F. L. Cross, 'Tertullian.”
Tertullian, Against Hermogones.
---, Against Marcion.
---, Apologeticus.
---, On Baptism.
---, On the Flesh of Christ.
---, The Prescription against Heretics.
---, To Scapula.
---, Treatise on the Soul.
B. B. Warfield, Studies in Tertullian and Augustine.
Theism. Theism is the worldview that an infinite, personal God created the universe and miraculously intervenes in it from time to time {see Miracle). God is both transcendent over the universe and immanent in it. The three great theistic religions are Judaism, *Islam, and Christianity.
*Finite godism, *deism, and, to some extent, even Western *panentheism, grew out of the theistic worldview. The central difference between theism and finite godism is the question of whether God is infinite or finite. Deism is primarily a theistic view minus supernatural intervention in the world {see Miracle). Panentheism modifies theism to posit a finite God with two poles, one being theoretical infinitude. It is sometimes called “neoclassical theism”
Different Kinds of Theism. One of the most helpful ways to distinguish among theist systems is to note the perspective from which each approaches God. There are rational theists such as Rene *Descartes and Gottfried *Leibniz, existential theists such as Soren *Kierkegaard, phenomenological theists such as Peter Koestenbaum, analytic theists such as Alvin Plantinga, empirical theists such as Thomas *Reid, idealistic theists such as George *Berkeley, and pragmatic theists such as Charles Sanders Pierce. Each of these uses a somewhat distinct philosophical method to approach belief in God.
Theists can also be distinguished by what they believe about God and his relation to the world. Most believe the material world is real, but some believe it exists only in minds and ideas (Berkeley). Most theists believe God is unchangeable, but some (generally influenced by panentheism) believe God can and does change. Some theists believe it is possible that the created universe is eternal (*Thomas Aquinas), while most believe the universe must be temporal (Bonaventure). Perhaps the most important difference among theists is that many believe God is only one person (monotheism), such as Judaism and Islam Others, notably orthodox Christians, believe in a trinitarian (see Trinity) form of monotheism: God has three centers of personhood within one perfect monotheistic unity.
Among the leading defenders of classical theism were *Augustine (354-430), *Anselm (1033-1109), and *Thomas Aquinas (1224-74). In the modern world, *Descartes (1596-1650), *Leibniz (1646-1716), and William *Paley (1743-1805) are some of the more noted defenders of theism Perhaps the most popular exponent of theism in the twentieth century was C. S. *Lewis (1898-1963). Since theism is described in detail in articles for these representatives, only a summary of theistic views will be included here.
Outline of a Theistic Worldview. Those who hold a theistic worldview have a common core of beliefs. To the degree theists are consistent, their thoughts and actions are shaped from this core.
God Exists beyond and in the World. Theism holds to both the transcendence and the immanence of God. God exists beyond and independently of the world, yet he governs all parts of the world as the sustaining Cause. The world was originated by God and it is conserved by him
The World Was Created Ex Nihilo. The world is not eternal. It came into existence by God’s fiat (decree). Its existence is totally contingent and dependent. The universe was not created from preexisting material (ex materia), as in *dualism or *materialism, nor was it made out of God’s essence (ex Deo), as in *pantheism It was brought into existence by God but from nothing (ex nihilo; see Creation, Views of).
Miracles Are Possible. Although God operates his universe in a regular and orderly way by the laws of nature, nevertheless, God does transcend those laws. Nature is not the “whole show.” There is a supernatural realm (see Naturalism). This supernatural can invade the natural realm The sovereign Creator cannot be locked outside his creation. Although God normally works in a regular way, on occasionhe directly intervenes. This occasional invasion of nature by the supernatural is called a “miracle.”
Most theists believe not only that miracles can happen but also that some actually have happened (see Miracles, Arguments Against). Jewish theists point to the miracles surrounding the exodus, Muslims to God’s revelations to Muhammed, and Christians to the birth and resurrection of Christ as chief examples of miracles.
People Are Made in God’s Image. Theism believes in the creation of humankind in God’s image. This means man has both freedom (see Tree Will) and dignity that ought to be treated with utmost respect. Humans are God’s representatives on earth. Human life is sacred. Humans should be loved as persons, not used as things.
As creatures of God, men and women are not sovereign over their own lives. No one has the right to take his or her own life nor end the life of another, except as killing is directly sanctioned. Only God gives life, and only God can take it or command that it be taken.
Humanity had a beginning in time. There was no preexistent soul, so no eternality, but the soul was created to be immortal (see Immortality). Nor is there annihilation of the soul (see Annihilationism), as is the belief of atheism and some theists. Each person is immortal, not by his essence but because God will sustain us forever.
There Is a Moral Law. Since the theist God is a moral being and since humankind is created in God’s image, a moral corollary of theism is that the ultimate duty of people is to obey the moral law. This law is absolutely binding since it comes from God (see Morality, Absolute Nature of). It is over and above any human laws. It is prescriptive, not merely descriptive, as are laws of nature.
Rewards and Punishment Await. Each individual life, like all of history, is pointed toward an end or goal. Human moral actions will be rewarded or punished. There will be no reincarnated or post-death second chance. Each person will be rewarded or punished according to the individual’s relation to God during life (see Hell). This has to do with what the person has “done,” or God’s grace. Some modern theists minimize (or negate) the punishment aspect of human destiny in hope that all might be saved (see Universalism) or at least annihilated if unsaved. But traditional theists believe this is wishful thinking. All theists, however, acknowledge a day that will bring about justice.
Evaluation. Many nontheists literally believe that theism is too good to be true. Sigmund *Freud wrote, “We say to ourselves: it would indeed be very nice if there were a God, who was both creator of the world and a benevolent providence, if there were a moral world order and a future life, but at the same time it is very odd that this is all just as we should wish it ourselves” (Freud, 57-58).
The real question, of course, is not how satisfying a view is but whether it is true. Many nontheists believe it is not true (see God, Alleged Disproofs of). Other are content with simply attempting to show that arguments for the existence of God fail (see God, Objections to Proofs for). Both are unsuccessful, and there are good arguments that a theistic God exists (see Cosmological Argument; Moral Argument; Teleological Argument), that there are moral absolutes, and that there is a life after death—all of which are essential parts of a theistic worldview.
Anselm, Basic Writings.
T. Aquinas, Snmma contra Gentiles.
---, Snmma Theologicci.
Augustine, The City of God.
---, On Free Will.
---, On the Nature of the Good.
S. Freud, The Future of an Illusion.
R. Garrigou-Lagrange, God.
N. L. GeislerandW. Corduan. Ph ilosophy of Religion .
N. L. Geisler and W. D. Watkins, Worlds Apart, chap. 2.
G. Leibniz, Theodicy.
C. S. Lewis,Mere Christianity.
W. Paley,Natural Theology.
Theistic Evolution. See Evolution, Theistic.
Thermodynamics, Laws of. Thermodynamics is a field of physical science that relates matter to energy. The principles of thermodynamics are regarded as inviolable and are applied constantly to engineering and the sciences, including origin science (see Origins, Science of).
Two laws of thermodynamics, the first and the second, hold important implications for creationists and materialists (see Materialism) in their debate over origins. Both sides invoke the laws with surprising frequency and varying degrees of comprehension of what they truly mean. Other laws also have occasional roles to play in apologetics.
Zeroth Law. The first law is not truly the “first” listed law of thermodynamics, for there is a zeroth law that states that when each of two systems is in equilibrium with a third, the first two systems must be in equilibrium with each other. This shared property of equilibrium is the temperature. Basically, that means that any object will eventually reach the temperature of its surroundings. This law occasionally is referred to in planetary physics and theories of how the earth, with its internal molten core furnace, precious heat from the sun, and exposure to frigid space came to establish an atmosphere-insulated thermal equilibrium conducive for life (see Origins, Science of).
First Law. The first law of thermodynamics is sometimes stated, “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.” In this form, the law is often used by nontheists to show that the universe is eternal and that there is no need for God. Certainly there can be no God who created a temporal world ex nihilo (see Creation, Views of).
The first law is a law of energy conservation. Heat is measured in calories of energy. Calories can drift from one object to another, can be converted into mechanical work, and can be stored, even though energy is not a material substance. But not one calorie of energy actually goes out of existence. It merely changes form
Another, more accurate, way to state this law of conservation is that “the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.” This says nothing about how the energy came to be in the universe.
It also has no power to theorize about whether God could bring new energy into the system if he so wished. It is a statement of observation that the energy does not just disappear, and no more has been seen popping into existence from nonexistence.
The statement “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed” expresses philosophical dogmatism This is a metaphysical pronouncement not supported by observation. As far as we can observe, no new energy is coming into existence, and no actual energy is going out of existence.
As such, the first law supports neither a theistic or nontheistic worldview. It does not claim that energy is eternal, so God is unnecessary. It simply affirms that right now the actual amount of energy —however long it has been here—is not changing.
Second Law. The second law of thermodynamics is a whole other story. It can be stated, “In a closed, isolated system (such as the universe is), the amount of usable energy is decreasing.” It is being changed (the dynamics part) into unusable heat energy (the thermo part). Notice that this law does not infringe on the first law; it amplifies it. If energy is constant, why do we keep needing more electricity? The answer is that entropy happens. The second law states that “overall, things left to themselves tend to disorder.” Overall, the amount of disorder is increasing. The entropy—that is, the disorder—of an isolated system is increasing. When an isolated system achieves maximum entropy, it can no longer undergo change: It has reached equilibrium We would say it has “run down.”
The second law is supportive of one form of cosmological argument for God’s existence. If the universe is running down, it cannot be eternal (see Big Bang Theory; Evolution, Chemical; Kalam Cosmological Argument). If there was a beginning, there had to be a cause (see Causality, Principle of). Therefore, the universe had a Cause.
The second law is also used by creationists to argue against macroevolution (see Evolution, Biological). Evolutionists object, noting that the second law applies only to closed systems, such as the whole universe, rather than to open systems, like living organisms. True, an organism can take in energy from outside, so in that respect the second law does not apply. On the other hand, the second law does say that this undirected natural energy of food, water, and sunshine cannot increase in specified complexity. Calories of sun energy do not help a creature grow new eyes with which to see the sun’s light. It does not even charge a creature’s batteries so that it can live indefinitely. Entropy happens in both the individual organism’s life cycle and in species’ life.
The second law assures that a perpetual motion machine (or universe) will not work either. All engines expend some fraction of their heat input to entropy, or exhaust. The second law of thermodynamics places an upper limit on the efficiency of a system. It is always less than 100 percent.
Third Law. There is a third law of thermodynamics that seldom if ever comes up in apologetic considerations. This law basically says that a system never completely reaches “zero” in energy. There is an absolute temperature scale, with an absolute zero temperature. The third law of thermodynamics states that absolute zero can be approached very closely, but it can never be reached.
Sources
J. Collins, A History of Modern European Philosophy.
W. L. Craig, The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe.
N. L. Geisler and J. Kerby, Origin Science.
R. Jastrow, God and the Astronomers.
--, "A Scientist Caught between Two Faiths.”
M. D. Lemonick, "Echoes of the Big Bang.”
A. Sandage, "A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief.”
V. J. Stenger, 'The Face of Chaos.”
Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas (1224-74) was a theologian, philosopher, and the consummate apologist of the late medieval church. Born in Italy, he joined the Dominican order. He studied at Naples and Paris. He started a school at Cologne and taught at Paris throughout his career except for eight years at the papal Curiae at Rome. He was canonized by the Roman church in 1326. Aquinas wrote De anima (On the Soul), De Ente et Essentia (On Being and Essence), De veritate (On Truth), On the Power of God, Summa contra Gentiles, and The Unity of the Intellect against the Averoeists. By far his most important and influential writing went into his magnum opus systematic theology, Summa Theologica, which was still unfinished at his death.
The thought of Aquinas is rich and varied. He wrote on many topics, including *faith and reason, revelation, knowledge, reality, God (see God, Evidence for; God, Nature of), analogy (see Analogy, Principle of), creation (see Creation, Views of), human beings, government, and ethics (see Morality, Absolute Nature of). His mind was intensely analytical, making his arguments difficult for the modern reader to follow. His writing style is sometimes dialectical and highly complex, especially in Summa Theologica. This is less true in Summa contra Gentiles.
Theology and Apologetics. Revelation. God has revealed himself in both nature and Scripture. His natural revelation (Rom. 1:19-20) is available to all and is the basis for *natural theology (see Revelation, General). The creation reveals one God and his essential attributes, but not the *Trinity or the unique doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the incarnation of Christ (see Christ,
Deity of) or the way of salvation. This revelation in nature also includes a moral law that is binding on all people (Rom 2:12-15). God’s divine law is for believers; it is revealed in Scripture (see Revelation, Special). Although written by humans with differing literary styles (Summa Theologica, 2a2ae. 173,3, adl), the Bible is the only divinely authoritative writing (ibid., la.l,
2, ad2). The Bible is inspired and inerrant, even in matters that are not essential to redemption (ibid., la.l, 10, ad3). No other Christian writings, neither the Fathers nor the creeds, are inspired or revelatory. They are only human interpretations of God’s revelation in Scripture (ibid., 2a2ae. 1, 9).
*Faith and Reason. Following *Augustine, Aquinas believes faith is based on God’s revelation in Scripture. Support for faith, however, is found in miracles (see Miracles, Apologetic Value of) and probable arguments (On Truth, 10, 2). Although God’s existence is provable by reason (see Cosmological Argument), sin obscures our ability to know (Summa Theologica, 2a2ae. 2, 4), and so belief (not proof) that God exists is necessary for most persons (Summa contra Gentiles, 1.4, 3-5). Human reason, however, is never the basis for faith in God. Demanding reasons for belief in God actually lessens the merit of faith (Summa Theologica, 2a2ae. 2, 10). Believers, nonetheless, should reason about and for their faith (see Classical Apologetics).
According to Aquinas, there are five ways we can demonstrate God’s existence. We can argue:
1. from motion to an Unmoved Mover
2. from effects to a First Cause
3. from contingent being to a Necessary Being
4. 4. from degrees of perfection to a Most Perfect Being
5. from design in nature to a Designer of nature (ibid., la, 2, 3)
Behind these arguments is the premise that all finite, changing beings need a cause outside themselves.
There are mysteries of the Christian faith, however, such as the *Trinity and the incarnation (see Christ, Deity of), that can be known only by faith in God’s revelation in Scripture (Summa contra Gentiles, 1.3, 2). These go beyond reason, but are not contrary to reason.
Knowledge. Aquinas believes that knowledge comes either by supernatural revelation (in Scripture) or by natural means (see Epistemology). All natural knowledge begins in experience (Aquinas, De Anima [On the Soul], 3.4). We are born, however, with an a priori, natural, innate capacity to know (Summa Theologica, la2ae. 17,7). Everything that is in our mind was first in the senses, except the mind itself. Knowing something for certain is possible by means of *first principles. First principles are known by way of inclination before they are known by cognition. These include:
1. the principle of identity (being is being)
2. the principle of noncontradiction (being is not nonbeing)
3. the principle of excluded middle (either being or nonbeing)
4. the principle of causality (nonbeing cannot cause being; see Causality, Principle of)
5. the principle of finality (every being acts for an end)
By these and other first principles, the mind can attain knowledge of reality—even some certain
knowledge. Once the terms are properly understood, these first principles are self-evident and, thus, undeniable (ibid., la. 17, 3, ad2).
Reality. Like Aristotle, Aquinas believes it is the function of the wise person to know order. The order that reason produces in its own ideas is called logic. The order that reason produces through acts of the will is ethics. The order that reason produces in external things is art. The order that reason contemplates (but does not produce) is nature. Nature, when it is contemplated insofar as it is sensible, is physical science. Nature, when it is studied insofar as it is quantifiable, is mathematics. The modern concept of mathematics is much broader and includes more abstract and nonquantifiable dimensions. Aquinas would have considered this philosophy, not mathematics. Nature or reality, when studied insofar as it is real, is metaphysics. Metaphysics, then, is the study of the real as real or being, insofar as it is being.
The heart of Aquinas’s metaphysics is the real distinction between essence (what something is) and existence (that which is) in all finite beings {On Being and Essence). Aristotle had distinguished between actuality and potentiality but had applied this only to things composed of form and matter, not to the order of being. Aquinas takes Aristotle’s distinction between act and potency and applies it to form (being). Aquinas argues that only God is Pure Being, Pure Actuality, with no potentiality whatsoever (see God, Nature of). Hence, the central premise of the Thomistic view of reality is that actuality in the order in which it is actuality is unlimited and unique, unless it is conjoined with passive potency. God alone is pure act (or actuality) with no potentiality or form Angels are completely actualized potentialities (pure forms). Humankind is a composition of form (soul) and matter (body) that is progressively actualized.
God. God alone is Being (I am-ness). Everything else merely has being. God’s essence is identical to his existence. It is of his essence to exist. God is a Necessary Being. He cannot not exist. Neither can God change, since he has no potentiality to be anything other than what he is. Likewise, God is eternal, since time implies a change from a before to an after. But as the “I AM,” God has no befores and afters. God also is simple (indivisible), since he has no potential for division. And he is infinite, since pure act as such is unlimited, having no potentiality to limit it (Summa Theologica, la. 3; la. 7-11). Besides these metaphysical attributes, God is also morally perfect and infinitely wise (ibid., la. 4, 5).
Analogy. Natural knowledge of God is derived from his creation, as an efficient cause is known from its effects. Since God made the world, his creation resembles him It is not the same as him (univocal), but it is like him Our natural knowledge of God is based on that resemblance or analogy. Neither can it be totally different from him (equivocal), since the cause communicates something of itself to its effects. Univocal (totally the same) knowledge of God is impossible, since our knowledge is limited and God is unlimited. Equivocal (totally different) knowledge of God is impossible, since creation resembles the Creator; the effect resembles its efficient cause. Of course, there are great differences between God and creatures. Hence, the via negativa (the way of negation) is necessary. That is, we must negate all limitations from our concepts before we apply them to God. We must apply to God only the perfection signified (such as goodness or truth) but not the finite mode of signification (see Analogy, Principle of).
So the same attribute will have the same definition for creatures and Creator but a different application or extension. Like God, I can know that 2 + 2 = 4. But the mathematical facts I know, and the other attributes I share with God, are limited and contingent. And I cannot do with that knowledge what God can. The reason for this is that creatures are only finitely good while God is infinitely Good. So before we can appropriately apply the term good to God, we must negate the finite mode (how) in which we find good among creatures and apply the meaning (what) to God in an unlimited way (Summa contra Gentiles, I, 29-34; Summa Theologica, la. 13).
Creation. God did not create the world out of himself (ex Deo) or out of preexisting matter (ex materia). Rather, he created it out of nothing, ex nihilo (see Creation, Views of). Although an eternal creation is theoretically possible, since there is no logical reason why an eternal Cause cannot keep causing eternally, nevertheless, divine revelation teaches that the universe had a beginning. So God created a temporal universe. There was literally no time before God created—only eternity. God did not create in time; rather, with the world there was the creation of time. So there was no time before time began (Summa Theologica, la. 44-46).
Further, the universe is dependent on God for its existence. He not only caused it to come to be but also causes it to continue to be. God is both the Cause of the origination of the whole of creation and the Cause of its continuation. The universe is absolutely dependent on God; it is contingent. Only God is necessary.
Human Beings. A human being is a matter/form unity of soul and body. Despite this unity, there is no identity between soul and body. The soul survives death and awaits reunion with the physical body at the final *resurrection (Summa Theologica, la. 75-76). The human soul is the formal cause while the body is the material cause of a human being. God, of course, is the efficient cause. Parents are only the instrumental cause of the body. The final cause (purpose) is to glorify God, who created us. Adam was directly created by God at the beginning, and God directly creates each new soul in the womb of its mother (ibid., la. 90-93).
Ethics. Just as there are first principles of thought, so there are first principles of action, called laws. Aquinas distinguishes four kinds of law:
1. Eternal law is the plan by which God governs creation.
2. Natural law (see Morality, Absolute Nature of) is the participation of rational creatures in this eternal law.
3. Human law is a particular application of natural law to local communities.
4. Divine law (see Revelation, Special) is the revelation of God’s law through Scripture to believers (ibid., Ia2ae. 91).
Aquinas divides virtues into two classes: natural and supernatural. Prudence, justice, courage, and temperance are natural virtues. These are revealed through natural revelation and are applicable to all human beings. Supernatural virtues consist of faith, hope, and love. They are known from supernatural revelation in Scripture and are binding on believers (ibid., la. 60-61).
Evaluation. Criticisms have been leveled at Aquinas’s views by atheists and agnostics and are covered in those articles. Relativists’ arguments with his thought are covered in Morality, Absolute Nature of. Some have objected that his proofs for God are invalid (see God, Objections to Proofs for). Others have denied his doctrine of analogy (see Analogy, Principle of). Still others attack his epistemology and use of first principles. Likewise, his dependence on Aristotelian logic has been critiqued. Nonetheless, the philosophy of Aquinas has undergone a renaissance in recent years, particularly among evangelicals.
Sources
T. Aquinas, On Being and Essence.
--, On Evil.
---, On the Soul.
---, On Truth.
---, Summa contra Gentiles.
---, Summa Theologicci.
M. -D. Chenu, Toward Understanding Saint Thomas.
R. J. A. De Ferrari. A Complete Index of the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas.
---, Latin-English Dictionary of Thomas Aquinas.
---,A Lexicon of St. Thomas Aquinas Based on Summa Theologiae and Select Passages of His Other Work.
N. L. Geisler, Thomas Aquinas.
A. Kenny, The Five Ways.
T. Miethe and V. Bourke, Thomistic Bibliography.
R. Pasnau, The Philosophy of Aquinas.
M. Stockhammer, ed., Thomas Aquinas Dictionary.
Tindal, Matthew. Matthew Tindal (1656-1733), an English lawyer, was one of the best known and most respected deists (see Deism) of his time. His most important deistic work, Christianity as Old as the Creation: or, the Gospel, a Republication of the Religion of Nature (1730), was not published until he was about seventy-four years of age. Because of its influence and completeness, it has been called the “Deistic Bible” and its author “the great Apostle of Deism” This major work prompted more than 150 replies, including the classic critique of deism, Joseph *Butler’s Analogy of Religion (1872).
Existence and Nature of God. Tindal’s view of the existence and nature of God was very similar to that of theists. He believed God to be completely perfect, infinitely loving, eternal, just, merciful, immutable, omnipresent, omniscient, true, omnibenevolent, wise, without parts, and invisible (Tindal, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 65, 66, 87). He also held God to be impassable, that is, without passions (ibid., 39).
Creation and Humanity. According to Tindal, the universe was created by God ex nihilo (out of nothing). Human beings were also brought into existence by a direct creative act of God: “,Tis God, who from Nothing brings us into Being, frames us after the Manner that best pleases him, imprints on us what Faculties, inclinations, Desires and Passions he thinks fit” (ibid., 29, 30, 106).
As to why God created all things, Tindal states that it was not because of any lack or need in God, since he is absolutely perfect. Rather, God’s motive for creating was solely for the good of his creatures (ibid., 30).
God’s Relation to the World. God is the cosmic Governor of the world. His divine laws are those of nature that govern the activities of his creatures. These natural laws are perfect, immutable, and eternal, for these laws govern God’s own actions. Consequently, these laws are the same ones by which God “expects all the rational world should govern” their actions. To ensure this, God “continues daily to implant” his law “in the Minds of all Men, Christians as well as Others” (ibid., 59, 114).
God has established the end or goal of all actions—the honor of God and the good of man—but not the means (ibid., 115). Natural law reveals what people should work toward, but it does not reveal exactly how to attain that end (ibid., 70, 107). This is only proper. “If God interposes further, and prescribes a particular Way of doing these Things, from which Men at no Time, or upon no Account ought to vary; he not only interposes unnecessarily, but to the Prejudice of the End for which he thus
interposes” (ibid., 115). Therefore, God does not need to intercede in the affairs of his creation, nor should he. The natural laws that he has established are sufficient for the continued governance of the world. Miracles do not occur (see Miracles, Arguments Against).
Human Beings. Humans are personal, rational, and free, but it is reason “which makes us the Image of God himself, and is the common Bond which unites Heaven and Earth.” By reason we can prove the existence of God, demonstrate God’s attributes, and discover and work out the whole of natural religion. Tindal defined natural religion as “the Belief of the Existence of a God, and the Sense and Practice of those Duties, which result from the Knowledge, we, by our Reason, have of him, and his Perfections; and of ourselves, and our own Imperfections; and of the Relation we stand in to him, and to our Fellow-Creatures” (ibid., 13).
Every person is capable of arriving at the basic articles of natural religion:
1. belief in God
2. worship of God
3. doing what is for one’s personal good or happiness, and promoting the common happiness (ibid., 11-18)
Tindal readily acknowledged that not all people accept the natural religion revealed in nature. The reason for this, he thought, was because of an “innate weakness” to believe in superstition. From this weakness came most of the problems of humankind (ibid., 165, 169).
Although many people have strayed from natural religion, God has made human nature to act in conformity with the rest of nature. Those who do not act this way are contradicting their own rational nature, thus acting irrationally (ibid., 26).
Origin and Nature of Evil. Tindal believed that evil came about because people succumb to superstition and act against the natural order of things (see Evil, Problem of). He did believe that some people were in need of a savior for their wicked ways. Jesus Christ came to “teach” these people “to repent of the Breach of known Duties.” As Tindal points out, Jesus said, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Matt. 9:13). There are two types of people, Tindal said, the ‘“whole or righteous” and the “sick or Sinners.” Jesus did business entirely with the latter, for “there is but one universal Remedy for all sick Persons, Repentance and Amendment.י,־ This has been revealed in nature since creation (ibid., 48, 49). Further, if God, who is no respecter of persons, will judge the world in righteousness and will accept the righteous, the righteous need no physician. They are already living in a way that pleases God. Christ came to reform those who do not have a good enough level of morality (ibid., 49).
Nature of Ethics. “The Principle from which all human Actions flow is the Desire of Happiness,” wrote Tindal. This central principle is the “only innate Principle in Mankind” and so it must be implanted by God. Since human beings are rational creatures, their happiness is found when they govern all their “Actions by the Rules of right Reason.” These rules of self-discipline are grounded in the moral perfections of God discoverable in nature. When people live “according to the Rules of right Reason, we more and more implant in us the moral Perfections of God, from which his Happiness [and ours] is inseparable” (ibid., 23, 24, 30).
“From these Premises,” said Tindal, “we may conclude, that Men, according as they do, or do not partake of the Nature of God, must unavoidably be either happy, or miserable.” In the wisdom of God, the consequences of both good and evil actions are found in happiness and unhappiness in this life. Hence, “there’s no Virtue, but what has some Good inseparably annex’d to it; and no Vice, but what as necessarily carries with it some Evil” (ibid., 25).
Tindal rejected the idea that any book or books could have been used by God to reveal what is right and wrong. One book could not cover every case. However, the light of nature teaches us our duty in most cases (ibid., 27). He also attempted to discredit the historicity of the Bible (see Bible Criticism). He ridiculed many Bible stories, such as the accounts of the Garden of Eden, the fall of man, Jacob’s wrestling with God, and Balaam’s talking donkey. He also argued that many of the miracles recorded in the Bible had parallels in pagan mythical stories and thus were mythical as well (ibid., 170, 192, 229, 340, 349).
Tindal did believe in an afterlife. Humanity’s rational nature will survive death and pass onto another life where there are no “sensual things to divert his Thoughts.” There will also be a “last Day” wherein God will judge every human being, not for what was said or believed “but what you have done more than others.” God’s judgment will be impartial and fair, since “God, at all Times, has given Mankind sufficient Means of knowing whatever he requires of them; and what those Means are” (ibid., 1,25, 26,51).
Evaluation. The anti supernatural ism of deism is critiqued in articles on deism, such deists as Thomas *Jefferson and Thomas *Paine, and in articles on such particular miracles as the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ. See also Miracle; Miracles, Arguments Against. Historically, two of the best critiques of Tindal were by Butler {Analogy of Religion) and Jonathan *Edwards in various of his critiques on deism, rationalism, and universalism
J. Butler, The Analogy of Religion.
J. Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards.
N. L. Geisler and W. D. Watkins, Worlds Apart, chap. 5.
Η. M. Morais, Deism in Eighteenth-Century America.
J. Orr. English Deism.
M. Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation: or, the Gospel, a Republication of the Religion of Nature.
Transcendental Argument. The transcendental argument is used by some presuppositional apologists (see Presuppositional Apologetics) to demonstrate the truth of Christianity. It is patterned after Immanuel *Kant’s reasoning in Critique of Pure Reason. A transcendental argument is neither deductive nor inductive. It is more reductive, arguing back to the necessary preconditions of something being the case.
As used by presuppositional apologetics, the transcendental argument affirms that, in order to make sense of the world, it is necessary to postulate the existence of the triune God as revealed in the Bible. This argument is employed by Cornelius *Van Til and a modified form is used by Francis *Schaeffer.
Van Til’s thought is rooted in Herman *Dooyeweerd, who was influenced by Kant. Once Kant’s *agnosticism is accepted, *first principles, such as the principle of causality, cannot be applied to the real world. This occasions the necessity of finding some other way to get at reality. The transcendental realist (see Realism) argues that this can be done in the same way that Kant posited the existence of a priori forms and categories of sense and the mind. Using this kind of reduction, they seek to find the necessary conditions for something being so. Kant himself concluded that it was necessary to posit God and immortality in order to make sense out of moral obligations (see Moral
Argument for God).
Some apologists have made a minimal use of the transcendental argument. Edward John *Carnell, for example, seemed to use it to defend the principle of causality (see Causality, Principle of).
Van Til made maximal use of it, claiming that the whole Christian system is based on it. Others are in between, asserting that it is necessary to posit the existence of the basic laws of reason (see First Principles; Logic and God), a theistic God, and perhaps some other things in order to make sense out of the world.
Transcendental and First Principles. Classical apologetics is based on such first principles as noncontradiction, causality, and analogy (see Cosmological Argument). Presuppositionalists reject traditional proofs for God’s existence (see God, Evidence for) in favor of many of the atheistic and agnostic arguments (see Agnosticism; Atheism). They seem to replace the traditional first principles of knowing the real world with a new transcendental principle. This raises the question of the relationship between the transcendental principle and the traditional first principles.
Similarities and Differences. There are similarities and differences in the use of the transcendental principle and of first principles by evangelical apologists. In general, the following comparison will represent the thinking of representatives of the positions of *Thomas Aquinas and Van Til. Other viewpoints differ but generally follow one of these two lines of thinking (see Apologetics,
Types of).
Similarities. In both systems, the principles operate like a first principle. There is nothing more basic than either in terms of which it can be proven to be true. It is interesting that transcendentalists give a status to their principle that they deny to traditional first principles. This appears to be a valid criticism of transcendental apologetics.
Both believe their respective principle(s) can be used to prove the existence of God.
Both hold that their principle(s) apply to the real world. Unlike Kant, however, they believe one can know reality (see Realism; Agnosticism) by means of their principle(s).
Both hold that their principle(s) can be understood in a meaningful way, even by finite human beings. They do not have equivocal meaning as understood by God and by us (see Analogy, Principle of).
Both believe their arguments are valid, even if rejected by others.
Differences. Transcendentalists have only one principle—the transcendental principle. Traditionalists lookto many first principles, including noncontradiction, causality, and analogy.
Transcendentalists presuppose their first principle with no attempt to demonstrate it.
Traditionalists offer proof of the first principles by showing that they are self-evident or reducible to the self-evident. This can be seen in the article on first principles.
While both imply a causal connection between the world and God, transcendentalists deny the ontological validity of the principle of causality. The transcendentalists insist that it is transcendentally necessary to posit a First Cause (i.e., God) of the finite world in order for it to make sense. But how does this differ from saying that every finite, contingent existence needs a First Cause, which is precisely what the first principle of causality demands?
The transcendental principle formally speaks of the necessary condition but not the sufficient condition of something. The principle of causality gives both. Thus, the transcendental principle does give only a necessary condition, not an actual cause, of the finite world. For a necessary condition (e.g., dry leaves) only explains how a fire is possible. It still takes ignition (a sufficient condition) to explain how it is actual.
Conclusion. The transcendental principle is neither self-evident, nor can it, by definition, be justified in terms of something more basic than itself As such, it is without foundation However, first principles, such as noncontradiction and causality, are self-evident or reducible to the self-evident. Hence, they serve better as a basis for apologetics.