A Distinctly Christian Understanding of the Technical Details in Engineering

Contents

Abstract

Within engineering disciplines, much attention has been given to developing pedagogical techniques and practical applications that are distinctly Christian. However, not as much attention has been given to understanding technical engineering content from a distinctly Christian perspective. The main reason is that the technical details of engineering seem to be the same for both Christians and non-Christians. After all, does being a Christian have any impact on the content of specific technical details like integration and finite element analysis? Since the vast majority of time in engineering jobs, research, and teaching is spent on specific technical details, this is a very important question to answer. In this paper, I present a framework for applying Scripture to the specific technical content of various engineering disciplines, going beyond standard approaches where Christianity is applied to one’s motivation, one’s pedagogical techniques, or one’s design practice. I place this framework in context by introducing the notions of doctrine, piety, and practice in engineering. I then leverage the concepts of common grace and the antithesis to develop this framework, using the notion of pseudo-knowledge in 1 Timothy to understand how this framework can be applied in various engineering disciplines. I demonstrate how the technical details of engineering are in and of themselves Christian in character, and I illustrate this framework across various engineering fields with several examples.

The Practice of Christian Higher Education in Technical Disciplines

Christian higher education seeks to train students in all areas to think God's thoughts after Him and walk in all His ways. God has created us in His image to study, subdue, and develop the world He has made (Genesis 1:26-28), and Christian higher education seeks to train students to glorify God in doing exactly that. Christian higher education is an application of the first and great commandment (Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37-38, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27) and constitutes a central element of what it means to keep covenant with God, teaching students in all areas of human thought, activity, and living (Deuteronomy 4:9-10, 6:6-9, 11:18-21, 31:12-13, 32:46). Consequently, a Christian professor understands that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ (Colossians 2:3) and therefore seeks to take every thought captive in his or her area of study (2 Corinthians 10:5), using Scripture as the foundational authority and interpretive lens by which students are taught engineering, computer science, mathematics, science, or any other subject [1]-[3].

For example, a Christian understanding of engineering teaches students that engineering is one of the ways in which we can fulfill the cultural mandate and steward the earth (Genesis 1:28), over against technicist views of engineering which see it as a way in which we can seek progress for its own sake [4]. A Christian view of mathematics teaches students that the absolute, universal, and unchanging properties of mathematics derive from the character of God as the absolute, omnipresent, and unchanging Creator of the universe (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17, Hebrews 13:8, Psalm 139:7-10, Jeremiah 23:24). A Christian view of science teaches that scientific theories and laws are a description of the normal, consistent, and repeatable ways in which God continually upholds the universe by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3). In all these ways, Christian higher education seeks to bring a distinctly Christian approach to every area of study, inculcating thinking, reasoning, and behavior that aligns with the character of God.

God's Call to a Distinctly Christian Approach to Engineering

A distinctly Christian approach to engineering’s specific technical details is one to which God calls us. After all, God’s eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen in every aspect of engineering, including the so-called “neutral” technical details (Romans 1:18-20, Psalm 19:1-4). God calls us to think and see the world in a way that reflects the way He sees the world. Whatever we do, whether we eat or drink, should be done for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31, Colossians 3:17). Whatever we do includes all the specific technical details of engineering, meaning that all engineering and technology should be done to the glory of God. In addition, we are called to grow in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18). This knowledge includes the specific technical details of engineering because all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ (Colossians 2:3). This means that all the knowledge about STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) is deposited in Christ.

God also tells us that genuine knowledge of any subject whatsoever begins with reverence and submission to the Lord (Proverbs 1:7). This includes the specific technical details of engineering. Genuine knowledge in engineering is not only deposited in Christ but begins with reverence and submission to God. We are called to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind (Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30,33, Luke 10:27). Our minds are to be used in a way that pleases and honors the Lord. This is why God calls us to take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5). Since every thought is to be taken captive, this means that every thought about integration, every thought about Fourier transforms, every thought about principal component analysis, and every thought about engineering’s technical details should be made obedient to Christ.

Another reason for taking a distinctly Christian approach to the specific technical details is because neutrality in engineering is impossible. Even though Christians and non-Christians may agree on many of the technical details of engineering, that does not make the discipline of engineering itself neutral, nor does it make those technical details themselves neutral. One reason that we know neutrality in engineering is impossible is because we cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13). We cannot serve two different lords while doing engineering. Either we will be serving the Christian God or we will be serving some other god. According to the doctrine of creation, everything is unified under the sovereign disposition and creative power of God, so there is nothing that is not God’s. Christ is Lord over everything and should receive the preeminence in all things (Colossians 1:18). This includes engineering, implying that Christ is the sovereign Lord over every aspect of engineering, including its specific technical details.

Given this call to a distinctly Christian approach, there are a variety of ways in which Christian higher education can be practiced in STEM disciplines. The three main ways in which a distinctly Christian approach to STEM disciplines can be carried out parallel the three emphases of Christian theology.

Doctrine, Piety, and Practice

Within Christian theology, there are generally three different emphases, all of which should work together equally and none of which should be overemphasized. These are doctrine, piety, and practice [5]. We need to understand what God has told us in the Bible about Himself and about how we are to live our lives (doctrine/orthodoxy), have an active and living relationship with the Lord (piety/orthopathy), and live out what the Bible teaches in every area of life (practice/orthopraxy). There are three analogous emphases in the practice of Christian education (Table 1), which also should work together equally and should not have any one aspect be overemphasized.

First, in Christian education, the content of the material being taught or researched is analogous to doctrine in Christian theology. They both refer to descriptions of what we believe and know, corresponding to the mind of the person. Second, in Christian education, the pedagogical techniques and the manner in which a professor conducts himself or herself is analogous to piety in Christian theology. They both refer to the way in which we relate to others, corresponding to the heart of the person. Third, in Christian education, training students to practically live out what they have learned in their discipline is analogous to practice in Christian theology. They both refer to a change of the heart and character that affects every area of life in a practical way, corresponding to the will of the person.

Within STEM disciplines, much attention has been given to developing pedagogical techniques and practical applications that are distinctly Christian (the second and third emphases). However, not as much attention has been given to the first emphasis, understanding the technical content from a distinctly Christian perspective. In fact, many Christians believe that it is not possible to provide a distinctly Christian perspective of the technical content [6]-[16]. The main reason is that the technical details of STEM disciplines seem to be the same for both Christians and non-Christians. After all, does being a Christian have any impact on specific technical details like integration and finite element analysis? The vast majority of time in STEM classes and STEM jobs is spent on specific technical details, making this a very important question to answer.

Common Grace and the Antithesis

Answering this question requires introducing two theological concepts, that of common grace and the antithesis [17]. The first concept, common grace, has two aspects [18]. One aspect of common grace is that it refers to God graciously giving everyone general, nonredemptive blessings (Matthew 5:45, Acts 14:17, Luke 6:35, Job 25:3). An example of this is that the rain falls on the fields of both the righteous and the wicked. The other aspect of common grace is oftentimes overlooked but is crucially important. That aspect of common grace is God's gracious restraint on everyone's natural inclination to be as bad as they could be (Genesis 20:6, 1 Samuel 25:26,34). Our natural inclination to be as bad as we could be is not only spiritual and ethical in nature but also epistemological. Without God's gracious restraint, every aspect of our thinking would become distorted (Romans 1:18,21,28, 8:6-7, Ephesians 4:17-18, Colossians 1:21, 2 Corinthians 3:14, 4:4, Isaiah 44:18, Deuteronomy 29:4, Job 17:4, Titus 1:15, 1 Timothy 6:5, 2 Timothy 3:8).

The second concept, antithesis, refers to the systematic conflict and absolute opposition between Christians and non-Christians, or the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world (James 4:4, Genesis 3:15, John 15:19, 17:14). This opposition is not only spiritual and ethical, but it is also epistemological. Non-Christian thinking is hostile to and at enmity with Christian thinking (Romans 8:7, Colossians 1:21, Ephesians 4:17-18). The antithesis is in principle total and absolute (Luke 11:23, 16:13, Matthew 6:24, 12:30, Mark 9:40). There would in principle be a complete and total difference of thought and behavior between Christians and non-Christians [19]-[20]. If Christians were perfectly consistent with what they profess to believe and non-Christians were perfectly consistent with what they profess to believe, Christians and non-Christians would agree on absolutely nothing [21]-[24]. Christians and non-Christians would radically disagree about every single one of their starting points, methods, and conclusions. This would include disagreements about so-called “neutral” technical details like 2 + 2 = 4 and the operations of Laplace transforms [25].

Then why do Christians and non-Christians agree on the technical details of engineering like Laplace transforms? Ultimately it is due to the restraining nature of God's common grace. God restrains non-Christians from being perfectly consistent with what they profess to believe, allowing Christians and non-Christians to work together on engineering problems (and allowing many non-Christians to surpass Christians in technical knowledge). This is why the antithesis is in principle total and absolute. This is why in principle Christians and non-Christians would agree on absolutely nothing. The non-Christian worldview, if perfectly lived out and taken to its logical conclusion, ultimately undermines the foundations of mathematics, engineering, control systems, Laplace transforms, and every other aspect of STEM disciplines.

Pseudo-knowledge in Engineering

Consequently, when non-Christians agree with Christians about the technical details of engineering, they possess what the Bible calls “pseudo-knowledge,” or that which is falsely called “knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20). The knowledge non-Christians claim to have does not ultimately qualify as knowledge and does not deserve the name “knowledge” [26] because their professed worldview cannot ultimately justify what they claim to know (2 Timothy 3:7), leaving them without excuse (Romans 1:19-21). Even though non-Christians have many true beliefs about the world, all of them are imperfectly justified because they ultimately appeal to a false worldview and imperfect authorities, not the perfect authority of the all-knowing Christian God. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). Non-Christians do not view the world in the light of God’s revelation and suppress it in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18), exchanging the Christian worldview for one that is unable to perfectly justify anything (Romans 1:25). When a non-Christian believes something true, like (d/dx)x^2 = 2x, it would be an example of pseudo-knowledge. The non-Christian worldview cannot ultimately justify the true belief, while the Christian worldview can ultimately justify the belief [27]-[29].

As seen in Figure 1, the Christian justifies his or her true belief in Laplace transforms on the basis of a God-created, God-controlled, and God-glorifying universe. Since God created everything and is both immutable and omnipresent, the Christian has a justification for believing that Laplace transforms correspond to reality and can be universally applied in the world. In contrast, the non-Christian attempts (and fails) to justify his or her true belief in Laplace transforms on the basis of a chance-created, completely uncontrolled, and human-glorifying universe. For the non-Christian, Laplace transforms are a pragmatic truth that came about by chance, seem to work, and may or may not correspond with reality, so we do not even know for sure whether they can be universally applied in the world. Even though non-Christians do not have an ultimate justification for their true belief in Laplace transforms, they still use Laplace transforms because they know God in their heart of hearts (Romans 1:19-21).

Figure 1: Pseudo-knowledge in Engineering

Within engineering, there are two types of pseudo-knowledge, called in-doctrination and deprive-doctrination (Figure 2). Both types of pseudo-knowledge are distortions of the true body of knowledge in engineering. Both types of pseudo-knowledge are different forms in which non-Christians suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).

Figure 2: Types of Pseudo-knowledge

The first type of pseudo-knowledge, in-doctrination, consists of inserting false propositions into the body of true knowledge in engineering. An example of a false proposition that may be inserted is the belief that we will one day be able to download our minds into computers and live forever. A proposition like this clearly distorts the entire body of knowledge in engineering, affecting how the true technical details of engineering are interpreted and used. This type of distortion is much easier to recognize, point out, and contrast against the true Christian worldview.

The second type of pseudo-knowledge, deprive-doctrination, is in a sense more deadly because it is much more difficult to detect. Deprive-doctrination consists of removing true propositions from the body of knowledge in engineering so that they are missing. An example of a missing truth is that Laplace transforms are a description of the consistent and repeatable way in which God upholds the universe by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3), reflecting the equal ultimacy of unity and diversity in God's Trinitarian character. Deprive-doctrination is the same as teaching the history of World War II without ever talking about the Holocaust or concentration camps. Deprive-doctrination is the same as telling someone in detail about one's life without ever mentioning one's spouse or children. In this way, it is infinitely more rebellious to do engineering without acknowledging the existence and involvement of God in the technical details than it is to tell people about one's life without ever mentioning one's family.

When considering these two types of pseudo-knowledge in secular education, we see that in-doctrination is more common in the humanities. Typically there are many false ideas that are inserted into the true body of knowledge, like unbiblical views of human sexuality. Consequently, the antithesis is more clearly seen in the humanities. In contrast, deprive-doctrination is more common in STEM fields. Typically the technical details are correct, but there is no mention of God or the Christian foundation for those technical details. Consequently, common grace is more prevalent in STEM disciplines.

Engineering is a Christian Discipline

If STEM professors in Christian higher education are not careful, they risk teaching highly technical classes in the same way as secular institutions, thereby teaching a form of deprive-doctrination to students. Consequently, it is paramount to show students that the things all engineers (Christian and non-Christian) take for granted are explicitly Christian in character. Engineering is only possible because Christianity is true. Engineering depends upon the existence and character of the Christian God since God is “sustaining all things by His powerful word” (Hebrews 1:3). In this sense, engineering (including its technical details) is a distinctly Christian discipline.

However, this does not mean that only Christians do engineering. The reason that non-Christians do engineering is because they know God in their heart of hearts: “what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. … God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-20). All of creation clearly reveals God, having God’s fingerprints imprinted all over it, so that non-Christians are without excuse (Psalm 19:1-4). However, non-Christians suppress this knowledge in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18), falsely thinking in a form of deprive-doctrination that the truth about God has no bearing on the technical details of engineering.

For example, when we develop an engineering product in the United States, everyone (both Christians and non-Christians) expects that product to work in the same way in China (given the same environmental conditions). The reason this is the case is because God is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-10, Jeremiah 23:24). The same God who upholds the universe in the United States is also the same God who upholds the universe in China (Hebrews 1:3). However, non-Christians suppress this knowledge about God's divine nature in a form of deprive-doctrination, believing the engineering product will still work the same way in China without sufficient justification.

Furthermore, everyone (both Christians and non-Christians) expect that engineering products developed now will continue to work in the future (subject to normal wear and tear). The reason this is the case is because God is immutable and unchanging (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17, Hebrews 13:8). Since God’s character does not change over time, the manner in which He upholds the universe will not change over time, implying that engineering products will work the same way tomorrow as they do today. However, non-Christians suppress this knowledge about God's divine nature in a form of deprive-doctrination, believing the engineering product will still work in the future without sufficient justification.

The belief that engineering products produced in one place will work in other locations, both now and in the future, is fundamental to all engineering design. Without it, engineering would be impossible. But here we see that this fundamental belief is based on the nature and character of the Christian God. Consequently, the Christian professor strives to demonstrate the Christian foundation for the technical details of engineering that everyone takes for granted.

The Christian Foundations of Engineering

There are numerous examples that could be provided showing the explicitly Christian foundations of the technical details of engineering. These include the Trinitarian foundation of classes and objects in C++, the attributes of God that make Laplace transforms and other mathematical operations possible, the behavioristic worldview behind the development of reinforcement learning, the corollaries between signal processing and the clarity of Scripture, the illustrative nature of control feedback loops on understanding the hermeneutical circle of biblical interpretation, and the inherently Christian assumptions behind the mathematical modeling of control systems. I will conclude by looking at this last example in more detail.

Whenever we use a mathematical model or machine learning model to describe a physical system, like cruise control on a car, we are employing what is called the correspondence assumption. We believe that the behavior of the mathematical model or machine learning model closely approximates the behavior of the physical system. This is something that all engineers believe, both Christians and non-Christians. Without this belief, all engineering analysis would be impossible. But what is the basis for this belief?

First, God tells us that He upholds the universe by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3) and that He sovereignly controls all things (Ephesians 1:11, Philippians 3:21, Colossians 1:17). This includes the physical system being modeled and the person modeling it. Consequently, there is a connection between the physical system, the model, and the person doing the modeling. Second, God tells us that He is omnipresent and universal (Psalm 139:7-10, Jeremiah 23:24), so we can expect that given the same environmental conditions, the physical system will operate in the same way everywhere on earth. Third, God tells us that He is immutable and unchangeable (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17, Hebrews 13:8), implying that the way the physical system operates will be consistent and repeatable over time. Therefore, the mathematical model is a description of (or corresponds to) the consistent, repeatable, and uniform way in which God sovereignly controls and directs the operations of the physical system.

In contrast, the non-Christian worldview is unable to provide a basis for the correspondence assumption. For example, if atheistic materialism were true, then there would be no guarantee that the model produced by a human’s brain has anything to do with the physical system being modeled. Even if it did have something to do with the physical system, there is no guarantee that the model (or the physical system) would operate in a consistent, repeatable, and uniform fashion because nobody has been around to test the model (or the physical system) at all times and in all places. As another example, if Hinduism were true, then there would be no true distinction between the model and the physical system being modeled. Since all is one, this alleged distinction would be an illusion, making the model meaningless. If the model is the same thing as the physical system, then it makes no sense to treat the model as a description of the physical system’s behavior. Consequently, the basis for all mathematical modeling depends upon the nature and character of the Christian God in a way that cannot be sufficiently justified by the non-Christian worldview.

Conclusion

In this way, it is important to develop distinctly Christian content in the practice of Christian higher education in technical disciplines. Failure to do so results in the content of highly technical classes being virtually the same as that of secular institutions, thereby teaching a form of deprive-doctrination. God calls us to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5), which includes the allegedly “neutral” technical details of STEM disciplines. By doing this, we will begin to fulfill the goal of Christian higher education: to train students in all areas to think God's thoughts after Him and walk in all His ways.

References

[1] Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1971.

[2] Gregory L. Bahnsen, “Biblical Policy on Keeping Covenant With God in the Education of Our Children,” Penpoint Vol. V:3 (April 1994).

[3] Stephen C. Perks, The Christian Philosophy of Education Explained, Whitby, England: Avant Books, 1992.

[4] Technicism is an outlook that replaces God with a sense of autonomy and a reliance on technology. It is marked by three key beliefs. 1) The development of increasingly complex objects is inevitable; progress cannot be stopped. 2) All technological progress will improve the conditions of humankind. 3) Even if technical change brings problems, there will be technical solutions to solve those issues. Derek C. Schuurman, Shaping a Digital World: Faith, Culture, and Computer Technology, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013, p. 60.

[5] R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008.

[6] “If I were teaching symbolic logic, which is as close as a philosopher comes to mathematics, my Christianity would come through in my attitude and my intellectual integrity far more than in the actual content of the course.” Arthur F. Holmes, The Idea of a Christian College, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987, p. 47.

[7] “… it is clear that there is no specifically ‘Christian’ multiplication table … There is no ‘Christian’ grammar … there is no ‘Christian’ logic …” Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason: The Christian Doctrine of Faith and Knowledge, Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1946, p. 379.

[8] “… if we approach Christian education only or mainly in terms of the ideas communicated, there seems to be little to say here. The push-pass is a physical skill and a standardized movement within the game of field hockey. There is not a distinctively Christian passing motion or a special Christian theory of passing strategy …” David I. Smith, On Christian Teaching: Practicing Faith in the Classroom, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018, p. 74.

[9] “The philosopher will have little opportunity to be conscious of his Christianity where he is occupied with formal logic, or philosophy, or mathematics.” Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason: The Christian Doctrine of Faith and Knowledge, Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1946, p. 391.

[10] “The number of questions where faith will divide believers from nonbelievers is fewer as one goes to the left [of the relevance continuum, where mathematics and the natural sciences lie] … within a discipline, formal questions tend to be more neutral … Most of us find the idea of a Christian mathematics slightly comical because so few of the questions that occupy a mathematician are substantively affected by the biblical narrative. … The natural sciences are similar to mathematics in that the overwhelming majority of the questions pursued in everyday scientific work are not affected by the biblical framework.” C. Stephen Evans, “The Calling of the Christian Scholar-Teacher,” in Faithful Learning and the Christian Scholarly Vocation, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003, pp. 40-41.

[11] “The fact is that explicitly Christian convictions do not very often have substantial impact on the techniques used in academic detective work, which make up the bulk of the technical, scientific side of academic inquiry.” George M. Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, New York: Oxford University Press, 2024, p. 53.

[12] “When scholarship is being done at very specific levels, such as conducting tightly controlled empirical observation in the sciences, Christian commitments may make very little difference.” M. Elizabeth Lewis Hall, “Structuring the Scholarly Imagination: Strategies for Christian Engagement with the Disciplines” in Christian Scholarship in the Twenty-First Century: Prospects and Perils, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014, p. 121.

[13] “Now in some areas, Christian theism doesn’t make a difference, or at least doesn’t make an obvious difference. If the project is that of measuring the distance from earth to the nearest star, or of arguing that no finite axiomatization of arithmetic contains every arithmetical truth, Christian theism seems to have little bearing. If we’re thinking of engineering or chemistry, it is hard to see how a Christian scholar would approach the subject in a way different from a secular scholar. The whole area of mathematics would seem to be neutral, at least for the most part. … So some scholarly projects are ones to which religious perspective seems to make little difference.” Alvin Plantinga, “On Christian Scholarship” in Christian Scholarship in the Twenty-First Century: Prospects and Perils, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014, p. 27.

[14] “… some Christian scholars themselves speak of ‘distinctively Christian scholarship’ as though they meant uniquely Christian scholarship. Often what they really have in mind is that Christian scholarship should reflect commitments to some distinct set of Christian teachings, including doctrines like the Trinity, the Incarnation, or Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, as opposed to a general religious moralism. However, when it comes to applications to scholarship outside of theology itself, these distinctive Christian teachings seldom dictate scholarship that is distinctive in the sense that a non-Christian might not say more or less the same thing on a given topic.” George M. Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, New York: Oxford University Press, 2024, pp. 78-79.

[15] “The nearer anything lies to that center of existence where we are concerned with the whole, that is, with man’s relation to God and the being of the person, the greater is the disturbance of rational knowledge by sin; the farther away anything lies from this center, the less is the disturbance felt, and the less difference is there between knowing as a believer or as an unbeliever. This disturbance reaches its maximum in theology and its minimum in the exact sciences, and zero in the sphere of the formal. Hence it is meaningless to speak of ‘Christian mathematics’ … in the sphere of mathematics or logic this correction disappears altogether … There is not a ‘Christian science of law’ in the same sense as there is a ‘Christian theology’ … The more formal the juridical questions, the less difference is there between ‘Christian’ and ‘non-Christian’ …” Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason: The Christian Doctrine of Faith and Knowledge, Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1946, pp. 383-384.

[16] “… on topics that have the most to do with interpretation and with the larger significance and meaning of humans in relation to each other and the universe, faith-related perspectives will have the most bearing. Such implications are more often apparent in the humanities and social sciences than in the hard sciences. Philosophers are likely more often to be able to identify the pertinence of religious perspectives for their work than will historians or social scientists, who in turn will be able to point to religious influences more often than will chemists or physicists.” George M. Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, New York: Oxford University Press, 2024, p. 72.

[17] William D. Dennison, “The Christian Academy: Antithesis, Common Grace, and Plato’s View of the Soul,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54.1 (March 2011) 109-131.

[18] Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2015.

[19] Gregory L. Bahnsen, “At War With the Word: The Necessity of Biblical Antithesis,” Antithesis Magazine Vol. I:1 (February 1990).

[20] John Frame, “Van Til on Antithesis,” in Westminster Theological Journal 57:1 (Spring 1995) 81-102.

[21] “… the believer and the non-believer differ at the outset of every self-conscious investigation.” Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1947, p. 3.

[22] “There can be no appeasement between those who presuppose in all their thought the sovereign God and those who presuppose in all their thought the would-be sovereign man. There can be no other point of contact between them than that of head-on collision.” Cornelius Van Til, The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel, Phillipsburg, NJ: L. J. Grotenhuis, 1953, p. 19.

[23] “… formally both groups perform scientific labor … But when they have arrived at their result they cannot conceal the fact that in many respects these results are contrary to each other, and are entirely different; and as far as this is the case, each group naturally contradicts whatever the other group asserts. This would have revealed itself clearly and at once, at least in Christian lands, if from the beginning the development of each group had proceeded entirely within well-defined boundaries.” Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology: Its Principles, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898, p. 156-157.

[24] “If palingenesis operated immediately from the centrum of our inner life to the outermost circumference of our being and consciousness, the antithesis between the science which lives by it and that which denies it, would be at once absolute in every subject.” Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology: Its Principles, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898, p. 162. See also pp. 150-182.

[25] For example, a number of non-Christians reject the claim that 2 + 2 = 4 as they work out the logical implications of their worldview. Chad Crowe, “In California, 2+2=4 May Be Thought Racist,” Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2021. James Lindsay, “2+2 Never Equals 5,” New Discourses, August 3, 2020.

[26] “As soon as the thinker of palingenesis has come to that point in the road where the thinker of naturalism parts company with him, the latter’s science is no longer anything to the former but ‘science falsely so called.’” Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology: Its Principles, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898, p. 176.

[27] J. Brandon Burks, “Nesting Pedagogy in the Metanarrative: A Van Tillian Approach to Pedagogical Storytelling,” Ph.D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2025.

[28] J. Brandon Burks, “Van Til’s Theology of Education: Perfecting Old Amsterdam and Old Princeton,” in Westminster Theological Journal 86:2 (Fall 2024) 175-215.

[29] Gregory J. Maffet, “The Educational Thought of Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of the Ideological Foundations of His Christian Philosophy of Education,” Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Akron, 1984.

Top of Page