The Trinitarian Foundations of Object-Oriented Programming

Contents

Abstract

Object-oriented programming (OOP) languages are widely used in academia, industry, and by hobbyists. However, computer scientists rarely reflect on the metaphysical assumptions that make such programming languages possible. This paper describes how the Trinitarian attributes of the Christian God provide the metaphysical foundations for classes and objects in all OOP languages. I introduce the problem of the one and the many, demonstrate how classes and objects are a particular instantiation of this problem, and show how the equal ultimacy of unity and diversity in the Trinity is the only answer to this problem. I then discuss how non-Christian worldviews are unable to answer this problem and show that if true, they would make OOP impossible. I conclude by exploring how the Trinity as an answer to the problem of the one and the many can shape the teaching pedagogy of Christians in computer science, mathematics, and classical Christian education.

Introduction

Programming languages are used broadly and widely today. Software engineers, computer scientists, and large language models spend many hours writing new code in a variety of programming languages to develop apps, programs, websites, social media, and more. Of these, object-oriented programming (OOP) languages like Python, Java, and C++ are consistently ranked as the most-used programming languages [1]. One of the reasons for this popularity is OOP’s ability to easily structure and reuse code, making it much easier to maintain projects across large organizations.

Despite the wide use of OOP languages across academia, industry, and hobbyists, Christians in these fields have rarely reflected on the foundational assumptions that make their work possible. In other words, the metaphysical assumptions that make OOP languages possible are simply taken for granted. Even amongst Christian schools, colleges, and universities, the metaphysical grounding of OOP may not be adequately expressed in terms of the Christian worldview or the nature and character of the Trinitarian God. This paper seeks to address these shortcomings by explicitly demonstrating that all OOP languages are grounded in the Christian God and are made possible by the His Trinitarian character (one being and three persons) {1}.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 sets forth God’s call to develop a distinctly Christian view of computer science, particularly in its detailed technical content. Section 3 introduces the problem of the one and the many, showing how the only answer to this problem is the equal ultimacy of unity and diversity in the Trinity. Section 4 applies the problem of the one and the many to classes and objects in OOP, setting forth their Trinitarian basis. Section 5 describes the Trinitarian implications for Christians’ teaching pedagogy in computer science, mathematics, and classical Christian education. Section 6 concludes the paper.

Christian Education in Computer Science

Christian education seeks to train students in all areas to think God’s thoughts after Him and walk in all His ways. Within the seven liberal arts, this includes both the trivium and the quadrivium {2}. However, a thorough understanding of Christian education in quadrivium-related quantitative disciplines like computer science remains underdeveloped, particularly regarding its technical details.

Developing a Distinctly Christian View of Computer Science

A distinctly Christian understanding of the technical details in computer science is one to which God calls us. After all, God’s eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen in every aspect of computer science, including the so-called “neutral” technical details (Rom 1:18-20; Ps 19:1-4). God calls us to think and see the world in a way that reflects the way He sees the world. We are called to think God’s thoughts after Him and walk in all His ways (2 Cor 10:5). Whatever we do, whether we eat or drink, should be done for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31; Col 3:17). Whatever we do includes all the specific technical details of computer science, meaning that all OOP design should be done to the glory of God, particularly since God created us in His image to study, subdue, and develop the world He made (Gen 1:26-28). In addition, we are called to grow in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet 3:18). This knowledge includes the specific technical details of computer science because all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ (Col 2:3). This more generally implies that all the knowledge about STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) is deposited in Christ. Christians should therefore strive to use Scripture as the foundational authority and interpretive lens by which to understand computer science, mathematics, engineering, or any other subject.

God also tells us that genuine knowledge of any subject whatsoever begins with reverence and submission to the Lord (Prov 1:7). This includes the specific technical details of computer science. Genuine knowledge in computer science 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 (Matt 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 Cor 10:5). Since every thought is to be taken captive, this means that every thought about classes and objects, every thought about pointers, every thought about recursion, and every thought about other technical details in computer science should be made obedient to Christ.

Another reason for developing a distinctly Christian view of the specific technical details is because neutrality in computer science is impossible. Even though Christians and non-Christians may agree on many of the technical details of computer science, that does not make the discipline of computer science itself neutral, nor does it make those technical details themselves neutral. One reason that we know neutrality in computer science is impossible is because we cannot serve two masters (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13). We cannot serve two different lords while doing computer science. 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 (Col 1:18). This includes computer science, implying that Christ is the sovereign Lord over every aspect of computer science, including its specific technical details.

Consequently, Christian schools, colleges, and universities should strive to take a distinctly Christian approach to computer science in all that they teach and research, including the technical details of OOP [2]-[4]. The three main ways in which a distinctly Christian view of computer science is carried out parallels the three emphases of Christian theology.

Doctrine, Piety, and Practice in Computer Science

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 teacher or 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 like computer science, 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. Generally among classical Christian schools, a Christian approach to the quadrivium has been less thoroughly developed than the trivium. In fact, many Christians believe that it is not possible to provide a distinctly Christian perspective of quantitative technical content {3}. The main reason is that the technical details of STEM disciplines like computer science 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 code syntax or classes and objects? The vast majority of time in computer science and mathematics classes as well as STEM-related jobs is spent on specific technical details, making it important that Christians develop a full biblical understanding of these technical details. By building upon the notions of common grace [13]-[14] and the antithesis [15]-[16], [17, pp. 150-182] as set forth in [18], this paper seeks to provide such an understanding by articulating the biblical foundations of OOP.

The Problem of the One and the Many

A biblical understanding of OOP’s metaphysical foundations is made clearer by first introducing the philosophical problem of the one and the many, a perennial problem in the history of philosophy [19].

The Problem

The problem of the one and the many asks whether reality is most ultimately unity (one) or diversity (many). The world is certainly filled with much diversity or manyness, being comprised of many different objects like buildings, chairs, trees, and cars. An examination of even one of these categories, like cars, shows that there are many different kinds of cars: trucks, SUVs, minivans, sedans, and more. There is even diversity within each of these categories, such as there being many different kinds of SUVs. Even SUVs with the same make and model may have different colors and trim levels. Diversity is seen everywhere in the world with many different kinds of things. We could also describe this diversity/manyness in terms of specifics, particulars, or the concrete (specific cars, particular people, concrete examples, etc.).

At the same time, the world is also filled with unity or oneness. There are certain unifying features or characteristics that are shared by all cars, like a steering wheel, gas pedal, and brake pedal. Consequently, the term “car” unifies an entire class of distinct vehicles. Similarly, the concept of humanity refers to the entire set of humans, describing the traits that are shared by all people. This unity or oneness can also be described in terms of generalities, universals, or abstract ideas (general principles, universal laws, abstract theory, etc.).

It is clear that the world contains both oneness and manyness, universals and particulars, generalities and specifics, the abstract and the concrete, and unity and diversity. The question then arises as to which one of these is more fundamental. Is unity most ultimate, with any diversity we see arising from that underlying unity? Or is diversity most ultimate, with any unity we see arising from that underlying diversity? Different worldviews have provided different answers to these questions, with some worldviews claiming that unity is most ultimate while others claim that diversity is most ultimate.

Non-Christian Attempts at an Answer

All non-Christian attempts to answer the problem of the one and the many have either made unity most ultimate or diversity most ultimate {4}. For example, Hinduism believes all is one so that reality is ultimately a unity. Any distinctions or diversity that we see are actually illusions. Consequently, Hinduism answers the problem of the one and the many by making unity more ultimate than diversity (1 Cor 12:17, 19).

On the other side of the spectrum, naturalistic atheism believes that only physical discrete atoms exist. Any unity or general laws that we see ultimately arise from the operation of these discrete atoms. Consequently, naturalistic atheism answers the problem of the one and the many by making diversity more ultimate than unity (1 Cor 12:21).

Even non-Christian theistic worldviews claim that one of these things is more ultimate than the other. With Islam, reality is grounded in the oneness of Allah, so any diversity that we see in the created world is an outworking of that underlying unity. Unity is therefore more ultimate than diversity for Islam (the same goes for Jehovah's Witnesses). With Mormonism, reality is grounded in the diversity of three distinct divine beings (God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost), so any unity that we see in the created world is an outworking of that underlying diversity. Diversity is therefore more ultimate than unity for Mormonism.

Any attempt to answer the problem of the one and the many by elevating unity over diversity or diversity over unity is inherently irrational and contradictory. The irrationality of these answers lies in the fact that a quality has to arise from its opposite. If at one time reality was only a unity, then how could diversity arise from it? Or if at one time reality was only diversity, then how could unity arise from it? For this to occur, qualities would have to come from their opposites, which is similar to believing in spontaneous generation and is the same as holding that logical contradictions occur over time.

If at one time reality was only a unity, then a change would need to occur for diversity to arise from it. However, pure unity is static and unchanging, making it impossible for any change to occur. Consequently, diversity cannot arise from pure unity. On the other hand, if at one time reality was only diversity, then there would be no shared connections or relationships between anything. Consequently, any changes that occurred would have no relationship to what came previously. For unity to arise from diversity, a change would need to occur that establishes a relationship to what came previously. Since this is impossible in a world of pure diversity, unity cannot arise from diversity {5}.

The Christian Answer

In contrast to these irrational answers, Christianity provides the Trinity as the only answer to the problem of the one and the many [20, pp. 31, 46-51], [21, pp. 63-78], [22, pp. 59, 237-241], [23, pp. 61-64], [24]-[28], [29, pp. 140-143, 145-146, 149-152], [30, pp. 236-246, 273-274], [31, pp. 143-151], [32, pp. 29-34] {6}. Instead of unity being more ultimate than diversity or diversity being more ultimate than unity, unity and diversity are equally ultimate (1 Cor 12:12; Rom 12:4-5). The reason for this equal ultimacy is due to the Trinitarian character of foundational reality, namely the Christian God (Figure 1). The Trinity is unity in one being (God) and is diversity in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). God’s oneness is not more ultimate than His manyness, nor is His manyness more ultimate than His oneness. His being and personhood are equally co-ultimate.

Every heresy regarding the Trinity makes the same mistake as non-Christian worldviews. Either the heresy makes God’s being (unity) more ultimate than His persons (diversity), becoming a form of unitarianism (like Islam or Jehovah’s Witnesses) {7}. Or the heresy makes God’s persons (diversity) more ultimate than His being (unity), becoming a form of polytheism (like Mormonism) {8}. Only an equal ultimacy of God’s one being and many persons is biblically faithful and logically sound {9}.

This answer to the problem of the one and the many is clearly seen in the nature of the church as the body of Christ (Col 1:18; Eph 1:22-23; 4:15-16; 1 Cor 12:27). The church is not most fundamentally one thing: “If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? … If all were a single member, where would the body be?” (1 Cor 12:17, 19). The church is also not most fundamentally many different independent things: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’” (1 Cor 12:21). Instead, the church is equally ultimate in oneness and manyness since it is the body of Christ, reflecting God’s Trinitarian character: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.” (1 Cor 12:12) “For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” (Rom 12:4-5).

The Trinitarian Foundations of Object-Oriented Programming

The fact that unity and diversity are equally co-ultimate has implications for our understanding of all reality, including OOP. What makes OOP languages possible? Applying the problem of the one and the many to OOP languages reveals how they are grounded in the Trinitarian character of the Christian God.

Classes and Objects

In OOP, classes are a method of digital abstraction or generalization, while objects are particular instantiations of that digital abstraction. For example, a rectangle class defined in an OOP language is a way of defining “rectangleness” in code, describing the features that are shared by all rectangles (Figure 2). These would include having four sides, four right angles, a length, a width, etc. Creating an object of that rectangle class would then describe a particular rectangle with a specific length, specific width, specific area, specific perimeter, etc. In this way, OOP languages provide an efficient way of describing the unity (oneness) and diversity (manyness) of the world. This feature is what allows OOP languages to so powerfully reuse code since the features shared by the rectangle class (length, width, area, perimeter, etc.) do not have to be rewritten in code each time the user needs to create a new rectangle. Consequently, OOP classes are unified with the same properties, while objects are diverse in their many instances.

The Trinitarian Foundation of Classes and Objects

The fact that classes and objects describe the unity (oneness) and diversity (manyness) of the world allows us to apply the problem of the one and the many to answer the question “What makes OOP languages possible?” In other words, “What must be true about the nature of reality in order for OOP languages to exist?” Or to put it another way, “What are the necessary preconditions of OOP languages?”

Classes are made possible by the unity (oneness) of God’s being. If there was no unity present in basic reality, then there would be no general features or characteristics shared by all rectangles. This in turn would make it impossible for a coding language to articulate those general features or shared characteristics because they would not exist. Similarly, objects are made possible by the diversity (manyness) of God’s persons. If there was no diversity present in basic reality, then there would be no differences between rectangles. This in turn would make it impossible for a coding language to distinguish between rectangles of different shapes and sizes because they would not exist. The ability of OOP languages to both digitally generalize (classes) and particularize (objects) depends upon both unity and diversity being present in reality. The Trinity therefore provides the metaphysical foundation for classes and objects. OOP is only made possible by the equal ultimacy of unity and diversity present in God’s Trinitarian character.

Non-Christian Worldviews Undermine Object-Oriented Programming

In contrast to Christianity, non-Christian worldviews make either unity (oneness) or diversity (manyness) most ultimate. Consequently, if any of these non-Christian worldviews were true, then it would undermine the foundation of OOP.

For example, if Hinduism were true, then unity (oneness) would be most ultimate. Reality would have unity but no diversity. Consequently, it would be possible to create classes since they describe the unity of the world, but it would be impossible to create objects since there would be no such thing as diversity (because all of reality is one). Hinduism therefore undermines the foundation of objects, making OOP impossible.

On the other side of the spectrum, if naturalistic atheism were true, then diversity (manyness) would be most ultimate. Reality would have diversity but no unity. It would be possible to create objects since they describe the diversity of the world, but it would be impossible to create classes since there would be no such thing as unity (because only physical discrete atoms exist). Naturalistic atheism therefore undermines the foundation of classes, making OOP impossible.

A similar demonstration could be carried out for all other non-Christian worldviews since all non-Christian worldviews cannot consistently answer the problem of the one and the many. However, many non-Christian programmers still use OOP languages, in many cases surpassing Christian programmers in their technical skills. How is this possible if non-Christian worldviews undermine OOP?

The reason for this is that non-Christians know God in their heart of hearts: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom 1:19-20). All of creation clearly reveals God, having God’s fingerprints imprinted all over it, so that non-Christians are without excuse (Ps 19:1-4). However, non-Christians suppress this knowledge in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), falsely thinking that the truth about God has no bearing on OOP or the technical details of computer science. They are like people who give speeches for a living yet deny the existence of air. The very thing that makes their profession possible is the thing that they adamantly reject. Similarly, non-Christian computer scientists use OOP languages for a living yet deny the existence of the Trinitarian God. The very thing that makes their profession possible is the thing that they adamantly reject. However, we should remember that were it not for the grace of God, we would all be in the same situation, denying the existence of the Trinitarian God who makes our lives possible. This should encourage us to share the gospel with non-Christian computer scientists so that God might change their hearts like He has done with our own.

Trinitarian Implications for Christian Teaching Pedagogy

The equal ultimacy of unity and diversity in the Trinity also provides a few insights into how Christian teachers and professors should go about teaching computer science and mathematics classes to accord more closely with God’s own Trinitarian character and the way He made the world. After all, the entire creation is derivative and reflective of the Creator’s character (Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:19-21), including classroom instruction. To properly convey the truth about creation, Christian teaching pedagogy should reflect God’s own character (Gen 1:26-27; 9:6; 1 Cor 11:7).

Since the Trinitarian God is equally ultimate in unity and diversity, courses should not make theory more ultimate than examples or applications, and courses should not focus on the organizing principles of the course at the neglect of the details. This would be equivalent to elevating unity over diversity, teaching students in a manner reflective of unitarian or monistic religions. At the same time, courses should not make examples or applications more ultimate than theory, and courses should not get lost in the details at the neglect of the course’s organizing principles. This would be equivalent to elevating diversity over unity, teaching students in a manner reflective of polytheistic, atomistic, or naturalistic religions.

In contrast to these two unbiblical approaches, courses should equally emphasize theory and examples/applications, and courses should equally emphasize the organizing principles and the details. By doing so, the pedagogical strategy itself reflects the equal ultimacy of unity and diversity in the Trinity. Since people are image-bearers of the Trinitarian God, we do not learn best by only seeing abstract theorems and proofs or only seeing particular examples and hands-on applications. We also do not learn best by only seeing the organizing principles or only seeing the details. Even though each person has a different temperament, we each need to be exposed to both the abstract theory and the concrete examples so that we understand the general rules of the field as well as how those rules are applied in specific situations. We also each need to be exposed to both the organizing principles and the details so that we understand the context in which the subject lies as well as how that subject is explicitly worked out. Failure to teach in a manner that recognizes this important aspect of human beings fails to recognize the Trinitarian nature of the God who created humans in His image (Gen 1:26-27) and who upholds the universe by the word of His power (Heb 1:3).

The equal ultimacy of unity and diversity in the Trinity also provides the justification for the structure of Christian universities and classical Christian schools. The purpose of the Christian university is to set forth the universe in the light of God’s Word. The term “university” is a combination of the words “unity” and “diversity,” referring to an institution that seeks to unify the diversity of departments and areas of study. Since the unity and diversity we see in the world are a reflection of God Himself (unity in one being, diversity in three persons), the Christian university seeks to unify each area of study in the light of the Christian worldview under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In contrast, secular universities have a different ultimate authority in each area of study and are therefore multiversities, or institutions marked by educational polytheism.

Classical Christian schools stand in contrast to the educational polytheism of secular schools by structuring their curriculum according to the equal ultimacy of unity and diversity in the Trinity. The seven liberal arts of the trivium and quadrivium provide unity to seven distinct areas of learning in which students are trained to cultivate Christian virtue, piety, and knowledge. The Christian God is equally ultimate in unity and diversity, and this should have a profound impact upon how Christian educators structure their curriculum and design their teaching pedagogy.

Conclusion

By understanding the foundations of OOP as grounded in the Trinitarian attributes of the Christian God, Christians begin to develop distinctly Christian content in the practice of quantitative disciplines like computer science. Failure to do so results in the content of computer science classes and everyday work being virtually the same as that of non-Christians, depriving students and workers of a biblical understanding of the vocation to which God called them. God calls us to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10:5), which includes the allegedly “neutral” technical details of quantitative disciplines like computer science. In doing so, we will begin to fulfill one of the goals of the Christian life: that in all areas we would think God’s thoughts after Him and walk in all His ways.

Footnotes

{1} The phrases “grounded in” and “made possible by” describe what must be the case in order for OOP languages to exist, setting forth the preconditions of intelligibility for OOP languages. This is known as transcendental argumentation. Transcendental arguments ask what necessary conditions must be true in order to make some aspect of reality possible or intelligible. For example, transcendental analysis would argue that the existence of air is a necessary precondition for people to audibly talk to each other. In a similar fashion, this paper argues that God’s Trinitarian character is the necessary precondition for making OOP languages possible.

{2} The trivium and quadrivium form the seven liberal arts and are sometimes generally referred to as humanities and sciences, respectively. The trivium is comprised of grammar, logic, and rhetoric, while the quadrivium is comprised of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy.

{3} Examples include the following:

• “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.” [6, p. 47]

• “... it is clear that there is no specifically ‘Christian’ multiplication table ... There is no ‘Christian’ grammar ... there is no ‘Christian’ logic ...” [7, p. 379]

• “... 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 ...” [8, p. 74]

• “The philosopher will have little opportunity to be conscious of his Christianity where he is occupied with formal logic, or philosophy, or mathematics.” [7, p. 391]

• “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.” [9, pp. 40-41]

• “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.” [10, p. 53]

• “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.” [11, p. 121]

• “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.” [12, p. 27]

• “... 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.” [10, pp. 78-79]

• “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’ ...” [7, pp. 383-384]

• “... 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.” [10, p. 72]

{4} Because this paper focuses on applying the problem of the one and the many to OOP, this section summarizes major themes that outline the general reasons why all non-Christian worldviews are unable to answer the problem of the one and the many. A more detailed analysis of this topic, which lies beyond the scope of this paper, can be found in [20, pp. 31, 46-51], [21, pp. 63-78], [22, pp. 59, 237-241], [23, pp. 61-64], [24]-[28], [29, pp. 140-143, 145-146, 149-152], [30, pp. 236-246, 273-274], [31, pp. 143-151], [32, pp. 29-34].

{5} Due to the focus of this paper on OOP, a more detailed defense of this position can be found in the references in the previous footnote.

{6} A detailed defense of the Trinity as the only answer to the problem of the one and the many lies beyond the scope of this paper, which focuses on applying this answer to OOP. A more detailed defense of the Trinity as the only answer to the problem of the one and the many can be found in the references above.

{7} Examples include modalism, Arianism, and adoptionism.

{8} Examples include tritheism, partialism, and social trinitarianism.

{9} See the Belgic Confession articles 8-9 and the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 2, section 3.

References

[1] Stephen Cass. “The Top Programming Languages 2025.” IEEE Spectrum, September 2025.

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

[3] Greg L. Bahnsen. “Biblical Policy on Keeping Covenant With God in the Education of Our Children.” Penpoint, 5(3), April 1994.

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

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

[6] Arthur F. Holmes. The Idea of a Christian College. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987.

[7] Emil Brunner. Revelation and Reason: The Christian Doctrine of Faith and Knowledge. The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1946.

[8] David I. Smith. On Christian Teaching: Practicing Faith in the Classroom. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 2018.

[9] C. Stephen Evans. “The Calling of the Christian Scholar-Teacher.” In Douglas V. Henry and Bob R. Agee, editors, Faithful Learning and the Christian Scholarly Vocation, pages 26–49. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 2003.

[10] George M. Marsden. The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. Oxford University Press, New York, 2024.

[11] M. Elizabeth Lewis Hall. “Structuring the Scholarly Imagination: Strategies for Christian Engagement with the Disciplines.” In Thomas M. Crisp, Steve L. Porter, and George A. Ten Elshof, editors, Christian Scholarship in the Twenty-First Century: Prospects and Perils, pages 97–124. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 2014.

[12] Alvin Plantinga. “On Christian Scholarship.” In Thomas M. Crisp, Steve L. Porter, and George A. Ten Elshof, editors, Christian Scholarship in the Twenty-First Century: Prospects and Perils, pages 18–33. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 2014.

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

[14] William D. Dennison. “The Christian Academy: Antithesis, Common Grace, and Plato’s View of the Soul.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 54(1):109–131, March 2011. 

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

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

[17] Abraham Kuyper. Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology: Its Principles. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1898.

[18] Paul Griffioen. “A Distinctly Christian Understanding of the Technical Details in Engineering.” In Christian Engineering Conference (CEC) 2026, pages 138–148. Christian Engineering Society (CES), 2026.

[19] Colin E. Gunton. The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation, and the Culture of Modernity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2012.

[20] Cornelius Van Til. The Defense of the Faith. P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ, 2008.

[21] John M. Frame. Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought. P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ, 1995.

[22] Greg L. Bahnsen. Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis. P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ, 1998.

[23] James N. Anderson. “If Knowledge Then God: The Epistemological Theistic Arguments of Alvin Plantinga and Cornelius Van Til.” Calvin Theological Journal, 40(1):49–75, April 2005.

[24] B. A. Bosserman. The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox: An Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius Van Til. Pickwick Publications, Eugene, OR, 2014.

[25] Lane G. Tipton. The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til. Reformed Forum, Libertyville, IL, 2022.

[26] Rousas John Rushdoony. “The One and Many Problem: The Contribution of Van Til.” In E. R. Geehan, editor, Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, pages 339–348. P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ, 1971.

[27] Rousas John Rushdoony. The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy. Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA, 2007.

[28] Arne Verster. “How the Trinity Explains the Problem of the One and the Many.” Apologetics Central, 2022. https://www.apologeticscentral.org/post/how-the-trinity-explains-the-problem-of-the-one-and-the-many

[29] Vern S. Poythress. “Implications of Van Til’s Thought for Redeeming Academic Disciplines.” In K. Scott Oliphint, editor, The Future of Reformed Apologetics: Collected Essays on Applying Van Til’s Apologetic Method to a New Generation, pages 137–154. Westminster Seminary Press, Glenside, PA, 2024.

[30] Vern S. Poythress. Knowing and the Trinity: How Perspectives in Human Knowledge Imitate the Trinity. P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ, 2018.

[31] Vern S. Poythress. Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought. Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2013.

[32] Vern S. Poythress. Redeeming Mathematics: A God-Centered Approach. Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2015.

Top of Page