Introduction

This paper (1) briefly defines logic and explains the four primary principles or laws of logic, (2) presents some of the major tenets of what has been termed postmodernism²--with special emphasis on one particular aspect of it--the depreciation or outright denial of the universal validity and necessary nature of logic/reason³, (3) discusses how some within the church have accommodated elements of postmodernism (the above point in particular) and other related elements from non-Christian worldviews, (4) presents and summarizes the biblical teaching on logic, including referencing comments from some Christian theologians and/or thinkers on the biblical teaching, (5) discusses how points one and two contradict the biblical teaching regarding the nature and necessity of logic--that is, discusses how this teaching is contradicted in the culture at large and even undermined in the church (i.e., how the church has accommodated the non-Christian view), (6) offers some philosophical arguments for the universal validity of logic, (7) discusses the implications of the biblical teaching on logic for us today--how it should impact believers, and how I and the church, in light of the foregoing discussion, can and should adjust our thinking (ideas) in light of this information, and (8) lastly presents some concluding remarks. Due to space considerations I must limit my discussion to certain key aspects among the many that could and should be discussed in a more lengthy work on this topic.

Defining Logic

Before I proceed with our topic, I should at least attempt to give some definitions of logic. "Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning."⁴ Thus, logic is the study of the laws or principles of thought or reason, not just mere thought or thinking per se, but of the type of thought or thinking we term reasoning. Irving Copi states that "The distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning is the central problem with which logic deals."⁵ Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks tell us that "Logic is the study of right reason or valid inferences and the attending fallacies, formal and informal" (emphasis in original).⁶

The Four Primary Laws of Logic

While many people talk about logic, at least the five letter word in English, not very many really know or understand what logic is, or what have been termed by some, the four primary laws or principles of logic. Many people do not understand it or the laws/principles behind it. Thus, I want to at least briefly explain the four primary principles or laws of logic.

The first of the primary principles of logic is the law of (non-)contradiction. It states that no statement (proposition, assertion, etc.) can be both true and not true--false--(e.g., A can not be non-A) at the same time and in the same sense. For example, it can not both be true and not true (in the same time and sense) that a person is and is not a Christian. All such statements are false. It is a first principle (it is axiomatic or self-evident) of epistemology. (Thus, one cannot not use it. To deny it is like saying "I cannot utter a word in English.") The distinction between true and false is based on this principle.

The second primary law of logic is the principle of excluded middle. The law of (non-)contradiction simply states that A cannot equal or be non-A. But both could be "quip," that is, neither true or false--simply not both--but not necessarily true or false either. However, the law of excluded middle states "A or non-A," that is, a proposition is either true or false--it must be one or the other (and not quip!). Thus, a proposition or statement must be true or false (see, e.g., Matthew 12:30).

The third primary law of logic is called the law of identity. It states that A=A or that "if any statement is true, then it is true."⁷ An example would be Christ is Christ and not non-Christ (e.g., the Christ of the Bible is not the "Christ" of the cults, the occult, or of Eastern religions).

The fourth primary law of logic is the law of logical or rational inference. An example of this principle is: if A=B, and B=C, then A=C. It's importance can be seen relevant to all discursive or non-axiomatic knowledge or reasoning. For example, while the word trinity is not found in the Bible, the concept is (see, e.g., Deut. 6:4; Eph. 1:3; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 5:3-4; and Mark 12:29-30).

These four primary laws of logic are the essence of logic and are vital to all coherent or intelligible discussions or arguments. Try as one may one cannot--in any intelligent sense--not use them (e.g., even when trying to argue against the laws of logic).

Three key tenets of Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a very diverse movement. Nonetheless, there are some key tenets that are found in common to most proponents or forms of postmodernism.⁸ (In short, postmodernism can be seen as a reaction or rejection to what has been termed modernism or modernity.) For the purposes of this paper I want to note in particular, of the many points that could be discussed in a more lengthy work on this topic, three key tenets of postmodernism.

The first tenet of postmodernism that I want to note is its rejection of the idea of objective knowledge or that we can know things with certainty. Gone is the confidence often found in modernism that we can know things with certainty. Knowledge, on the whole, is seen as uncertain, subjective, relative, and hence tentative. Postmodernism rejects the idea that our knowledge is an accurate representation on how thing are--of reality.⁹

Second, postmodernism views logic as being at best only true for a given individual, community or certain communities or "interpretative community[ies]." In other words, logic is not universally valid or applicable; it is relative only to a given context--person(s), place, or time--or only true for certain individuals or societies or cultures. For example, it is generally true for individuals or communities or societies that have been influenced by Western or Aristotelian thinking. Thus, Westerners should not impose their modality of thinking on Easterners or Eastern cultures or on anyone else who does not grant logic's validity.

Third, truth is relative. It is not always true or true for all times or for everyone or situation, but is contingent on the context. There is no such thing as universal truth or a universally true statement. What is true for one individual or community or "interpretative community" is not necessarily true for any other. Something may be "true for you" or "for them," but not for others. Note that postmodernism does not deny that there is truth or any truth, but that there is any absolute or universal or universally true truth.

As one can probably see, the above three tenets of postmodernism are related to one another.

Church Accommodations

Unfortunately, many within Christendom have acquiesced to one or more or all of the above positions. This is clearly seen, for example, in the area of logic.¹⁰ Instead of teaching and standing on the biblical view (see below), as opposed to all the above mentioned ideas, many in the church (at least the professed church) are often going along with many of these non-Christian notions. In other words, much of the church, instead of attempting to correct these false notions, is to a greater or lesser extent simply accommodating some or many of these presuppositions of the non-Christian worldviews (e.g., postmodernism) of our day. This can be seen, for instance, among some Christian (whether some of them are actually genuine believers, I do not know) writers in the areas of theology, apologetics, and contextualization among other areas. For my purposes, a few examples of the multitudes that could be cited will have to suffice.

First, for example, Stephen Bevans has the following comments regarding Raimon Panikkar and some related concerns:

...Panikkar maintains that Indians cannot really accept the principle that might be called the backbone of western philosophical thinking: the principle of contradiction. For Indians, Panikkar insists, things can indeed "be" and "not be" at the same time....This seems to be close to the Taoist idea of yang and yin, where all things participate in the reality of their opposites: light and darkness, male and female, good and evil, flesh and spirit, and so forth....¹¹

This seems to be a clear denial of the primary law of logic, that is, the law of (non-)contradiction.

Second, two more examples come from William Dyrness in his Learning about Theology from the Third World.¹² Dyrness remarks that: "In general, Indian thinkers point out, Western thought patterns are fundamentally dualistic [i.e., based on the law of (non-)contradiction], therefore analysis is the primary mode of critical thought. Eastern patterns favor nondualistic modes, therefore thinking tends to be synthetic."¹³ Dyrness proceeds to mention S.J. Samartha and his book, The Hindu Response to the Unbound Christ as an example of this. Dyrness also writes:

There are those who argue that these Eastern patterns of thought are inviolable and Christianity must adapt to them completely. Jung Young Lee has argued that in Asia we must get out of the habit of thinking in terms of either/or; we must be able to think of both/and. Change, he believes, may be the key to the universe, and ambiguity and differences merely the reflection of aspects of reality. In traditional Chinese thought, yin and yang are believed to be complementary modes of being....[H]e seeks to apply this to his view of God....¹⁴

Third, I often hear pastors, evangelists, and other Christians say that one is to just "have faith." This is uttered in the context of not asking for objective evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity, and/or in the context of answering what appears to be a blatant contradiction in the Bible and/or in Christian doctrine. Also, often implicit or even made explicit in these types of claims is the idea that God, the Bible, or spiritual matters are not subject to logic, only mundane matters are. Thus, even if there is a real contradiction--an antinomy and not just a paradox or apparent contradiction--one should not worry because, after all, logic does not apply to spiritual concerns. Moreover, many Christians talk as if logic or reason is "worldly" and unspiritual and therefore to be avoided. They have (as we shall see below) unintentionally bought into part of a non-Christian worldview.

I believe that these few examples and more that could be cited, while not necessarily seeming directly from postmodernism, nonetheless are clear instances of Christians (and at times at least apparent or alleged Christians) depreciating or denying logic. Often they not only deny and defy logic, but are proud of it and see it as a sign or evidence of their spirituality.

Whether this occurs through the imbibing of parts of postmodernism or not, nonetheless, I believe that we are seeing this accommodation--comprise and watering-down of the full counsel of God and are being denied an important part of our rich biblical heritage. There is little and in many churches a complete lack of the biblical teaching or view regarding logic and the mind. I believe that this is setting Christians up for deception, because of a lack of discernment due to a lack of understanding of who God is and is not, and how He has and correspondingly has not revealed Himself to us.

I also believe that since so much of the church ignores or teaches just the opposite of what the Bible teaches regarding reason, that we are not only short-changing ourselves, but non-Christians who deserve to hear a reason for our hope (see e.g, Acts 26:25; 1 Peter 3:15).

For whatever reasons, many in the church today seem to be greatly influenced by some of the worldview components of the worldly culture at large around us, and have taken a much weaker or no biblical view at all of logic and ironically of the great blessings that derive from knowing, teaching, and possessing sound reasoning (see e.g., Isa. 1:18).

Thus, whatever may be the motivation for depreciating or out-right denying the validity of logic, even regarding spiritual concerns, whether this is being done out of sheer ignorance or otherwise, it is antithetical to what the Bible actually teaches.

Doctrinal Summary on Logic

The Bible, contrary to what many Christians think, has much to say regarding logic/reason. My greatest hinderance here will be the lack of space to fully develop the biblical teaching.

The supreme example in the Bible of what to do or not to do (of course, other than things like claiming to be God) is Christ. Thus, if Jesus, God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, used logical argumentation to validate His claims or points, a fortiori, how much more so for us! Indeed, this is exactly what we see Jesus doing. For example, consider just one instance of Jesus usage of logic--Matthew 12:24-30:
  Argument from analogy (vv. 25-26)
  The law of logical or rational inference (v. 26)
  Reductio ad absurdum (vv. 25-26)
  Argument from analogy (v. 27)
  The law of logical or rational inference (vv. 28, 29)
  Argument from analogy (v. 29)
  The law of contradiction (v. 30)
  The law of excluded middle (v. 30)

Throughout His ministry and teachings Jesus consistently used logic to present and advance His claims.

We find the same method used by His apostles (see, e.g., Paul in Acts 17:2-3, 11, 17, 22-31; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; and 1 Tim, 6:20; or Apollos in Acts 18:27-28). Dialegomai is the Greek word used in the above passages. Here, in context, it means to argue, dispute, or reason, or to "discuss, conduct a discussion...of lectures which were likely to end in disputations...."¹⁵

Moreover, biblically speaking and contrary to Panikkar, Samartha, and Lee, God is not good and evil, spirit and flesh (excluding Jesus after His incarnation), or light and darkness (see Isa. 5:20-21). God is completely holy (see e.g., Lev. 11:44-45; 19:1-2; Rev. 15:2-4; 16:5). God is completely without sin or evil(ness) (see e.g.Deut. 32:4; Ps 92:15; Zeph. 3:5). God (the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Son before His incarnation) is spirit and not flesh (Num. 23:19; Isa. 31:3; Hosea 11:9). God is light and in Him is no darkness; God is completely and perfectly light--with no darkness (see e.g., Ps. 104:2; 1 Tim. 6:15-16; 1 John 1:5)! Contra the claims of Panikkar, and Samartha, this is the clear teaching of the Bible! Thus, their statements no matter what their intention(s), are not profound, let alone profoundly spiritual, but simply false!

Given the previously mentioned points, even briefly at that, believe that the biblical teaching here is clear.

Theologians' Comments

A number of influential Christian thinkers have well summarized the biblical teaching regarding logic. I would like to quote some of them for final conformation of the above section. For instance, Carl F.H. Henry remarks: "...Scripture affirms that God is the source and ground of reason and truth and that the imago Dei in which He created and preserves humanity includes rational and moral capacities."¹⁶ Henry also insightfully writes:

The laws of logic are not a speculative prejudice imposed at a given moment of history as a transient philosophical development. Neither do they involve a Western way of thinking, even if Aristotle may have stated them in an orderly way. The laws of valid inference are universal; they are elements of the imago Dei. In the Bible, reason has ontological significance. God is Himself truth and the source of truth. Biblical Christianity honers the Logos of God as the source of all meaning and considers the laws of thought an aspect of the imago.

...The pluralistic approach to world religions now often champions the need to recast the gospel in other than "Western thought forms" and in non-Western "logics," as if logic were an Aristotelian invention. Such emphases often relativize Christian theology and replace it with non-Biblical philosophy under the guise of Christian mission.¹⁷

Charles Hodge comments:

If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational....We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend.¹⁸

Hodge also states:

It is impossible that He [God] should require us to believe what contradicts any of the laws of belief which He has impressed upon our nature [i.e., the laws of thought or logic¹⁹]...Faith includes an affirmation of the mind that a thing is true. But it is a contradiction to say that the mind can affirm that to be true which it sees cannot possibility be true. This would be to affirm and deny, to believe and disbelieve, at the same time....The ultimate ground of faith and knowledge is confidence in God. We can neither believe or know anything unless we confide in those laws of belief which God implanted in our nature. If we can be required to believe what contradicts those laws, then the foundations are broken up. All distinction between right and wrong, would disappear...and we should become the victims of every adroit deceiver, or minister of Satan, who, by lying wonders, should call upon us to believe a lie.²⁰

R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley likewise note: "Biblically the contradiction is the hallmark of the lie. Without this formal test of falsification, the Scriptures (and any other writings) would have no means to distinguish between truth and falsehood, righteousness and unrighteousness, obedience and disobedience, Christ and Antichrist."²¹ Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley also rightly state (contra post-modernism): "The law of noncontradiction as a necessary presupposition or prerequisite for thought and life is neither arbitrary nor subjectivistic. It is universal and objective. What is subjective and arbitrary is the forced and temporary denial of it."²²

Arthur Holmes responds: "...the law of noncontradiction is a universal condition of intelligible thought. Aristotle's famous `negative proof' shows this by asking that one who denies the law practice his denial in speaking. Unintelligible utterances may be possible without it, like talk of a square circle, but unintelligible utterances hardly qualify as intelligible thought or speech. Where this law of logic is ignored, all logic and intelligibility are gone."²³ Holmes also remarks:"Thinking is subject to logical laws, for I cannot contradict myself and talk sense, yet alone construct a valid line of argument. Good logic is one of God's good gifts, and it is essential to thinking in this and any world."²⁴

Lastly, we note the view of Augustine: "The true nature of logical conclusions has not been arranged by men; rather they studied and took notice of it so that they might be able to learn or to teach it. It is perpetual in the order of things and divinely ordained."²⁵

Philosophical Arguments for the Validity of Logic

Simply put, logic is undeniable, unavoidable (in practice if not in "theory" for some), indispensable. One literally cannot not use it. For example, one has to use it to refute it. All claims against logic are self-contradictory, self-defeating, self-refuting, or self-stultifying. Thus, for all of some people's rhetoric against logic, one cannot not use logic. It is impossible to think or engage in any type of intelligible dialogue and not use logic. This is because, among other reasons, the distinction between true and false is based on it.

The very distinction between true or false or applicable or not only exists or has meaning if logic is true or applicable. Without logic (e.g., the law of [non-]contradiction) there would be no such things or concepts as true or false. Thus, there could be no true or false statements in the first place, such as logic is not universally true or it is false that it is applicable to a given topic. This is because the law of non-contradiction "...itself draws the line between true and false. So we can't call it false without assuming that it is true."²⁶ The same holds true with the other laws of logic. As Geisler and Brooks tell us:

Logic is built on four undeniable laws. There is no "getting behind" these laws to explain them. They are self-evident and self-explanatory. There is also no way around them. In order to reject any of these statements, one must assume the very principle he seeks to deny. But if you must assume that something is true to say that it is false, you haven't got a very good case, have you?

For example, the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A) says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, "The law of non-contradiction is false," he would have a problem. Without the law of noncontradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false. So we can't call it false without assuming that it is true. The same thing happens when someone tries to deny the other laws: the law of identity (A is A), the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A), and the law of rational inference (emphasis in original).²⁷

Furthermore, a statement's meaningfulness (let alone significance or truthfulness) depends upon logic. If logic is not true, or applicable to the topic at hand then a given statement is meaningless or nonsensical. Otherwise the statement could or would be both true and not true or applicable and not applicable at the same time and in the same sense, since it would no longer be true that statements cannot be both true and not true (false) in the same time and sense. Thus, one could just as well say that "logic is true or applicable to the topic at hand" in the same breath as the previous statement, or "one does and does not hold to post-modernism," etc. Thus, to deny logic or state that "logic is not true or applicable" only has meaning if logic does apply to the original statement. But this refutes the original claim. Thus, any statement or claim only has meaning, a fortiori significance or truthfulness, if and only if logic does apply or is true. Hence, the claim that "logic is not true or applicable" is meaningless unless logic is true, but in that case the original claim is false, indeed, self-defeating.

One has to use logic to try to disprove, refute, or even deny it. If one must use logic in the effort to refute it, then the argument is self-evidently not true. One has only proven its truthfulness or applicability (ironically in the very attempt to refute it).

Self-Refuting

All attempts to deny or refute logic fail. They are false, self-contradictory, or self-stultifying assertions.

Terms for a statement or proposition that does not fulfill or satisfy itself--its own criterion or criteria or requirements (of acceptability) include: self-defeating, self-refuting, self-stultifying, self-referential absurdity or self-referentially refuting or self-referentially absurd. Examples of self-refuting claims include:

1. "This topic, view, or realm is `beyond' logic." The idea is that logic's reach simply does not extend to the topic.
2. "This is just a case of the Eastern versus Western or Aristotelian bias or perspective on logic." The idea is that one is insisting on a Western worldview perspective, while ignoring or to the detriment of an Eastern or occultic view.

All the above claims are based upon logic in the first place. Thus, the previous claims are logically and ontologically equivalent to the following absurd claims:

1. "My brother is an only child."
2. "All the statements I make are false."
3. "All sentences that contain over five words are false."
4. "I will only believe what can be proved by the scientific method."
5. A person "saying I am and am not an atheist."
6. A person who claims that they "do and do not hold to postmodernism" or "do and do not believe that postmodernism is true."
7. A person saying "I am and am not a Christian."
8. A person saying "Jesus is and is not God" (the second person of the Trinity).

Logic is the straitjacket of life for those who argue insanely or, at least mentally, refuse to live in the real world! One cannot even cross the street, let alone the metaphysical highway without using logic. Logic is indispensable--period.

Ronald Nash notes: "...a denial of logic has consequences not only for epistemology and metaphysics, but for ethics as well. If all predications are true, there is no difference between walking to a nearby city and walking over a cliff; there is no difference between drinking milk and imbibing arsenic. But obviously there is a difference."²⁸

Thus, if logic is not true or transculturally applicable then now A can be non-A at the same time and in the same sense and hence the post-modern's position or Panikkar's is now the same as the orthodox Christian's. Or, the post-modernist does not hold to post-modernism. But, even the post-modernist does not believe this. They, in this case rightly, would assert, that their view is not our view--that is why we would be having this discussion with them in the first place. Nor would they affirm that they do and do not hold to the premises of post-modernism. This is absurd, but this is what follows if we deny the universal applicability and truthfulness of logic. By God's grace, we must try and help the post-modernist and others see the implications of her views.²⁹

Cultural Contradictions

As I have already pointed out above many in the world today deny what the Bible actually teaches about logic. This even includes many Christians.

Change of Thinking

There are a number of very important ideas and implications from these ideas that impress themselves upon me as I have once again given serious thought to the biblical teaching regarding logic/reason.

First, it reminds to try and bring my thoughts in obedience to what the Bible actually teaches--to think and reflect--in light of God's word, and not in the darkness of another view, even if so-called Christian. It reminds me of the blessing, and for me part of the beauty, of the God-given ability to think or reason logically. I do not want to let any false view (Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:20) rob me of the gift God has given me, indeed all of us.

Second, this includes for me, not being robbed of the joy of thinking, reasoning, in and of itself, let alone for other purposes that bring glory to God.

Third, it reminds me of the importance of teaching and by the grace of God attempting to live, by the power of the Holy Spirit and the resurrection life of Christ, what the Bible affirms regarding our topic. These truths bring light, liberty, and truth (by God's great grace) to life. For example, when properly used, it not only brings me joy and fulfillment to exercise my God-given capacities to reason, but God can and does use this, in light of His word, to keep me and others from falsehood, from bondage.

Fourth, the biblical teaching regarding the life of the mind and therefore logic/reason has revolutionized my life and should do the same for everyone else--Christian and non-Christian alike. For example, it brings me peace of mind (and heart) to know that Christianity is true--with my head as well as with my emotions. From the basis of gratitude for who God is and what He has already given me, it motivates me to further serve and worship, and indeed to love God.

Conclusion

I believe that in love we must stand and resist the zeitgeist of our age and affirm the truthfulness--universal--and reasonableness of the gospel (Acts 26:25) By not, out of some sense of false humility or false theology, throwing our God-given minds and ability to reason, imperfectly at that since the Fall, we will not only be a blessing to others, but by God's grace fulfill the great command:

"`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'"
Mark 12:30

Endnotes

29. William Lane Craig does a great job of making these very points on both the "practical" and theoretical level. See his chapter "Politically Correct Salvation" in Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, 75-97, particularly, 78-82.

Bibliography

Arndt, William F., Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 4th rev. and aug. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Audi, Robert, ed. "Postmodernism" in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1995.

Beckwith, Francis J, and Stephen E. Parrish, See the Gods Fall. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997

Bevans, Stephen B. Models of Contextual Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1992.

Buswell, James Oliver. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. 1 Vol. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962.

Carson, D.A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Choi, Jung Min, and John W. Murphy. "Skepticism, Nihilism, Amorality, and Anarchy: the Legacy of PC?" Reprinted in Francis J. Beckwith, ed. Do the Right Thing: A Philosophical Dialogue on the Moral and Social Issues of Our Time. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1996.

Clark, Gordon H. Logic. 2d ed. Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1988.

Copi, Irving M. Introduction to Logic. 7th ed. New York: Macmillan, 1986.

Dyrness, William A. Learning about Theology from the Third World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

_____, ed. Topical Analysis of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Geisler, Norman L. Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker 1976.

_____, and Ronald M. Brooks. Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.

Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Harris F. James. Against Relativism: A Philosophical Defense of Method. Chicago: Open Court, 1992.

Henry, Carl F.H. Toward A Recovery of Christian Belief. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1990.

Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology. 3 Vols., reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Holmes, Arthur. Contours of a World View. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Long, Jimmy. Generating Hope. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

McCallum, Dennis, ed. The Death of Truth: What's Wrong with Multiculturalism, the Rejection of Reason, and the New Postmodern Diversity. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1996.

Moreland, J.P. Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1997.

Nash, Ronald H. The Word of God and the Mind of Man. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982.

_____. Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Newbigin, Lesslie. Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Oden, Thomas C. After Modernity...What?: Agenda for Theology. Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1990.

_____. Two Worlds: Notes on the Death of Modernity in America and Russia. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Phillips, Timothy R., and Dennis L. Okholm, eds. Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Sproul, R.C., John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsley. Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.