by
Craig S. Hawkins

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
- 1 Peter 3:15 NIV

Abstract

This paper attempts to examine the biblical and theological basis or underpinnings for Christian apologetics, the use of objective evidence and reason, the place of the life of the mind in the church and for Christians, worldview and cultural analysis, and the study of faith and culture.

Thus this paper examines why Christians should concern themselves about the role and relationship among faith, evidence, and reason, and between the Faith and culture. It explicates the issues of presenting objective evidence for the Faith, a reasonable case for Christianity, and the value of worldview and cultural critiques and analysis.

In the allotted space, the paper presents the following: First, it presents an exposition of some of the key biblical passages that impact this study. Second, and concurrent with the first, it discusses the import of the exposition for the topics. Thus, for example, here it examines the biblical position and nature of apologetics, the life of the mind, and the study of faith and culture and worldview analysis. Third, it presents some critiques of the positions that are hostile to Christian apologetics, the life of the mind, and so forth. Fourth, and lastly, it offers some concluding comments.

Introduction

Why should Christians concern themselves about the role and relationship, if there is any, among faith, evidence, and reason, and between faith and culture? What, if any, is the role and relationship among them? Is it right to attempt to present objective evidence for the Faith, or a reasonable case for Christianity? What, if any, is the value of cultural and worldview critiques and analysis? What is the biblical view and value of the life of the mind.

In light of my interest, calling, and vocation in Christian apologetics and the study of faith and culture, this integrative paper attempts to provide answers to the above questions and expound on the biblical and theological basis or underpinnings for these studies, so that among other reasons, by God's grace (as in all matters) the church might be faithful to God--the biblical teaching--to the calling God has given her, to better inform and equip Christians, and to help fulfill the Great Commission. In other words, I want to examine the biblical and theological warrant or justification for the importance of these types of studies in the arena of the defense of the Faith (Jude 3).¹ This is an important topic in and of itself, but all the more so given the claims by some Christians that flatly disavow the biblical basis and value of such studies.

Many in the church claim, "just preach the gospel," that's all--no more and no less. That is, for example, just give altar calls and teach some basic Bible studies (and this according to their own perceptions of what they presume to be biblical). They claim that this alone is the biblical mandate; Anything else is worldly or non-biblical. These individuals are often anti-intellectual (e.g., against higher-education, so-called secular learning, and so forth). As well there is often no place for apologetics (this they claim contrary to 1 Pet 3:15), the life of the mind, the study of the concerns of culture, and so forth, as these are allegedly worldly or at least somehow suspect.

Christians must ask "is it true that this (the above) is all that the Bible teaches?" Or is this just what some say that the Bible teaches? Is this really the extent of the Christian's duty, the full extent of the biblical mandate? I do not believe that it is, and will attempt to demonstrate from the Bible why this is the case. Furthermore, I will attempt to expound, at least in part, the truly biblical positions relative to the issues mentioned, trying to discern "the full counsel of God" (Acts 20:27) in the context of our topics.²

Certainly, as with all sin, we are to avoid worldliness, worldly viewpoints, or non-biblical beliefs and practices (see, e.g., Rom 12:2; Gal 6:14; Col 2:8; Jas 1:27; 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17; 4:5; 5:19). However, one concern is to make sure that--by God's grace--we have correctly identified worldliness, worldly viewpoints, or non-biblical positions. In this area we can make at least two mistakes: (1) to allow or embrace beliefs and/or practices that are in fact non-biblical--wrong; or (2), to reject beliefs and/or practices that are actually biblical--from God--but call them worldly. These are two opposite errors, but both are errors nonetheless.

Paper Perimeters and Prospectus

Due to space considerations, this paper is not an exhaustive analysis of our topics. Indeed, because of the perimeters of this paper and the sheer volume of material that would need to be addressed, the scope of this paper must be limited. There are simply too many pertinent concerns to cover in a detailed manner. On certain points I will have to be content to just present some of the preliminary issues and questions that arise from the concerns, if nothing else, for further discussion. Nonetheless, I believe that the discussion itself, that is, what we can examine, can be immensely profitable, particularly pertaining to the concerns of Christian apologetics and regarding the Christian Faith and its cultural implications.

In the allotted space I must limit myself to, and will present the following: First, I will present an exposition of some of the key biblical passages that impact our study. Second, and concurrent with the first, I will discuss the import of the exposition for the topic. Thus, here I will examine the biblical position and nature of apologetics, the life of the mind, and the study of faith and culture and worldview analysis. Third, I will present some critiques of the positions that are hostile to Christian apologetics, the life of the mind, and the study of the faith and culture and worldview analysis. Fourth, and lastly, I will offer some concluding comments.

Thus, in this paper I want to examine the (1) biblical/theological basis for apologetics, (2) the place of the life of the mind, and (3) at least set the stage for the discussion or the attempt at an analysis of the subject of faith and culture.

However, before beginning the exposition of key biblical passages relative to the concerns of this paper, it will be useful to have a thought experiment in place.

A Thought Experiment

Before I begin the analysis proper in this paper, it will be helpful to have the following thought experiment in mind. In other words, another way to look at cultural concerns--the role and relationship of faith and culture--from the Christian perspective is by trying to determine, if we were given the opportunity today to form the ideal biblically based society, from the ground-up--from a biblically based and informed perspective--what would it be like? What type of community, state, nation, indeed world would exist? What kind of civilization, society, or world would we form? What would be our view of art, learning (biblical and otherwise), science, or of thinking and reason? (In a sense we are given just such an opportunity to create, within the sovereignty and providence of God, just such a world today.) What kind of world, given the way we believe and live today would we really make--are we really making? These are important questions, and I fear, ones that many Christians never ask because they never, or for far too fleeting a moment, even give thought to them.

These questions and issues directly relate to our topics. For example, are we actually taking captive "every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Cor 10:5)?³ Are we actually exhibiting "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2:16)? Are we really living and thinking so that "whether you eat or drink [or think, or ...] or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31)? Are we, "whether in word or deed," in fact doing all "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Col 3:17)? Are we really loving "`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)?

Where are We Going?

I suspect that many Christians, let alone non-Christians, are going in a direction that if all the facts were known, there would or at least there ought to be a significant change of direction. Furthermore, I suspect that many Christians are being significantly influenced by ideas that while purportedly are biblical, are ironically decidedly non-biblical, ideas that depreciate or out-right deny the outer core and/or inner core or essence of the Christian worldview (such as post-modernism). These positions are often claimed to be consistent with Christianity, that is, are claimed to be biblically/theological sound doctrine and as well sound praxis (practice), but are not.

It is part of my goal in this paper to help identify the genuinely biblical positions, identify some of the non-biblical ideas, or at least get some Christians thinking about these issues, and hence in some sense to help encourage and equip Christians in the Faith. In addition to these topics being good things (in and of themselves) to discuss, they are also important to discuss in order that, among other critical points, we might by the grace of God truly fulfill the Great Commission and make disciples and actually proclaim the gospel to all the world.

Make Disciples

Some Christians appeal to Matthew 28:18-20 and what has been termed the Great Commission as demonstrating that the primary charge of the church is just to preach the gospel and make converts to Christianity. However, this passage is often misunderstood and therefore misused. The passage in question reads:

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Matt 28:18-20, NIV).

The main or primary verb (for both verses 18 and 19) and hence command is to "make disciples" (Gk. matheteusate, aorist, imperative mood), not "go," or whatever else one might postulate.⁴ Also, notice that we are to be "teaching [didaskontes] them to obey everything I have commanded you." Thus, the command is not to go, or just make converts, but to make disciples, teaching them all that Christ has commanded. As Henry Alford notes: "This `teaching' is not merely the kerygma of the gospel--not mere proclamation of the good news--but the whole catechetical office of the Church upon and in the baptized."⁵ R. C. H. Lenski remarks:

The heart of the commission is in the one word matheteusate. This imperative, of course, means, "to turn into disciples," and its aorist form conveys the thought that this is actually to be done. The verb itself does not indicate how disciples are to be made, it designates only an activity that will result in disciples.⁶

A few paragraphs later Lenski completes the thought when he writes: "Two participles of means then state how all nations are to be made into disciples: by baptizing them and by teaching them."⁷ Now the question is just what is a disciple?

The Greek word for disciple is mathetes. The term as primarily used in the New Testament for Christ's disciples denotes--an adherent, a learner, a pupil, a follower, someone who pays close attention to and attempts to implement what they have been taught from their teacher.⁸

Before and at the time of Christ, disciples of rabbis were known for their devotion and allegiance to their rabbi, who would repeat their teachings over and over again until their disciples had memorized them. Often disciples would commit their rabbi's teachings to memory verbatim.⁹ Moreover, rabbis and their followers often utilized a form of shorthand to privately record information they thought was important. Thus, in private they often wrote down what they had been taught so that they might remember and apply the teachings.¹⁰ As can be seen, a disciple in this sense is not a mere convert, but an ardent follower of Jesus and his teachings. (Today this seems to be something that many Christians do not understand or have simply never been taught.) Now we must ask, among other things, what did Jesus teach relative to the topics of this paper?

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to attempt to expound on most or even many of the teachings of Christ, there is one teaching--one of the primary ones found in Mark 12:29-30 that we need to examine. To miss this teaching of Christ is inexcusable.

Mark 12:29-31

In the context of Mark 12:28-34, in response to the question of which of the commandments was the most important, Jesus comments: "`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength'" (NIV). Thus, one of the ways or aspects in which we are to love God is with all our mind. It is not the only aspect or way we are to love God, but it is one. From the biblical perspective, what is the mind?

The word used here for mind in Greek is dianoia. Related to this study, and depending on the context, it means among other things understanding, intelligence, thought, ability or power to think, thinking,¹¹ or "a thinking through, or over."¹² Also, one usage of the word dianoia within the writings of Paul means: "It possesses the ability to understand and to reason (1 Cor. 14:14-19); it is the seat of intelligence."¹³

Thus, we can see the value and importance of thinking or reasoning. It is one of the ways by which we are to love God. Indeed, it is stated by God the Son as part of the most important commandment. This can hardly be overemphasized, and is nothing to take lightly.

Therefore, those who depreciate thinking and/or reasoning qua thinking and/or reasoning do so contrary to Scripture--in fact contrary to the direct words of Christ--and ironically to the detriment of their own souls. To depreciate thinking and/or reasoning qua thinking and/or reasoning is a radical form of false spirituality--egregious sin. While it is often done with ostensibly good intentions or in the name of spirituality, it is nonetheless wrong, and is in actuality antithetical to the claims of Christ.

While there were rather slight variations among the commentators I consulted (see the bibliography) regarding the exact meaning of Mark 12:30, all were in agreement that the text was teaching that we are to love God first and foremost, with all our being, with all our faculties or constituent aspects that make us human--our human nature--with our whole being. As one commentator stated relative to the meaning of heart, soul, mind, and strength (in the context of Mark 12:30), that they were "all varied ways of saying `to the uttermost degree'... [with] `all that is within' ... and with the full potency of that `all.'"¹⁴

However one conceives of human nature (i.e., dichotomy, trichotomy, etc.), since we are to love God with our whole being or nature, and part of that being or nature includes our mind, and we are to love God with all our mind, and part of the function of the mind includes, for example, thinking, and reasoning, and weighing evidence, then we are to love God with everything that pertains to the mind (i.e., the above definitions and/or aspects of the mind). This would therefore certainly include the areas of our thinking and reasoning! If we are to love God with everything within us and do everything to the glory of God, then this must include our reasoning, and our views regarding faith and culture.

God, the Bible, and Logic and Evidence

Scripture has much more to say regarding the value of reason or logic and the importance and use of evidence--particularly objectively veritable evidence.¹⁵

The Supreme Example of Christ¹⁶

Biblically speaking, Christ is the supreme example for us of what to do or not to do (of course, other than things like claiming to be God or forgiving sins by one's own authority). Thus, in the context of our discussion, if Jesus, God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, used objective evidence and argumentation or logic/reason to validate his claims or points, a fortiori, how much more should we! That is, if God the Son who was perfect and received wisdom and miracle working power directly from the Father and the Holy Spirit, nonetheless offered sound reasons and objective evidence for his claims, then how much more so do we imperfect humans need to do so.

From examining the gospels and the life, ministry, and teachings of Christ, this is exactly what we find that Jesus did: offered sound reasons and objective evidence for his claims (and likewise with his apostles). I want to briefly examine some of these many instances.

Jesus' Use of Logic

First, we see that Jesus was, to say the least, quite proficient in his use of logic and constantly utilized it in his teaching ministry.¹⁷ For instance, he employed the reductio ad absurdum method of argumentation, and used the four primary laws of logic: the law of contraction, the law of excluded middle, the law of identify, and the law of logical or rational inference. Indicative of what he often did, we should consider as an example, Matthew 12:24-30. Here Christ utilizes a host of logical points:

1. The Argument from Analogy (vv. 25-26)
2. The Use of the Law of Logical or Rational Inference (v. 26)
3. The Use of the Reductio ad Absurdum Method (vv. 25-26)
4. The Use of the Argument from Analogy (v. 27)
5. The Use of the Law of Logical or Rational Inference (vv. 28, 29)
6. The Use the Argument from Analogy (v. 29)
7. The Use of the Law of Contradiction (v. 30)
8. The Use of the Law of Excluded Middle (v. 30)

In the space of just seven verses we see Christ's teaching being replete with logic. This is what we often see throughout Jesus' teaching ministry. He often used logic to present and advance his claims.

Jesus' Offering of Objective Evidence

Second, we see the same common occurrence with Jesus' appeal to objective evidence--objectively verifiable evidence--to validate his claims. Some of the many examples that could be cited include: Mark 2:1-12; John 2:18-21; 10:30-38; 15:24-25; and John 20:24-29. To the point, Jesus does not just say "believe me." He either says "believe in me" and then offers objectively verifiable evidence, or offers objectively verifiable evidence for his claims and then says "believe in me." To more fully make this point I want to examine two of the examples listed above: Mark 2:1-12 and John 2:18-21.

Example: The Healing of a Paralytic¹⁸

In Mark 2:1-12 we have Jesus healing a paralytic. What is of particular interest to the point I want to make is that when Jesus heals the man, Jesus does not "just" heal him, but says "Son, your sins are forgiven." When some of the teachers of the law--scribes--who were there heard this they thought to themselves that Jesus was committing blasphemy. That is, (1) he was claiming to be able to forgive sins, but (2) only God can forgive sins. (3) Therefore, Jesus was claiming to be God. Since the scribes did not believe that Jesus was God or divine, they would therefore conclude that he--according to their view that Jesus was merely human--was committing blasphemy.

Jesus knows what they are thinking and does not apologize or say "oops, sorry that's not what I meant," or otherwise retract his original statement, but uses it to push and objectively prove his point: his claims to deity. Jesus responds to their thoughts with the comments:

"Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home" (vv. 8-11).

What is the point Jesus is trying to make? In one sense there is very little difference or ease of saying one or the other ("Your sins are forgiven," or "Get up, take your mat and walk"). However, in another sense there is a profound difference. Jesus is talking about this latter sense. Jesus is not asking which is easier to pronounce of say (probably in Aramaic), or which one quantitatively has more words (the first sense). In context this would be trivial. Moreover, anyone can claim to have the authority to, or be able to, forgive sins. This claim, in and of itself, is easy to make.

However, to actually be able to forgive sins is certainly a much greater and therefore, in this sense, a much more difficult thing to say or claim. Furthermore, Jesus does not simply stop here, but is logically arguing by analogy and therefore offering objective evidence for something that at least humanly speaking is not open to objectively verifiable investigation. That is, Jesus is in essence saying, "anyone can claim to forgive sins, that is easy, but I can and will prove to you that I actually can forgive sins." Jesus then makes the analogy between the physical healing and the greater spiritual healing. That is, just as you have seen me physically heal this man and can verify it for yourselves, you now have reason to believe, even though you cannot physically observe or verify it, that I can analogously heal or forgive sins as well.

Jesus works or argues from the seen to the unseen. In other words, since even humanly speaking direct and instantaneous healing is an incredible work and one can see (objectively verify) this accomplishment or claim, so you now have reason to as well trust me then I make claims that you cannot directly objectively verify. To the point, the people now had reason/evidence to believe that Jesus really could forgive sins and was divine. He did not just say "have faith," but offered objective evidence so that people might reasonably have faith in him. As mentioned, this is just one of the many examples we could cite.

Example: The Definitive Sign or Proof of Christ's Claims--John 2:18-21

In John 2:18-21, I think we have the definitive evidence or reason presented as to why one ought to believe the claims of Christ. In 2:18 we read that "Then the Jews demanded of him, `What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?'" Jesus did not say "Just have faith. You need to stop doubting and asking for proof and just believe me." No, he offered them evidence--objectively veritable evidence--for his claims and to prove his identity and authority. Jesus responded "Destroy this temple [he is speaking of the temple of his body, see v. 21], and I will raise it again in three days" (v. 19). He offers the definitive evidence for his claims by way of his resurrection from the dead. In other words, Jesus is saying that he can and will offer evidence and therefore present objective proof for his claims.

Thus, Jesus resurrection from the dead is used by him and the disciples as the definitive evidence of the truthfulness and therefore trustworthiness of his claims. This is clearly seen and offered as such in the New Testament. For example, consider the following: Luke 24:36-43; John 20:24-28; Acts 2:22-32; 17:31; 26:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, and 12-20.

Apparently, in at least some sense, God thought it was important for us to have, not just evidence, such as subjective evidence, but objectively veritable evidence and reasonable grounds to trust the claims of Christ (e.g., note Acts 26:25-26).

The aforementioned has been seen even from a rather brief examination and of only two key passages at that. Given more space and more analysis of other passages, the case only gets stronger.

In Actuality: On what Basis?

Since God himself offered sound reason(s) and objectively verifiable evidence, should we do anything less? On just what grounds do we presume to do otherwise? Ironically, only from a non-biblical perspective can we presume to do so. Yes, one can do this--ignore the clear teachings of Christ and the use and prominence of sound reason and objective evidence--but not based on a solidly biblical position. This is very ironic given the claims of many to be biblically based, yet who deny the value of reason and objectively verifiable evidence. However, in fact they are not really biblically based, but are based on their own presumptions and/or just out-right speculations of what they think the Bible teaches, or according to them what the Bible ought to teach. Let us be clear about this. The example that the Lord left us is clear, as it is as well from the ministries and teachings of the New Testament writers.

The Examples of the Apostles and Other New Testament Writers

As one examines the New Testament, not only the life, ministry, and teachings of Christ, but the ministry and teachings' of his apostles and the other New Testament writers, we find that they also offered sound reasons and objectively verifiable evidence for their claims. I want to briefly examine some of these many instances.

First, as mentioned earlier, we find the same appeal to objective evident for the claims of Christ and hence Christianity by the disciples as with Jesus. I believe that in context these instances are quite clear. Thus, for this reason and space limitations, I will simply list some of them. Some notable examples include: Acts 2:14-22, 32; 3:6-16; 4:8-14, 20; 17:31; 26:26; and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

Second, for example, there is the almost ubiquitous appeal to objective eyewitness testimony by the New Testament writers. Consider the following: Luke 1:1-4; John 1:14, 18; 19:35-36; 20:24-25, 30-31; Acts 1:1-3¹⁹; 2:32; 3:6-16; 4:8-14, 20; 9:3-8, 17; 22:6-9, 14; 26:12-18, 26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Peter 1:16; and 1 John 1:1-3. Is it not rather straightforward that the apostles placed a high value on their eyewitness testimony to the claims of Christ? Then why should we do any less?

Third, as with Jesus, the use of logic or reason and hence logical argumentation is greatly utilized and hence well attested to by the apostles. Note, for example, the following instances: Acts 17:2-3, 17, 22-31; 18:4, 19, 27-28; 19:8-9; 26:25; and 1 Timothy 6:20.

Fourth, as one example of the above, note the following account of one of Paul's presentations of the gospel:

As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ" he said (Acts 17:2-3).

F.F. Bruce states concerning the word "proving" (the Gk. participle paratithemenos) in the context of this passage that Paul was "`bringing (the scriptures) forward as evidence.'"²⁰ Thus Paul was offering objective evidence via the Scriptures as proof for the claims of Christ.

We also see that Paul "reasoned" (see below for the definition) with them. Richard N. Longenecker shares some good insights into this passage and Paul's normal practice:

The preaching of Paul in the Book of Acts generally and at Thessalonica particularly took the form of a "proclaimed witness"--i.e., as witness to the facts that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, [and] that his suffering and resurrection were in accord with the Scriptures.... At times the proclamation was accompanied by miracles. But though miracles brought quick results, "reason," "prove," and "persuade"--words that describe Paul's method of preaching--imply his careful dealing with his hearers' questions and doubts."²¹

One Greek word often translated or used for reason, reasoned, or reasoning is dialegomai. It is found in such passages as Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8,9; 24:12, 25; and Jude 9. A. T. Robertson states that in essence while the word's meaning can change given the context, it always carries with it the "idea of intellectual stimulus."²² In the context of our discussion and the above passages it means to argue, converse, discourse, dispute, or reason.²³ Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich (hereafter BAG) state that it means to "discuss, conduct a discussion ... of lectures which were likely to end in disputations...."²⁴ Vine defines it as "to think different things with oneself, to ponder, then, to dispute with others...."²⁵ An example would be like considering or weighing the evidence of the worth of one truck--feature by feature, dollar per dollar--against another truck--and then debating this in one's own mind or with someone else.

Now, either (1) God did not care that the disciples did this; or (2) God disapproved of this, and therefore it was unspiritual or sinful for the apostles to do this; or (3) It was commended by God himself? Given that Jesus used similar approaches, I will have to argue for the latter.

To biblically answer these questions, we must consider the very interesting passage of Acts 18:27-28. Here we see that Apollos was a "great help to those who by grace had believed." Why was this? We are told why: "For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ" (v. 28, NIV). The Greek word translated refuted is diakatelegchomai, and in context here means to "refute completely, "to confute powerfully in disputation...."²⁶ The Greek word translated proving is epideiknymi, in context here meaning to "demonstrate, show," or "to point out, prove, demonstrate,"²⁷ or as A. T. Robertson says that it is a verb meaning "to set forth so that all see."²⁸ It is very clear, that among other points, Apollos made his argument quite well logically.

Because of this, and for whatever other reasons, Apollos was commended by Luke who was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Thus, in essence Apollos was commended by God the Holy Spirit because he "refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ"! Therefore, we see God's blessing upon Apollos' actions in Acts 18:27-28. This is certainly one proper use of the mind that God has given us.

Lastly, for this section, I want to briefly examine Acts 26:25. Here, Paul is appearing before Festus, Agrippa, and others to present his "defense" or apologetic (Gk. apologia, see Acts 26:1, 2). At one point Festus interrupts Paul (v. 24) and states "You are out of your mind Paul.... Your great learning is driving you insane." Paul responds to Festus: "`I am not insane, most excellent Festus.... What I am saying is true and reasonable'" (v. 25). The Greek word here translated "reasonable" is sophrosyne. In the context of Acts 26:25, BAG defines it as "reasonableness, rationality, mental soundness...."<sup>29</sup> Vine states that in context sophrosyne "denotes soundness of mind."<sup>30</sup> Ulrich Luck in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (hereafter TDNT) comments that "In Ac. 26:25 Paul answers the charge of mania ... by arguing that he speaks `true and rational words' which can be understood and tested, and which bear no relation to ecstasy."³¹ In the footnote at the end of the previously quoted sentence, among other points, Luck writes that Paul's comments were intended to convey that Paul was "being rational, in one's right mind...."³²

Hence, Paul was not only being rational--reasonable--but his claims were open to investigation, that is, objective verification or falsification (note Acts 26:26).³³ Notice the comments about testability or verifiability by Luck. I cannot state that the writer of this entry has in mind the same points that I do or made above, but nonetheless, I believe that the author in context is correct, and his comments about this passage of scripture are on target.

Implications

I find the passages just discussed most interesting, particularly given the prevalence of emotionalism and mere experientialism in the church that so many Christians are controlled by and give sway to.

Paul clearly is not given to such subjectivism, emotionalism and mere experientialism. On the contrary, Paul's Christianity is sound, sober, rational, reasonable, and commends itself to those who are in their right mind. Paul's faith is real, and while there is definitely a subjective or experiential aspect to it, it is also a conviction that is supported by the evidence, faith founded on fact (as Dr. John Warwick Montgomery says), a logical or logically consistent faith or belief system. Paul appeals to the good and sound use of our God given mind, part of the imago Dei, that is, our being made in the image of God.

The God Given Mind

Our minds as well as all our other attributes are gifts from God to us and are to be used for his honor and glory and our good. This includes the ability to think or reason. This is part of the imago Dei or the image of God within us.

The Imago Dei

Humans are created in the image of God (L. imago Dei).³⁴ Many theologians hold that while every aspect or "part" of the imago Dei was radically marred in the Fall, nonetheless, we still retain the image (see, e.g., Gen 8:15-9:7; Ps 8:4-9; 1 Cor 11:7; 15:49; James 3:9; Heb 2:5-8). Part of the way that we are made in God's image is that we share with God, since he gave these attributes to us, what are termed the communicable attributes of God. Included among these communicable attributes is the ability to reason.

Thus, the imago Dei includes, but is not limited to, the ability to think or reason (the rational dimension), the ability to make moral choices (the moral dimension), to ability to socialize (the social dimension), the ability to create (not of course, ex nihilo but in the sense of making things out of, or from matter that already exists), our having emotions, our having volition or a will (at least regarding non-salvific matters, and at that only to a limited degree), the spiritual dimension, and so forth. Thus, again, part of the imago Dei in man is man's spiritual, moral, and immortal being which has been defaced but not completely erased in the Fall.

Since people are made in the imago Dei, and in light of general revelation (see, e.g., Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:19-20), I believe that we can and should also appeal to (1) philosophical principles and critiques that logically and ontologically follow from the nature of God (that are either explicitly or implicitly taught in Scripture--the Bible--and therefore logically and ontologically follow from God and what he has revealed to us in the Bible), (2) the God given constitution of humans, and (3) the world that God has created.

In light of the above facts, as such, we see why Christianity would appeal to our minds or the rational aspect of our nature (see, e.g., Isa 1:18; Mark 12:29-30; Acts 26:25; 1 Cor 10:15), as well as all other aspects of our being--all the constituent or component aspects that comprise human nature, that is, what it means to be human. Therefore, we can and should know intellectual contentment in the Faith. One does not need to renounce a sound education or the use of their mind in order to become a Christian. Just the opposite is (should be) the case. That is, one should find full fulfillment in Christianity as they use their mind to the fullest extent of its God given ability. Also we pursue learning because it is good in and of itself; we derive benefit and satisfaction from it--it is part of the reason we were created, and created in the imago Dei--and can and should be done to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31; Col 3:17).

Carl F. H. Henry has some excellent remarks regarding our topic. He writes: "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."³⁵ 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.³⁶

As mentioned, the imago Dei includes, among other attributes, the ability to reason. This entails (as we have seen as well in the scriptural analysis above) the place and the value of the life of the mind and of evidence and reason, both before and after conversion. As Charles Hodge writes:

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.³⁷

I think Hodge as made some very good points. One more quote from Hodge will help to round-out our discussion here:

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 logic³⁸].... 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.³⁹

Truly, we could not live any type of consistent or worthwhile life without the use of the mind and of evidence and reason or logic. However, having said this, this does not mean that logic or reason is the answer to all our concerns, or that reason does not have its limits.

Uses and Limitations of the Mind and Logic/Reason⁴⁰

Here I need to arrest any misunderstandings of what I have said, such as that I am espousing rationalism, and proactively state how I am advocating the use of the mind and reason. There are a number of ways that reason can be used, or as the case may be, not used. What I am advocating is what has been termed the ministerial use of reason.

The ministerial use of reason is as a servant or "handmaid" to the Bible and theology. Here, reason is not put on par with or above the Bible, but stands in a subordinate role to God's special revelation. This is the role of reason that I am advocating.

A second type of the use of reason has been termed magisterial. This is the placing of reason on par with or actually above the Bible. Here logic or reason (that of the individual or of a group) is allegedly the final judge, arbitrator, or authority of truth and even biblical revelation. This is not the role of reason that I am advocating. This is an incorrect use--abuse--of reason.

Another approach to reason is the anti-intellectual position (some of what I have been previously discussing in this paper). This is the position of depreciating or out-right denying the role of reason or logic in apologetics and in other concerns of Christianity. Unfortunately, this is the view that many Christians, intentionally or not, advocate.

However, all of this is not to say that there are not problems to consider with the use of the mind and reason. There are, and the greatest (or worst) of these is the effects of the Fall.

The Effects of the Fall on the Mind

Another factor that needs to be considered in our discussion of the mind and reason is the effects of the Fall on the mind of man and women and our use of reason or logic. The effects of the Fall on the mind and reasoning of humanity is termed the noetic effects of the Fall. Thus, we are not perfect reasoners, and I am not implying that we can simply reason our way to God. As Winfried Corduan has well stated: "The process of becoming saved involves reason but is not completed by it."⁴¹ Human reason is finite and fallen. Our minds are limited. "There are some tasks that human reason cannot fulfill by virtue of its limitations."⁴² The mind is a good gift from God, but one that we often apply in a corrupted manner, due to our sinfulness (see, e.g., Rom 1:20-23, 25; 1 Cor 1:20-25). Besides the concern of sin, the mind simply has its limits of what it can and cannot do. Therefore, we need to note these limitations.

As I mentioned earlier, it is my view that the Fall effected every aspect (this is termed total depravity) of our nature or being. Every aspect (e.g., our reasoning and will or volition) of what it means to be human was radically corrupted, deformed and distorted, or marred by the Fall. Thus, each aspect of our being, while not completely eradicated, nonetheless, is radically marred or corrupted by sin. But, while the effects of the Fall are serious and must be noted and not down-played, the Fall nonetheless did not eradicate or completely efface the imago Dei. The image of God is marred, but not lost (note 1 Cor 11:7; 15:49; James 3:9; and Heb 2:5-8). Therefore, while we need to be careful, there is still a proper place for the mind and its use and the use of evidence and reason.

The Stewardship of the Mind

God gave us a mind and He expects us to use it, and at that for his glory (Mark 12:29-31) and ours and others good. It is one of the talents that he has given us (Matt 25:14-29). We had best use it wisely, and not just "bury it."

The emotional nature of mankind is just as fallen as the intellect. Thus, we should not exalt it relating to conversion or in sanctification either.

If we are going to glorify God as Christians and in sharing the gospel with others, we must not ignore or in an unscriptural manner down-play the importance of the mind in the preaching and defense of the gospel, or down-play the place of the life of the mind as Christians and in the church. (This is in actuality a form of false humility or false spirituality, and should be denounced for what it is--unscriptural and dishonoring to God!) The mind and reason are gifts from God; we can and should utilize them to the fullest degree possible.

The Reasonableness of Christianity
And the Renewal of All Things

It should be evident that Christianity is inherently reasonable. Its very nature demands such.⁴³ Thus, for example, the mind is not to be destroyed, but transformed in salvation and sanctification (see, e.g, Rom 12:2). While our minds were not completely eradicated, nonetheless, radically marred and distorted or corrupted, they are to be transformed.

It is interesting to me that the mind is to be renewed, but not logic or reason or reasoning per se. That is, logic is not bad or corrupted per se. What is wrong is our illogical (i.e., non-sequiturs) arguments, or our conclusion is simply not the only possible logical conclusion (e.g., an invalid deductive argument), or our simple misapplication of logic. But, it is not logic qua logic that gets redeemed or renewed. In other words, reason or logic do not need to be renewed, what needs to be rectified is our misuse or abuse of a good thing--logic or reason.

Humankind's lost of knowledge of true righteousness and holiness, that results in among other things our misuse of things that are good in and of themselves, was lost because of sin (the Fall), but is being restored to the Christian by Christ (see, e.g., Eph 4:22-25; Col 3:9-10).

The process of sanctification is ongoing for the Christian and it is vital that Christians know what really is true and from God and what is not. However, this is not always as easy as it sounds or as it is to say. But, it must be done, and by God's grace, the word, and the Holy Spirit it will be done.

Without space considerations, it would be appropriate at this point to examine some key passages that impact the issue of our transformation, the renewing and transforming of our minds and the rest of our being, and how to better identify, intellectually or otherwise, what is biblical and what is not. In this context, some of the passages that need a thorough exposition would include: Romans 12:1-2; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5; Galatians 6:14; Colossians 2:8; James 1:27; 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17; 4:5; and 5:19.

However, space limitations preclude such a study here. Nevertheless, this does not minimize the need for such a study. An exposition of these passages would only add to the biblical evidence for the need, even the necessity, of a sound biblical worldview analysis.

The Importance of A Sound Biblical
Worldview Analysis

There is a vital need for, and importance of, a soundly, truly, biblical worldview and cultural analysis. This in spite of those who claim otherwise.

As mentioned earlier, some Christians feel that we should only preach the gospel and present some basic Bible studies (according to their own presuppositions). However, even if I agreed that the Christian's only or primary duty was to just preach the gospel, which I do not, we would still have to know just what the gospel was and what it did and did not entail. In other words, we would have to know what was from or of God, what the gospel is, and just what is of the world--worldly--and therefore not the gospel. These are key questions. Arthur F. Holmes has something critically important to say on this point:

Christianity has vitally important implications for every area of life and thought, implications that need to be developed; but to live and think Christianly in today's world, with meaning and hope, does not come easily. It means ferreting out the influence of non-Christian assumptions and bringing distinctively Christian presuppositions to bear in their place. To identify and articulate these distinctives systematically in relation to the world of ideas is to develop a Christian world view.⁴⁴

Even with the best intentions, we need to make sure that we are not being deceived by some belief and/or practice that while it appears to be Christian and godly, is in fact nothing of the kind. For instance, as we see in Colossians 2:23 some were deceived by a false, indeed un-Christian, so-called form of humility. This is a clear example of why we need to watch out for, and be careful not to be deceived by everything: beliefs or idea and/or practices, that claim to be Christian but are not. So there is a need relative to our topic to be just as careful and avoid false spirituality.

Furthermore, being worldly, for example, is not just being involved in the obvious sins, such as immorality, or the pride of life. These to be sure are forms of sin, of compromise, of being worldly. However, just as worldly, and in one sense perhaps far more dangerous, is imbibing worldly ideologies (though presented as they were in fact great truths for the very spiritual), like anti-intellectualism, that directly or indirectly compromise or just out-right deny biblical truths--such as the place of the mind in the life of the church and the believer. (Again, as an example see Col 2:23.) Just because something or an idea is subtle does not mean that it is any less dangerous (let alone that it is innocuous), than obvious examples of worldliness. To the contrary, these types of insidious sins can be far more perniciously corrupting because of their subtle nature.

Every area, every discipline, every thought needs to be taken captive and made obedient to Christ. Part of the way that this is done is working through and applying a thoroughly biblical worldview and cultural analysis of our world.

This is Our Father's World

In light of what has been said, it can be seen that all realms (e.g., of thinking or reasoning) belong to God. In this context, there is no sacred/secular distinction. In speaking in the context of education, Frank Gaebelein made some very biblically sound comments that are appropriate here:

In all candor it must be admitted that much education called Christian has failed to see that this comprehensive fact of all truth being God's truth breaks down, on the one hand, the division of knowledge between secular and religious; and brings, on the other hand, every area of life and thought "into captivity to the obedience of Christ" ... to use the great Pauline phrase. To put it bluntly, we have been too prone to set up a false dichotomy in our thinking and thus in our education. We have rightly enthroned the Word of God as the ultimate criterion of truth; we have rightly given pre-eminence to the Lord Jesus Christ as the incarnation of the God of all truth. But at the same time we have fallen into the error of failing to see as clearly as we should that there are areas of truth not fully explicated in Scripture and that these, too, are part of God's truth. Thus, we have made the misleading distinction between sacred and secular....⁴⁵

In the same book, Gaebelein has a quote from Gordon Clark that is also applicable to our topic:

Christianity, far from being a Bible-department religion, has a right to control the instruction in all departments. The general principles of Scripture apply to all subjects, and in some subjects the Scriptures supply rather detailed principles, so that every course of instruction is altered by a conscious adoption of Christian principles.⁴⁶

I respectfully submit that many Christians who want to "protect" themselves and other Christians and the church from the world or worldliness, have nonetheless (1) contaminated Christians and the church with worldly philosophies or viewpoints, such as anti-intellectualism; and (2) have failed to take every area of life for the gospel--for the Lord. Worldview and cultural analysis and the study of faith and culture are a vital part of protecting the church from worldliness and bringing every area or domain of life under the rulership of the Lord.

Conclusion

Even in this rather brief paper (brief given the scope of the topic), I believe that a sufficient case has been made--from the Bible (from a sound biblical and theological position)--for the validity, need, and simple inherent goodness of apologetics, the use of objectively verifiable evidence, the use of reason/logic, the place of the life of the mind and learning for the church and the individual believer, the study of faith and culture, and the importance of worldview and cultural analysis. To be sure much more needs to be said. To be sure the work and studies need to actual be done and not just talked about or the case made for their justification. These studies, following from a solid biblical foundation and study by the Christian, are worth a lifetime of effort, indeed, the life of every Christian to one degree or another.

Moreover, I submit that not only are the above mentioned types of pursuits worthwhile, good, even commanded and commended by our Lord (see, e.g., Acts 18:27-28; Col 4:8; 1 Pet 3:15), but ironically, unless they are done the church will not have earned "the right to be heard" by the world in the first place, so that we will have an audience to share the gospel with, and hence make disciples. In order to be able to faithfully and effectively, by God's great grace, share the gospel and disciple and advance the Christian worldview, we must build from the foundation that has been given to us in the Bible--on the basis of sound biblical and theological analysis. It is from the above argued positions that I believe we must attempt to build-up the church and engage the non-Christian, so as to be able to truly fulfill the Great Commission.

I am not supposing that I have solved all the concerns mentioned in this paper or proven Q.E.D. all my positions. But, I do think that I have at least offered sufficient evidence for those who hold to contrary opinions, and for those who had no prior dispositions, to examine what has been presented. If nothing else this paper has further helped to solidify my understanding of the biblical position on the topics discusses, and I hope contributed to the discussion regarding apologetics, faith and evidence and reason, the life of the mind in the church and for the Christian, the value of worldview and cultural analysis, and the role and relationship between faith and culture so that we might fulfill 1 Corinthians 10:31: "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

Endnotes

1. Due to space considerations, I cannot attempt a full study of the biblical warrant for Christian apologetics from, so to speak, the ground-up. I have attempted this elsewhere, in particular in three outlines/papers that I have written: Apologetics: An Apologetic for Apologetics, rev. ed. (Santa Ana, Calif.: Apologetics Information Ministry, 1999); Faith and Knowledge, Evidence, and Reason: Their Role and Relationship to One Another, rev. ed. (Santa Ana, Calif.: Apologetics Information Ministry, 1999); and God and Logic, rev. ed. (Santa Ana, Calif.: Apologetics Information Ministry, 1999).

46. Gordon Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, (Grand Rapids: n.p., n.d.), 208-10, as quoted by Frank E. Gaebelein, The Pattern of God's Truth, 17.

Bibliography

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, eds. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. Germany: United Bible Society, 1993.

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. Rev. by Everett F. Harrison. 4 Vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.

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.

Behm, Johannes. "Dianoia." In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. and ed. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967.

Black, David Alan. New Testament Greek Reading. Audiocassette. Anaheim, Calif.: Simon Greenleaf University, 1996.

Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1987.

Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles. 3d rev. and enl. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

F. F. Bruce, gen. ed. Commentary on the Book of the Acts. In The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. "The Synoptic Gospels." In The Expositor's Greek Testament, W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. Vol. 1 Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.

Bush, L. Russ. A Handbook for Christian Philosophy. Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1991.

Buswell, James Oliver. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. 1 Vol. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963.

Carson, D. A. "Matthew." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Frank E. Gaebelein, gen. ed. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Corduan, Winfried. "Reason." In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Ed., Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

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

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. 1 vol. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

Gaebelein, Frank E. The Pattern of God's Truth. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.

Gerhardsson, B. "Tradition." In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, gen. ed. Rev. ed. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Goetzmann, Jurgen. "Mind." In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Colin Brown, gen. ed. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1994.

Harder, Gunther. "Reason, Mind, Understanding." In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Colin Brown, gen. ed. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.

Hawkins, Craig. Apologetics: An Apologetic for Apologetics. Rev. ed. Santa Ana, Calif.: Apologetics Information Ministry, 1999.

_____. Faith and Knowledge, Evidence, and Reason: Their Role and Relationship to One Another. Rev. ed. Santa Ana, Calif.: Apologetics Information Ministry, 1999.

_____. God and Logic. Rev. ed. Santa Ana, Calif.: Apologetics Information Ministry, 1999.

Hawthorne, G. F. "Disciple." In The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Merrill C. Tenney, gen. ed. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Helm, Paul. "Disciple." In the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Walter Elwell, gen. ed. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. 4 Vols., 629-31.

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

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

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

House, Dr. H. Wayne. Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Knowling, R. J. The Acts of the Apostles. In The Expositor's Greek Testament. W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.

Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Lane, D. J. V. "Tradition." In the New Bible Dictionary. D. R. W. Wood, ed. 3d ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark. In The New International Commentary on the New Testament. F.F. Bruce, gen. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961.

_____. The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961.

_____. The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961.

Longenecker, Richard N. "The Acts of the Apostles." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Frank E. Gaebelein, gen. ed. Vol. 9. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Luck, Ulrich. "Sophron, sophroneo, sophronizo, sophronismos, sophrosyne." In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. and ed. Vol. 7. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Marshall, Alfred. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament in the Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Marshall, I. H. "Disciple." In the New Bible Dictionary. D. R. W. Wood, rev. ed. 3d ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Meye, R. P. "Disciple." In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, gen. ed. Rev. ed. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Miethe, Terry L. Living Your Faith. Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1993.

Muller, Dietrich. "Mathetes." In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Colin Brown, gen. ed. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. In The New International Commentary on the New Testament. F.F. Bruce, gen. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

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

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

Nicoll, W. Robertson, ed. The Expositor's Greek Testament. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.

Osborne, Grant R. "Tradition." In the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Walter A. Elwell, gen. ed. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.

Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. "Mathetes." In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. and ed. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 Vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930.

Vincent, Marvin R. "Acts of the Apostles." In Word Studies in the New Testament. Reprint. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. 1 vol. Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1940.

Wead, David W. "Mind." In the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Walter Elwell, gen. ed. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.

Wigram, George V. Jay P. Green Sr., ed. The New Englishman's Greek Concordance and Lexicon. Rev. ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1982.

Wilkins, Michael J., and J.P. Moreland, eds. Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.