The Educator’s Means: Understanding and Impacting the Christian Mind

School’s Back!  Educating to Transform People and Glorify God– Part 4

False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel.^[1]

Evil . . . starts with the verbal abuse of reality.^[2]

Moral Character is assessed not by what a man knows, but by what he loves^[3]

You shall love the Lord your God with all your . . . mind^[4]

No longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds^[5]

Be transformed by the renewal of your mind^[6]

Preparing your minds for action^[7]

Preface:  Thinking Christianly About . . . Thinking

This week we conclude our exploration of Christian education. This series has focused on how to think Christianly about education.  Here, we will dig deeper into thinking Christianly – about thinking.  Because we are commanded to love God with all our minds, the very manner of our thinking should be a concern to all who follow Jesus.  Being sober-minded – thinking well – is crucial for arresting pagan influences as advanced by the devil himself.^[8]  Thus far, we have examined the Educator’s Audience (anthropology), the Educator’s Context (cosmology), and the Educator’s Mission (salt and light).  This week we conclude by tackling the Educator’s Means:  Thinking Christianly about thinking itself.  Let’s get to the gist.

Introduction:  Do the Facts “Speak for themselves”?

It’s a well-used and familiar phrase: “the facts speak for themselves.”  And, if this quip seeks to contrast realty with feelings, it makes sense: “Facts don’t care about feelings” as the slogan goes.  However, from a worldview standpoint, we ought to be careful about using this slogan; we may end up deceiving ourselves.  What do I mean?  Consider these examples.

Example 1:  A Troubled Baseball Star

Hack Wilson was a prodigious National League baseball star; some of his accomplishments remain unrivalled even today.^[9]  But, Hack abused alcohol.  His drunkenness became so problematic that an intervention occurred with the team owner and his manager.  That conversation illustrates an important point about the mind.

They brought Hack into the office.  Set before him were two glasses of clear liquid:  one with water and the other with some variety of hooch.  Then, after securing Hack’s attention, they carefully placed a live earthworm in the water – nothing happened.  Then, they retrieved the worm from the water and placed it in the other glass of clear alcoholic liquid.  The worm immediately disintegrated.

Then came the question: “Hack, do you see the point; do you understand what’s happening?”  And Hack assured them he “got it.”  He responded: “Yes, Skipper; it proves that if you drink whiskey, you’ll never get worms.”^[10]

      Example 2:  Geopolitical Journalism

During the Cold War, every issue became a contest between Soviet Communism and the capitalistic West.  One such contest involved a two-car head-to-head race between a Soviet manufactured vehicle and an USA Detroit-made car.  A series of headlines told story: ^[11]

1. American News: “American Car Beats Out Soviet Competitor”

1. Soviet News: “Soviet Car Finishes Second; American Car Next-to-Last”

Both headlines are factually accurate, however they were crafted to fit a pre-determined narrative.  The American news source focused on how the market produces superior products; the Soviets used the opportunity, by omitting key facts, to deceive the readers.  Context matters for accurately conveying reality.

      Example 3:  A More Sobering Example

A Professor from the University of Virginia, Allen C. Lynch recounts visiting the Soviet Union.  He did so during a screening the film Silent Scream.^[12]  This film, produced during the early days of ultrasound technology, depicted in graphic detail an actual abortion.  The film was designed by pro-life advocates to spur revulsion and opposition to this deadly procedure.  What Lynch found surprised him:

“Instead of the baby’s pain, the viewers noticed the clean hospitals, the state-of-the-art technology, and the briskly professional doctors and nurses”

The Women Marveled: “Wouldn’t it be great to have an abortion in America?”^[13]

As these examples illustrate:  The facts don’t “speak for themselves.”  Rather, all facts are interpreted through a philosophy of fact, a worldview.  Those worldviews erect plausibility narratives, or in today’s popular parlance, Overton Windows that shape “what’s plausible or feasible.”  As theologian Tom Wright explains:

My point is this: if you’re trying to have a discussion about God’s involvement in the world in one area – creation, science, whatever – while living and breathing a system in which God has been disinvolved with the world by definition and by act of congress, there is an opposition set up, deep within the structure of how people think, that is going to make it very difficult. That is why, I think, some of those who insist on God’s actions in creation and providence, who see him as a God who is essentially outside the whole process and who reaches in, despite the Epicurean prohibition, and does things for which there was otherwise no cause, sound quite shrill. They are desperately insisting on the truth of something that, at a structural and presuppositional level, has been ruled out of court, declared unconstitutional.^[14]

What does this mean for educators, education, and thinking Christianly?  What role does Christ play in life of the mind, when conveying and interpreting facts, and what’s that look like when “taken to the streets”?

The Optional Christ?

Suppose you’re working late at night and not in a good neighborhood.  Because you’re pinching pennies, you park several blocks away from your building.

As you walk, you see the shadow of a large man coming down your sidewalk.  This man mutters sporadically yet incoherently and then alternatively loudly shouts and laughs.  Prudently, you cross the street, trying to avoid this unpredictable hulk.

The man then crosses the street and is coming straight toward you.  As he passes under a streetlight, you see a glimpse of a long silver blade – a serrated knife blade.  It’s instantly clear that this hulk doesn’t want your money; he wants your life.

You begin to panic and sweat; then, after taking a calming breath, you recall that you are [legally] carrying your pistol.  As the hulk approaches, you present your weapon and speak confidently and sternly as you were trained to do: “Stop; do not come any closer, this is Glock .45 and I am trained to use it and will use it to stop threats.”

The hulk pauses; then he laughs maniacally and shouts, “I don’t believe in guns and I certainly don’t believe in YOUR gun”!  And, he comes at you quickly.  What happens next? 

You think about it and since the man “doesn’t believe in your gun,” you holster it and the hulk then proceeds to slice you to pieces. Right?  No!  You, as he attacks, instead play a serious game of “Glock, Paper, Scissors” and ventilate him – in justifiable self-defense.^[15]  What’s the worldview point?

Too many Christians intellectually disarm themselves – they approach apologetics or education by “setting aside” – instead of sanctifying – Christ in their thinking:

but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect^[16]

If Christ is Lord of all, this includes our minds, or what the philosophers call His epistemic Lordship.^[17]  This stands to reason since it is in Christ “in whom are hidden all the treasure of wisdom and knowledge.”^[18] This means that there exists a Christian way of understanding and teaching calculus, chemistry, Shakespeare, music, history, philosophy, literature, et al.  

To teach Christianly requires intentionally thinking Christianlyabout every realm of knowledge.  We dare not approach any aspect of education apart from Christ and His Lordship.  But there’s another wrinkle lurking here.

Scandals of the Mind

Suppose that when you first opened your social media feed this morning, you were greeted by a flashing large headline that proclaimed: “IMMORALITY PERVADES CHURCH!!”

If you’re like me, you may think this story recounts some sordid tale of child abuse or sexual debauchery.  Or, perhaps the story focuses on fiscal impropriety or scandal.  And, these things certainly occur in Christian circles.^[19]

However, as we consider the educational enterprise and the intellectual life, I want to suggest that an even larger scandal exists in the church and it’s not about sexual scandal nor about fiscal improprieties.  To understand this enormous scandal, let’s consider an encounter Jesus had with his opponents.  He’s approached – challenged really – by a lawyer who asks: “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”^[20]  Jesus’ response is intriguing for several reasons.  First, it’s intriguing for what He doesn’t do.  Jesus doesn’t answer with a question, though He did that regularly.  Nor did Jesus tell a story or a parable, which in Matthew’s Gospel He also does regularly.  No, Jesus responds directly, citing the Law of God.  Evidently, correctly understanding the status of the Law of God requires direct didactic instruction without being encased in literary devices:  

And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.^[21]  

Jesus here makes plan that this moral priority involves not simply ceasing from “impure thoughts” – though that is crucial – but rather that the very manner of our thinking ought to distinctly Christian. And, if the greatest commandment is to love God in this way, it follows that the greatest immorality flows from transgressing this commandment.^[22]  Failing to love God with all our minds is sinful and this failure exists in epidemic proportions across Christendom today.  Some people function as if thinking is antithetical to a “really spiritual” Christian life.  As Machen noted, however, thinking is part and parcel of being a Christian:

Contrary to what seems to be quite generally supposed, thinking cannot be avoided by the Christian Man^[23]

What comprises this problem?  This intellectual tragedy consists of two components: (1) A data deficit; and (2) A more foundational problem.  As to the data deficit, a prior Dicta edition presented evidence of this.^[24]  This crisis of biblical and theological literacy has been brewing for a while.  Burge conducted a comprehensive study of incoming Freshman at Wheaton College – the “Evangelical Harvard.’  His results, capsulized here, are stunning:

[Gary] Burge points to research at Wheaton College in which the biblical and theological literacy of incoming freshmen have been monitored. These students, who represent almost every Protestant denomination in the United States from every state in the country, have returned some “surprising results”:

     One-third could not put the following in order:

     Abraham, the Old Testament prophets, the death of Christ, and Pentecost.

     Half could not sequence the following: Moses in Egypt, Isaac’s birth, Saul’s death, and Judah’s exile. 

     One-third could not identify Matthew as an

apostle from a list of New Testament names.^[25]

Simply put, we can’t love God with our minds if they are empty.  We must know something about God and His Word.  Failing to do this stunts growth and causes exhaustion and weariness.  As Oswald Chambers puts it for February 11:

Starvation of the mind, caused by neglect, is one of the chief sources of exhaustion and weakness in a servant’s life. . . .Your creative mind is the greatest gift God has given you and it ought to be devoted entirely to Him.^[26]

As Robert Capon lamented the church has often failed to boost scriptural literacy, resulting in stunted spiritual growth:

And since the church has a poor record of getting its members very far past the third grade, that’s about the level of understanding of most of the membership.^[27]

This intellectual immorally extends beyond a data deficit, however.   Prior entries in this series on Education have noted the Apostle Paul’s command to “take every thought captive to Christ” precisely because the “truth has been exchanged of the lie.”^[28]  

This language introduces us to the Antithesis and fundamental to it, is the manner of our thinking.  As John Frame explains:

If Christ is not Lord of the mind, there are two alternatives: (1) the human mind (collectively or individually) answers only to itself, and (2) there is no ultimate authority over the human mind. As Cornelius Van Til stressed over and over again, the first alternative is rationalism, the second irrationalism.  But rationalism breaks down: the human mind can never do the job of God.  So rationalism devolves into irrationalism.  And irrationalism can be asserted only on a rationalistic basis.^[29]

This means there can be no neutrality, even in our thinking.  As Vern Poythress explains:

The decision not to commit ourselves to God is just as religious as the decision to commit ourselves to God.  Rebellion against God is a religious move, even if it is a negative one. . . .We are incurably religious.  If we do not serve God, we will end up serving something, whether that is one of the false gods in ancient Israel, or the god of material success, or human pride, or simply autonomy . . .  Adam’s decision not to serve God is simultaneously a decision to commit himself to autonomy.^[30]

Unsurprisingly then, Scripture often categorizes unbelievers and believers according to their thinking.  More precisely, Scripture depicts covenant keepers and covenant breakers, in part, by their approaches to thinking.

1. Covenant BREAKERS:  Defined in terms of the pattern of their thinking—

1. Natural Men are: “Futile in their thinking”  (Romans 1:21)
2. “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh.”  (Romans 8:5)
3. “To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled” (Titus 1:15)
4. “enemies [hostile] in you mind” (Col. 1:21)

b. Covenant KEEPERS are ALSO defined in terms of their thinking:

1. “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.”(Romans 12:2)
2. “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking . . . .[I]n your thinking be mature.”  (1Cor. 14:20)
3. “[N]o longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futilityof their minds.”  (Eph. 4:17)
4. “Walk in a manner worthy of the Lord . . . increasing in the knowledge of God” (Col. 1:10)
5. “Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind” (1 Peter 3:8)

Accordingly, though we often speak about “Faith and Reason,” please understand, human “reasoning” is not autonomous:

Of course, the attempt to use a strictly autonomous reason that refuses to know about faith, to pull ourselves out of the slough of uncertainties by our own hair, so to speak, can hardly succeed in the end.  For human reason is not autonomous at all.  It is always living in one historical context or other.^[31]

Put differently:

All human reasoning and understanding, all human morality, and all human visions of beauty are rooted in the particularity of tradition, narrative, and community and the only question is to what degree do they conform to the nomos [law] of the kingdom of God.^[32]

As a result, the life of our minds CANNOT be neutral:

Every time any human being opens his mouth to say anything, he either says that God is[,] or that God is not[,] a reality.  It could not be otherwise.  God claims to control every fact.^[33]

This is a conflict of thinking therefore between rival religions. TxC points to Paul as describing that ultimately, only two religions exist consisting of those:  people who worship the Creator or those people that worship some aspect of the creation.  These two approaches represent rival and contested religions.  This rivalry manifests itself as  fundamental division or binary in history.  As Christopher Dawson comments:

But this conflict which divided the modern world was not really one between the religious and the anti-religious forces in our civilization, but a conflict between two rival religions: traditional Christianity on the one hand, and, on the other, a secular religion of human progress which aroused no less enthusiastic faith and boundless hope and love of humanity than any religious revival.^[34]

All educational endeavors must take this into account when teaching, whatever the subject may be.  Redemption redeems the entire human, including his mind.  This new life reaches the life of the mind.  And, in fact Paul commands believers to be transformed by the renewal of their minds – no matter the topic.^[35]

The Breadth and Scope of Knowledge:  WHAT Should We be Teaching???  

Do these foregoing truths mean that Christians should only study the Bible or perhaps theology?  Should Christians oppose learning science or literature or popular culture.  Hardly.

God created all things; accordingly, the Scripture depicts robust and comprehensive learning by God’s people.  Scripture in no way barricades believers from learning diverse things.  Knowledge is not forbidden.  What is forbidden is learning and then practicing evil ways.   Consider a few examples.

1. King Solomon:  Facile in Arts and Science

Solomon was a man of letters and science.  Consider the span of his learning:

And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding beyond measure, and breadth of mind like the sand on the seashore, so that Solomon’s wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the east and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all other men, wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol, and his fame was in all the surrounding nations. He also spoke 3,000 proverbs, and his songs were 1,005. He spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall. He spoke also of beasts, and of birds, and of reptiles, and of fish. And people of all nations came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings of the earth, who had heard of his wisdom.^[36]

b. Daniel:  Facile in Pagan Systems

Notice too, Daniel and his friends.  Their education and learning qualified them to “stand in the King’s palace:

[Y]ouths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. . . 

As for these four youths, God gave them learning and skill in all literature and wisdom, . . . And the king spoke with them, and among all of them none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Therefore they stood before the king. And in every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his kingdom^[37].

Notice also that these youths not only learned – had “head knowledge” – but also developed competencies in pagan systems of knowledge.  In other words, they did not flinch in fear but focused in faith – even while in Babylon, just as Paul would counsel centuries later when engaging non-Christian belief systems:

I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.^[38] . . .

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.^[39]

Speaking of the Apostle Paul, he too possessed an impressive breath of credentialing and learning.   

c. Paul:  Knowing Judaism and Paganism to Make Christ Known

The Apostle Paul’s engagement with culture discloses his familiarity with both ascendant philosophy as well as pagan literature, including poetry. ^[40]  He also understood the import of “cultural credentialing”.  This gave him “passport” so that he could gain a hearing, yet realizing these cultural “merit badges” paled in comparison to knowing Christ:

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.  

It’s one thing to know something; it’s quite another to convey what’s known, and this is the task of the educator.  Scripture provides a methodological pathway for this as well.

Wisdom’s Role:  Making Knowledge Acceptable

Consider several examples of HOW Scripture portrays the conveyance of knowledge.

1. Beyond Proof to Persuasion

      The tongue of the wise commends knowledge,

            but the mouths of fools pour out folly.^[41]

b. Using Logic:  IF A → B; A therefore B

22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” 25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.^[42]

c. Appealing to Empirical Consequentialism:

But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself. 9 And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs, 10 and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king.” 11 Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had assigned over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, 12 “Test your servants for ten days; let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13 Then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the king’s food be observed by you, and deal with your servants according to what you see.” 14 So he listened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days. 15 At the end of ten days it was seen that they were better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the youths who ate the king’s food. 16 So the steward took away their food and the wine they were to drink, and gave them vegetables.

d. Employing the a Fortiori Structure:  

This structure of argumentation appears explicitly 22 times in Scripture.  Here are some examples to consider:
For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard,^[43]

If the righteous is repaid on earth,

how much more the wicked and the sinner!^[44]

The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination;

how much more when he brings it with evil intent.^[45]

If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!^[46]

e. Appealing to [fixed] Human Nature:

Scripture also records the apostles using creational norms to further argumentation. They do this when engaging both believers and unbelievers.

1. As to Believers:

Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.^[47]

ii. As to Unbelievers:

Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.^[48]

f. Appealing to Authority

While a bare appeal to authority can be fallacious, if that cited authority stems from an infallible and inerrant source – like Scripture – then it represents a perfectly valid approach.  The Bible discloses this approach repeatedly: 

1. “Have you not read” – seven times
2. “It is written” – 94 times
3. “The Scripture” – 35 times

School’s in and the Bible is foundational to education because Christ is the one “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”^[49]  Let’s think like it; let’s pray like it; and lets live like it!  Recess is over; let’s get at it!!

^[1] J. Gresham Machen, cited in Justin Taylor, Machen:  False Ideas as Obstacles to the Reception of the Gospel,https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/machen-false-ideas-as-obstacles-to/

^[2] Robert Farrar Capon, Hunting the Divine Fox – An Introduction to the Language of Theology, 72, 73 (1974, 1985)

^[3] Augustine, Epistolae, 155

^[4] Matt. 22:37

^[5] Eph. 4:17

^[6] Romans 12:2

^[7] 1 Peter 1:13

^[8] 1 Peter 5:8: “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”

^[9] Wilson still holds the record for producing the most Runs Batted In (RBI’s) with 191; and until certain alleged steroid users (Sosa, Bonds) broke it, he held the National League record for Home Runs for decades:  56

^[10] The Sporting News, compilers, Baseball’s Hall of Fame – Cooperstown:  Where Legends Live Forever (1983, [1993]), 297, 298

^[11] Biblical Worldview, March 2006, p. 4 citing, David Murray, Joel Schwartz, and S. Robert Lichter, It Ain’t Necessarily So:  How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality, (2001), 86.

^[12] Mark Steyn, America Alone (2006),  27, 28.

^[13] Id.

^[14] Wright, N. T., Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues (2014), 15-16

^[15] This is merely an illustration making a point, and not a “plan of action” describing Christian public engagement.  

^[16] 1 Peter 3:15

^[17] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready, “Section One:  The Lordship of Christ in the Realm of Knowledge” (1996), 1-26

^[18] Col. 2:3

^[19] As to sexual scandals, recall those involving Steve Lawson, Bill Gothard, Josh Duggar, or Bob Coy, or Doug Phillips, or the Wheaton professor found with child pornography, or the Voice of Martyrs former Executive Director caught in a compromising situation who took his own life.  Instances could be multiplied.  Fiscal debacles and grifting are too numerous to catalogue.

^[20] Matt. 22:35

^[21] Matt. 22:37

^[22] This is not to contend for the so-called “primacy of the intellect” as some do.  Such well-intended notions represent over-corrections and distort biblical anthropology.  As John Frame helpfully explained:                    https://worthasecondthought.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/john-frame-on-the-interdependence-of-the-intellect-will-and-emotions/

^[23] J. Greham Machen, What Is Faith?  (1937; repr. 1991), 242, cited in John Piper, Think (2010)

^[24] Jeffery J. Ventrella, Mirror, Mirror on the Church Wall:  Paganism in the Pews, https://truthxchange.com/mirror-mirror-on-the-church-wall-paganism-in-the-pews/

^[25] Gary M. Burge, The Greatest Story Never Read, https://www.christianitytoday.com/1999/08/greatest-story-never-read/

^[26] Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, February 11, Kindle e-version

^[27] Robert Farrar Capon, Hunting the Divine Fox (1974 [1985]), 86

^[28] 2 Cor. 10:5 and Romans 1:25

^[29] John M. Frame,  John Frame’s Selected Shorter Writings Volume 1 (2014), 173

^[30] Vern S. Poythress, Redeeming Sociology: A God-Centered Approach (2011), 107

^[31] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance—Christian Belief and the World Religions (2003), 135-36.

^[32] James Davison Hunter, To Change the World—The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World(2010), 233

^[33] Cornelius Van Til, “Our Attitude Toward Evolution,” The Banner, December 11, 1931, reproduced in Van Til:  Science Articles (Philadelphia:  Westminster Theological Seminary), 12.

^[34] Christipher Dawson with an introduction by Michael J. Keating, The Judgment of the Nations (1942),19

^[35] Romans 12:2

^[36] 1 Kings 4: 29-34

^[37] Daniel 1:4, 19, 20

^[38] Col. 2:4

^[39] Col. 2:8

^[40] In Acts 17:28 Paul quotes the Creten poet Epimenides; in Titus 1:12 he cites him again from a different work.

^[41] Prov. 15:2

^[42] Matt. 12:22-28

^[43] Heb. 2:2, 3

^[44] Prov. 11:31

^[45] Prov. 21:27

^[46] Matt. 7:11

^[47] James 5:17

^[48] Acts 14:15

^[49] Col. 2:3