The Case For Christmas with Lee Strobel

Bryan is aware that Lee Strobel is not a King James Bible believer or a mid-Acts Dispensationalist. However, Bryan finds many of his apologetic arguments interesting and useful. Please enjoy these video clips from Lee Strobel's presentation on The Case For Christmas. Merry Christmas from the saints at Grace Life Bible Church.

What is History? A Response to Historical Relativism, Part 2

Note: This is part two of the article posted from last week.

Response to the Metaphysical (Worldview) Objections

While every historian has a worldview through which he interprets events, this reality alone does not render objective history impossible.

Response to the Problem of Arranging Materials

The past is not distorted simply because the historian must arrange his materials. Since neither the historian or the geologist was present for the original events, it is necessary to reconstruct the past based upon the available evidence. However, reconstruction does not automatically equate with revision. It is true that every historian needs to arrange his material, but this can occur without neglecting significant matters. As long as the historian incorporated consistently and comprehensively all the significant events in accordance with the way things really were, then objectivity would be lost.(1) Objectivity is distorted when facts are either neglected or twisted on purpose by the historian. Simply arranging materials does not undermine objectivity assuming it is done honestly.

Response to the Problem of Structuring Materials

"Those who argue against the objectivity of history apart from an overall worldview must be granted the point, for without a worldview it makes no sense to talk about objective meaning."(2) Without a context meaning cannot be determined, and context is provided by the worldview and not the mere facts themselves. All of this points to the necessity of establishing a worldview in order to achieve objectivity. Without a metaphysical structure, one is simply arguing in a circle regarding the assumed causal connection and the attributed importance of events.(3) To assert that facts have internal arrangement begs the question, "How does one know the correct arrangement?"

As we have already seen, since historical facts can be arranged in at least three ways (chaotic, cyclical, and linear), it is fallacious to assume that one of these structures is the way the facts should be arranged without the aid of an overriding worldview. Consequently, objective meaning in history cannot be established without appealing to a particular worldview for guidance.(4) If facts alone could produce objectivity the best they could do is provide only the what of history. But objective meaning deals with the why of these events, which is impossible apart from a structure of meaning in which the facts may find significance. Dr. Norman Geisler offers the following proof that objective meaning apart from worldview is impossible:

Nevertheless, granted that there is justification for adopting a theistic worldview, the objective meaning of history become possible, for within the theistic context each fact of history become a theistic fact. Given the factual order of events and the known causal connection of events, the possibility of objective meaning surfaces. The chaotic and cyclical frameworks are eliminated in favor of the linear, and within the linear view of events causal connections emerge as the result of their context in a theistic universe. Theism provides the sketch on which history paints the complete picture. The pigments of mere fact take on real meaning as they are blended together on the theistic sketch. In this context, objectivity means systematic consistency; that is, the most meaningful way all the facts of history can be blended together into the whole theistic sketch is what really happened—historical facts.(5)

Response to the Problem of Miracles

Despite having proven that objective history is possible, many historians object to any history that contains miracles, which is a problem for the Christian view of history. The famous skeptic David Hume wrote that no testimony about alleged miracles should be accepted if it contradicts the uniform testimony of nature.(6) If one defines a miracle as a special act of God, and God does exist, than miracles are possible. Therefore, any alleged historical paradigm that excludes miracles is faulty.(7) Second, Hume's assessment assumes a naturalistic interpretation of all historical events. Hume's is a methodological exclusion of the possibility of accepting miracles in history which in the end reaches too far.(8) According to Richard Whately, Hume's uniform dismissal of the possibility of miracles not only excludes the possibility of miracles but any unusual events from the past.(9)

For the purpose of illustration, consider the following regarding the career of Napoleon Bonaparte. There can be little doubt that the odds against Napoleon's success were extremely high:

His prodigious army was destroyed in Russia, and a few months later he led a different army in Germany that likewise was ruined at Leipzig. However, the French supplied him with yet another army sufficient to make a formidable stand in France—this was repeated five times until at last he was confined to an island.(10)

While no one doubts that this chain of events is highly improbable, there is no compelling reason to doubt the historicity of Napoleon's exploits. Contrary to scientific demands, history is not dependent upon universal and repeatable experimentation. Rather it stands on the sufficiency of good testimony for unrepeatable events. Likewise with miracles, it is an unjustifiable mistake in historical methodology to assume that no unusual and particular event can be believed no matter how great the evidence for it. An honest historian must be open to the possibility of unique and particular events in the past whether they are miracouls or not.(11)

While God is not currently working miracles during the Dispensation of Grace, miracles have happened in history but are not the result of history. This reality is consistent with a theistic worldview and does not subvert historical objectivity.

Response to the Psychological Objection

Critics of the New Testament constantly assert that the religious motivations of the Gospel writers cancel their ability to present an objective historical report. As we saw previously, the gospel writers are routinely accused of creating the words of Jesus in their own terms rather than simply reporting them. Dr. Geisler offers the following ten reasons for why this assertion is without foundation:

First, there is no logical connection between one's purpose and the accuracy of the history he writes. People with no religious motives can write bad history, and people with religious motives can write good history.

Second, other important writers from the ancient world wrote with motives similar to the Gospel authors. Plutarch (46 A.D.), for example declared, "My design was not to write histories, but lives."

Third, complete religious propaganda literature, such as some critics see the New Testament, was actually unknown in the ancient world.

Fourth, unlike other early accounts, the Gospels were written, at a maximum, only decades after the events. Many other secular writings, such as those of Livy (59/64 B.C.-A.D. 17) and Plutarch, were recorded centuries after the events.

Fifth, as shown above, the historical confirmation of New Testament writings is overwhelming. So the argument that their religious purpose destroyed their ability to write good history is simply contrary to the facts.

Sixth, the New Testament writes take great care to distinguish there words from the words of Christ. . . This act of distinguishing reveals their honest attempt to separate what Jesus actually said form their own thoughts and feelings on the mater.

Seventh, in spite of the religious purpose of Luke's gospel (Luke 1:4, Acts 1:1), he states a clear interest for historical accuracy, which has been overwhelming corroborated by archaeology (see Luke 1:1-4).

Eighth, the existence of religious bias is no guarantee of historical inaccuracy. A writer can recognize his own bias and avoid its crippling effects. If this were not so, then even people with nonreligious (or anit-religious) biases could not write accurate history.

Ninth, the New Testament is confirmed to be historical by the same criteria applied to other ancient writings. Thus, this criticism either misses the mark or else it destroys all ancient histories.

Tenth, if the historicity of an event must be denied because of the strong motivation of the person giving it, then virtually all eyewitness testimony from survivors of the holocaust must be discounted. But this is absurd, since these people provide the best evidence of all. Likewise, a physician's passion to save his patient's life does not negate his ability to make an objective diagnosis of his disease, nor do an author's religious motives nullify his ability to record accurate history.(12)

Response to the Hermeneutical Objection

There are several basic reasons why this argument completely fails to demonstrate that objective history is not possible.

The Relativity Argument Presupposes Some Objective Knowledge

There is a big difference between arguing about the interpretation of historical facts and quit asserting that there are no historical facts to argue about. Historical relativists presuppose objective knowledge while arguing that objective knowledge does not exist. First, in speaking about the need to select and arrange the facts of history, subjectivists imply that the facts represent objective knowledge in and of themselves.(13) Second, "the very fact that relativist believe one's worldview can distort how one views history implies that there is a correct way to view it."(14)

Total Historical Relativity is Self-Defeating

How does one know that history is completely unknowable without claiming to know something about it? How could one know that all historical knowledge was relative without possessing some objective knowledge of it? Having seen the logical end of relativism, some historians have hedged slightly by arguing that history is only partially relative. Once one opens the door to even partial objectivity, one cannot claim to have eliminated in principle the possibility that the Christian claims are historically knowable.(15) Moreover, partial relativism does not eliminate the historical verifiability of Christianity since there is more evidence for the central truths of Christianity than for almost any other event from the ancient world. In summation, total historical relativism is self-defeating, and partial historical relativism admits verifiable truths.(16)

Conclusion

The details of many other arguments against historical relativism could also be cited, but the core of these positions has already been examined and found wanting. These arguments include the following: historical relativists attempt objective history themselves, an ability to recognize bad history implies objective knowledge, and historians employ normal objective standards. Some may be wondering why we went through all the trouble to outline and respond to objections against the objectivity of history. Believers must always remember that Christianity is a historical faith that is built upon the historicity of Christ's life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection. As we said in the article entitled, The Importance of History to the Christian Worldview, our faith rises or falls based upon the historicity of the New Testament documents. As believers we need to be prepared to give a defense when our faith is skeptically challenged. We ought not to allow those who would reject the knowablity of history to thwart the defense and confirmation of the gospel. While charges of myth are often levied against the Christian view of history, these charges need not trip believers up. As we have demonstrated, history can be as objective as science.

Endnotes:

1) Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 194.

2) Ibid., 194.

3) Ibid., 194.

4) Ibid., 195.

5) Ibid., 195-196.

6) Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 327.

7) Ibid., 327.

⁸⁾ Ibid., 327.

9) Richard Whateley. Historical Doubts Concerning the Existence of Napoleon Bonapart.

10) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 327.

11) Ibid., 327.

12) Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. 199-200.

13) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 328.

14) Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. 201.

15) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 328.

16) Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. 201.

 

What is History? Response to Historical Relativism Part 1

Over the past two weeks we have discussed the objections levied against the objectivity of history by the historical relativists. While the outlook for the knowability of history may look bleak at this point, the door is by no means shut on this question. Problems abound within the arguments postulated by historical subjectivists, and over the next two weeks we will focus our attention on answering the objections raised by the historical relativists. In the end, both the knowability of history and the historicity of Christianity will be vindicated.

Response to the Epistemological Objections

In seeking to deconstruct the assertions made by those who argue that history is not knowable an elementary mistake in reasoning becomes apparent. How can the relativist really know that everyone's knowledge of history is not objective unless one had an objective knowledge of it, by which they could determine that all other views were in fact not objective? As a result, it is not difficult to see that the basic premise of the relativist's entire argument is self-defeating. It does not pass its own standard for determining truth. One cannot claim that objective history is not possible without also asserting to have an objective knowledge of history.

Response to the Problem of Unobservability of Historical Events

How one defines the word objective is very important in answering those who doubt that history can be objectively known. If by objective one means absolute knowledge, then no human historian writing under his own power can be objective. However, if objective means an accurate and adequate presentation that reasonable men and women should accept, then the door is open to the possibility of objectivity.(1)

If one accepts the latter definition presented above, than history is no less objective than some of the other so-called empirical sciences. For example, paleontology or historical geology, a science which deals with physical facts and processes of the past, is widely considered one of the most objective of all the sciences.(2) This is somewhat curious since the events represented by the fossil record are no more observable or repeatable than historical events are for the historian. Dr. Norman Geisler offers the following assessment of the situation:

The fossil is a mechanically true imprint of the original event and the eyewitness of history may be less precise. But natural processes also can mar the fossil imprint. At least if one can determine the integrity and reliability of the eyewitness, one cannot slam the door on the possibility of objectivity in history any more than on objectivity in geology.(3)

A scientist might counter that the processes of the past can be repeated by experimentation in the present whereas historical events cannot. Once again this argument is not entirely correct since we have shown earlier that while God is advancing history forward in linear fashion towards its prophesied end, cyclical patters do occur along history's linear plane. Therefore, history does repeat itself to some degree. "In short, the historian no less that the scientist, has the tools for determining what really happened in the past. The lack of direct access does not hinder one more than the other."(4)

Finally, it should be noted if either the historian or the geologist takes "fact" to mean the original event than neither possess any facts. As a result, "fact" must be taken to mean information about the original event and as such they are not the subjective imaginations of the historian. Facts are objective data whether anyone reads them or not. Consequently, there remains both for science and history a sold core of objective facts because whatever meaning or interpretation one chooses to ascribe to the facts, the data is not eliminated. In fact, if there where no objective historical facts, one could not distinguish between good history and propaganda.(5) Geisler offers the following summation of this point:

If history is entirely in the mind of the beholder, there is no reason one cannot decide to behold it in any way he desires. In this case there would be no difference between good history and trashy propaganda. But historians, even historical subjectivists recognize the difference. Hence, even they assume an objective knowledge of history.(6)

Response to the Problem of Fragmentary Accounts

The fact that the historical record is fragmentary does not render history unknowable anymore than the fragmentary nature of the fossil record destroys the objectivity of geology. Fossils, like primary sources, represent only a small percentage of the history of all living things. However, this does not keep the geologist from reconstructing a picture of what happened in the past based upon the fossils available in the present. How is this different from the process of writing history? In fact, geologists have been known to reconstruct entire animals and people from only a single bone. One should not be quick to demand that every piece be present before reconstruction is attempted. If one possess key pieces of evidence reconstruction can occur with a measurable degree of probability.(7) "For example, by the principle of bilateral similarity one can assume that the left side of a partial skull would look like the right side that was found."(8)

Despite the recent controversy, history like science is subject to revision only if the discovery of new facts warrants a reinterpretation of events. New finds may provide new facts which call for new interpretations. Consequently, interpretations can neither create facts nor can they ignore them if they wish to remain objective. Therefore, one can conclude that history is not any less objective than geology simply because it depends upon fragmentary accounts.(9) "Scientific knowledge is also partial and depends upon assumptions and an overall framework which may prove to be inadequate upon the discovery of more facts."(10)

In conclusion to this point, consider the following summation by Dr. Geisler. He writes:

Whatever difficulty there may be, from a strictly scientific point of view, in filling the gaps between facts, once one has assumed a philosophical stance toward the world, the problem of objectivity in general is resolved. If there is a God, then the overall picture is already drawn; the facts of history will merely fill in the details of its meaning. If the universe is theistic, the artist's sketch is already known in advance; the detail and coloring will come only as all the facts of history are fit into the overall sketch known to be true from the theistic framework. In the same sense historical objectivity is most certainly possible within a given framework such as a theistic worldview. Objectivity resides in the view that best fits the facts consistently into an overall theistic system which is supported by good evidence.(11)

Response to the Axiological (Value) Objection

Just because everyday language is laden with value judgments does not automatically eliminate the possibility of writing objective history. Objectivity means to be fair in how one deals with the facts; it means to present what occurred in the past as accurately as possible. Furthermore, objectivity means that when the historian interprets why events unfolded as they did, language should ascribe to these events that value they had in their original context. When this is accomplished objectivity is achieved. When viewed in this fashion, historical objectivity demands the making of value judgments. The real question here is not whether value language can be objective but rather whether value statements objectively portray the events the way they really occurred.(12) According to Geisler, "Once the worldview has been determined, value judgments are not undesirable or merely subjective; they are, in fact, essential and objectively required. If this is a theistic world, then it is not objective to place anything but a proper theistic value on the facts of history."(13)

Response to the Methodological Objections

Historical objectivity is not canceled out simply because every historian must employ a methodology when composing history.

Response to the Problem of Historical Conditioning

Every human being does occupy a relative place in the changing events of the spatio-temporal world. As a result, in at least a limited sense, each historian is a product of his time. However, it does not follow that because the historian is a product of his time; his history is also purely a product of the time. Just because a person cannot avoid their relative place in history does not mean they cannot achieve a meaningful degree of objectivity. This objection confuses the content of knowledge and the process one uses in attaining it.(14)

Moreover, if relativity were inevitable, historical relativism is self-defeating, because this view would either be historically conditioned and therefore unobjective or it is not relative but objective. If the latter is correct, the historical relativist must admit that objective history is possible. On the other hand, "if the position of the historical relativism is itself relative, it cannot be taken as objectively true—it is simply subjective opinion."(15) In summary, "if it is a subjective opinion it cannot eliminate the possibility that history is objectively knowable, and if it is an objective fact about history, then objective facts can be now about history."(16) The bottom line is that objectivity is possible, if the first seneario is true objectivity is not eliminated and in the second relativism is self-defeated.(17)

In the end, is not the constant historical revisionism undertaken by modern historian predicated on the assumption that objectivity is possible? In short, there is no basis for doubting the possibility of a high degree of historical objectivity.

Response to the Problem of Selectivity of Materials

Every day in the United States jurors make judgments about the guilt or innocence of their fellow citizens "beyond reasonable doubt" without having all the evidence. One need not know everything in order to know something. No scientist possesses all the facts yet objectivity is routinely claim and applauded. As long as the historian considers the relevant and critical evidence without overlooking important facts, history is no less objective than science. What is necessary is that facts be selected and reconstructed within the context in which the events represented actually transpired. Selectivity is necessary because no historian can account for everything available on a particular subject. As a result, selectivity does not imply distortion.(18)

In the end, since the evidence for the historicity of the New Testament is greater than for any other document from antiquity, it could easily be argued that if the events recorded in Scripture cannot be objectively known, then it is impossible to know anything else from that time period.(19)

Endnotes:

1. Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 323.
   
2. Ibid., 323.
   
3. Ibid., 324.
   
4. Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 190.
   
5. Ibid., 190-191.
   
6. Ibid., 191.
   
7. Ibid., 191.
   
8. Ibid., 191.    
   
9. Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 324.
   
10. Ibid., 324.
    
11. Ibid., 325.
    
12. Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One, 192.
    
13. Ibid., 192.
    
14. Ibid., 192.
    
15. Ibid., 193.
    
16. Ibid., 193.
    
17. Ibid., 193.
    
18. Ibid., 193.
    
19. Ibid., 193.
    

 

What is History? Objections to the Objectivity of History Part 2

Previously, we examined the objections to the objectivity of history raised by historical relativists. Epistemological, axiological, and methodological objections were explored in last week’s posting. This week, attention will be given to three other types of objections: metaphysical, psychological, and hermeneutical.

The Metaphysical (Worldview) Objections

Simply stated, the various metaphysical objections to the objectivity of history steam from the notion that one’s worldview colors his perspective of the past.

The Need to Structure the Facts of History

One of the epistemological objections we studied last week dealt with the fragmentary nature of existing historical documents. For the historical subjectivist, this observation leads to the conclusion that our partial knowledge of the past necessitates that we to fill in the gaps or connect the dots between events with our own imagination. Dr. Norman Geisler illustrates this criticism by comparing it with a connect the dot game often found in children’s activity books. Just as the child starts with dot number one and draws lines connecting each dot, thereby rendering a complete image, so too does the historian. However, unlike the child’s activity historians utilize only their imagination in connecting the fragmentary facts, according to historical relativists.(1)

Second, historical subjectivists make a distinction between a chronicle and history. A chronicle is the unrefined source material used by historians to construct history. Here in lies the problem according to the relativist-the historian is not content to tell his readers what happened but feels compelled to explain why it happened. As one might expect, relativists argue that these connective explanations are influenced by the worldview of the historian and therefore are not objective.(2)

The Unavoidability of Worldviews

The second metaphysical objection is similar to the first. Objectivity is compromised because every historian interprets the past within the framework of his own worldview. As discussed in a previous posting there are only three philosophies of history from which the historian can choose, chaotic, cyclical, and linear. Relativists charge that facts occupy a secondary role compared to the philosophy of history chosen by the historian. Rather, one’s faith and philosophical preferences skew their choice of philosophical paradigm. Facts therefore are not allowed to speak for themselves but are given voice based upon the worldview of the historian.(3) Consequently, “if there are several different ways to interpret the same facts, depending on the overall perspective one takes, then there is no single objective interpretation of history.”(4)

The Problem of Miracles

“Even if one grants that secular history could be known objectively, there still remains the problem of the subjectivity of religious history.”(5) Subjectivists argue that since miracles are supernatural there is no way to objectively verify them. This, of course, presents a potential problem for Bible believers because scripture records many miracles including the resurrection of Christ as historical facts. According to relativists, spiritual history has no connection with the spatiotemporal continuum of empirical events, thereby relegating miracles to the category of myths. As a result, any worldview which accepts miracles as valid would render history written from that vantage point not objective. Therefore, relativists argue that “the historian, like the scientist must adopt a methodological skepticism toward all alleged events in the past for which he has not parallel in the present—the present is the foundation of our knowledge of the past.”(6)

The Psychological Objection

At this point the attentive reader has no doubt noticed similarities among the arguments asserted against the knowability of history. The psychological objection is no exception. This argument is once against biased against anyone writing history from a religious point of view. In simple terms, the psychological objection asserts that history written by persons with religious motives cannot be trusted because their religious passions obscure their objectivity. Supporters of this position will commonly say that the New Testament writers cannot be trusted because they sought to recreate what Jesus said and not simply report His sayings. As a result, the Gospels are more reflective of the experiences of Christians than they are an accurate recording to the words and life of Jesus.(7)

The Hermeneutical Objection

In his book, Metahistory, author Hayden White claims that history is poetry. According to this view, history should be treated in the same manner as any other piece of literature. White argues that no history can be written apart from some unifying concept which can only be chosen from one of the following archetypal plot structures: romance, tragedy, comedy, or satire. Since one of these poetic plot structures is not better than the others but merely different, White views all debate about how history should be written as a matter of stylistic variation thereby rendering the entire discussion of historical objectivity moot.(8)

All the objections considered in the last two articles have one thing in common-they all seek to overthrow Christianity by challenging the validly of the faith’s historical underpinnings. Next week, we will begin to present a defense for the objectivity of history against its detractors.

Endnotes:

1)Normal Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 322.
2)Ibid., 322.
3)Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 186.
4)Ibid., 187.
5)Ibid., 187.
6)Ibid, 188.
7)Ibid., 188-189.
8)Hayden White. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-CenturyEurope. 41-42.

What is History? Objections to the Objectivity of History Part 1

In last week’s posting, we looked at the importance of history to the Christian worldview. Christianity is a historical faith that rises or falls on the validity of the historical record presented in scripture. Moreover, it was demonstrated that many modern historians have questioned the knowability of history by arguing that objective history is not possible. While historical relativism is embraced by skeptics, agnostics, and atheists for Bible believing Christians it is simply untenable. The purpose of this posting is to begin summarizing the arguments made by those who assert that history is unknowable. After setting forth the views of the historical relativists, we will demonstrate the false nature of their assertions.

According, to Dr. Norman Geisler, many arguments have been advanced that history cannot be objectively known.(1) One ought not take these challenges lightly, for if they are correct they would render the historical basis for Christianity both unknowable and unverifiable. Historian Charles A. Beard, author of The Noble Dream: the Quest for Objectivity in History, is by far the most prominent historical relativist. Beard’s afore-mentioned essay has served as the foundation for the modern push to view history as unknowable.(2) Geisler clarifies the objections to the knowablity of history into six categories: epistemological, axiological, methodological, metaphysical, psychological, and hermeneutical.(3)

The Epistemological Objections

Epistemology deals with how one knows anything, and relativists believe that objective truth does not exist in any sense. Specifically, historical relativists maintain that the very conditions by which one knows history are so subjective that one cannot have an objective knowledge of history.(4) Consequently, historical relativists offer three main epistemological objections to the notion of objective history.

The Unobservability of History

Proponents of historical relativism argue that the substance of history, unlike that studied by the empirical sciences, is not directly observable. In other words, history does not deal with past events but with statements about past events.(5) As a result, the historian is able to deal with facts in an imaginative way when attempting to reconstruct events he or she did not observe.(6) Consequently, historical facts exist only in the mind of the historian, according to historical relativists. Relatives contend that historical documents do not contain facts, but are, without the historian’s understanding, mere ink lines on paper.(7)

Two explanations are offered to explain why historians have only indirect access to the past. First, relativists assert that, unlike scientists, the historian’s world is comprised of records and nonrepeatable events. Consequently, the historians work is really of product of the present because the historian must interject his own understanding in any attempt to recreate the past.(8) Second, the empirical scientist has the advantage of repeatability through which he can subject his views to falsification, while the historian cannot. In contrast, the unobservable historical event is no longer verifiable. Therefore, what one believes about the departed past is more the product of subjective imagination, making objective history impossible.

The Fragmentary Nature of Historical Accounts

The second epistemological objection to the knowability of history centers around the documents available to the historian. Relativists suggest that a historian can ever have a complete understanding of past events due the fragmentary nature of the historical evidence. Beard and others state, that the available documents cover only a fraction of the events recorded, thereby leaving holes and blinds spots in the understanding available to the historian that prevent the reaching of final conclusions.(9) Moreover, the available documents are skewed because they disseminate what occurred in the past through the perspective of the one who recorded them, thereby rending them tainted and unreliable. This perspective is observable in Edward Hallett Carr’s book What Is History, in which he states the following regarding documents available to historians, “what really happened would still have to be reconstructed in the mind of the historian.”(10) In summary, because the documents are so fragmentary and the events so distant objectivity is not possible. Not only does the historian not have all of the puzzle pieces but the pieces the historian does possess are distorted by the mind of the person that recorded them.(11)

The Historical Conditioning of the Historian

This objection maintains that objectivity can never be attained because the historian plays too prominent a role in the historical process. Relativists claim that historians are a product of their time and are therefore subject to the unconscious programming of their era. According to this line of thought, historical synthesis depends upon the personality of the writer as well as social and religious forces that may influence one’s thinking and cloud their interpretive lenses.(12) One generation writes history only to have it rewritten by the next, thereby rendering neutral history impossible. Some historical relativists go so far as to say that one must study the historian before one can study their history.

The Axiological (Value) Objection

Historical relativists further assert that objective history is unobtainable because historians cannot avoid making value judgments.(13) Value judgments are used in the selection and arrangement of materials as well as in the selection of titles, chapters, and sections that are used in organizing historical compositions. In addition, relativists are quick to point out that historical subject matter often consists of events such as murder, betrayal, oppression and the like that cannot be described in morally natural words. For example, whether one historian chooses to classify a particular ruler as a dictator or a benevolent ruler is a value judgment and therefore subject to personal opinion. In short, for the subjectivist, objectivity is not possible because there is no way for the historian to keep himself out of his history.

The Methodological Objections

Generally speaking, methodological objections deal with the manner in which history is done.

The Selective Nature of Historical Methodology

We have already seen in the section on the epistemological objections to objectivity that historians do “not have direct access to the events of the past, but merely to fragmentary interpretations of those events contained in the historical documents.”(14) Relativists argue that objectivity is further compromised because historians must now choose from a fragmentary number of reports to build their interpretation of past events. Subjectivists are quick to point out that the sources utilized by the historian are influenced by many relative factors such as personal prejudice, availability of materials, knowledge of languages, as well as personal beliefs and societal convictions.(15) Edward Hallett Carr summarizes the popular modern view regarding the facts of history when he writes, “The facts speak only when the historian calls on them; it is he who decides which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context.”(16) In short, the original facts perished long ago, rending an objective discussion of them in the present a moot point.

The Need to Select and Arrange Historical Materials

At the risk of redundancy, historians select from surviving fragmentary documents only those that fit their over-all purpose. Historians then provide an interpretive framework that is tainted by the worldview and generational vantage point of the historian, according to relativists. Simply stated, the dice are loaded against objectivity before the historian ever sets pen to paper. “The final written product will be prejudiced by what is included and what is excluded from the material. It will lack objectivity by how it is arranged and by the emphasis given to it in the over all presentation.”(17) Consequently, all hope for objectivity is eternally dashed, according to the subjectivist.

For further reading on modern views of historical methodology this author recommends reading What is History by Edward Hallett Carr and The Idea of History by R.G. Collingwood. Stay tuned for part two of the objections to the objectivity of history.

Endnotes:
1) Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 181.
2) Josh McDowell. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 676.
3) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. 181-182.
4) Normal Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 320.
5) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. 182.
6) Ibid., 182.
7) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. 321.
8) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. 182.
9) Ibid., 182.
10) Edward Hallett Carr. What is Hisory. (New York, NY, Vantage, 1961), 20.
11) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. 183.
12) Carr., 31.
13) Ibid., 158-159.
14) Ibid., 184.
15) Ibid., 184.
16) Carr., 32.
17) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. 185.

What is History? The Importance of History to the Christian Worldview

Simply stated, Christianity is based on historical events. Christians believe that the basis for their entire worldview appeared in human history some two thousand year ago. The theological reality that "Christ died for our sins" is also a fact of history. David A. Noebel author of Understanding the Times: The Story of the Biblical Christian, Marxist/Leninist, and Secular Humanist Worldviews, writes "Christianity is rooted in history and without its historical roots there would be no Christian worldview."(1) According to Noebel, the Christian view of history can be summarized by the following landmark historical events:

• the revelation of God (primarily His intelligence and power) through the creation of heaven and earth—Genesis 1:1
  
• the special creation of male and female as body, soul, and spirit (Genesis 1:26-27)
  
• the rebellion of mankind against his creator (Genesis 3:1-15)
  
• the revelation of God through the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and Israel (Old Testament, Gospels, and Early Acts)
  
• the crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 13)
  
• the appearance of God in history in the person of Jesus Christ to redeem mankind from sin (John 1:1-2, 14)
  
• the resurrection of Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 15)
  
• the revelation of God through His Church, the Body of Christ (Paul's Epistles)
  
• the judgment of the world (Revelation 19-20)
  
• the establishment of the new heavens, new earth, and new Jerusalem for the redeemed of all ages (Revelation 21).(2)
  

A careful reader will note that the events listed above occurred only once, thereby adding further credibility to our previous conclusion that linearism is the primary model for understanding Biblical history.

Noted Christian apologist Josh McDowell offers the following insight regarding the close relationship between Christianity and history. McDowell writes:

There is no doubt that much of the evidence for the validity of the Christian faith is rooted in history. Christianity is a historically founded faith. Its validity, or credibility is based on Jesus Christ literally living in history. The resurrection is rooted in time-space history. Everything that Jesus lived, taught, and died for is dependent upon His literal historical resurrection.(3)

Consequently, Christianity stands or falls based upon the veracity of certain historical facts according to Dr. William Lane Craig.(4) While some might view this assertion as scandalous, Dr. Craig points out that this reality makes Christianity unique amongst the world's religions, because if one can prove the truth of the historical record one would also thereby establish the validity of the Christian faith.(5)

Supporters of Christianity are not the only ones to observe the vital relationship between history and Christianity. Skeptics, atheists, and humanists have sought to undermine the faith by arguing that history is unknowable. Historical relativists claim that there is no such thing as objective history. David A. Noebel highlights the challenge posed by historical relativism when he writes, "to shatter Christian doctrine and the Christian worldview, one need only shatter its historical underpinnings."(6) This is precisely what the historical relativists are attempting to do, according to Dr. Norman Geisler:

Unlike some religions, historical Christianity is inseparably tied to historical events, including the lives of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus. These events, especially those of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, are crucial to the truth of evangelical Christianity (I Corinthians 15:1-9); without them, it would cease to exist. Thus, the existence and knowability of certain historical events are essential to maintaining biblical Christianity.

The knowability of history is important not only theologically but also apologetically, for the overall argument in defense of Christianity is based on the historicity of the New Testament documents. Hence, since the objective knowability of history is strongly challenged by many contemporary historians, it is necessary to counter this claim in order to secure the defense of Christianity.(7)

Now more than ever, as the attacks increase on the reliability of the New Testament documents, believers need to be ready with answers for historical relativism. Consequently, part two of our study on how believers should view history will be focused on a discussion of the objectivity of history. First we will look at the assertions of the historical relativists, that history is unknowable to understand their position. Second, we will refute historical relativism and demonstrate that objective history is possible. Finally, we will examine the historicity of both the Old and New Testament documents, thereby offering conclusive proof for the veracity of the Christian Worldview. Apologist Dan Story offers the following assessment of the uniqueness of the Christian worldview and its relationship with history in his book, Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Tough Questions. Story writes, "Christianity is not a mystical religion, such as many Eastern religions and their New Age clones. Neither is it a mythical religion with idols and man-made gods. Nor is Christianity a misinformed religion, such as the various cults. Rather, Christianity is an historic religion, and its truth-claims are grounded on objective, historical facts."(8)

Endnotes:

1. David A. Noebel. Understanding the Times: The Story of the Biblical Christian, Marxist/Leninist, and Secular Humanist Worldviews. (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 1991), 764.
   
2. Adapted from Noebel's list page 764.
   
3. Josh McDowell. The New Evidence the Demands a Verdict. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 673.
   
4. Ibid., 673.
   
5. Ibid., 673.
   
6. Noebel. Understanding the Times, 764-765.
   
7. Norman Geilser. Systematic Theology: Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 181.
   
8. Dan Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Tough Questions. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 17.
   

Law of Human Collapse Diagram

Due to formatting problems with the blogger program this diagram needed to be posted separate from the article that explains it. For a more detailed description of this diagram please read the next posting, What is History? The Biblical View of History.

What is History? The Biblical View of History

Throughout the current series of postings we have been working towards being articulating a complete Biblical paradigm for conceptualizing history. We have ruled out both the chaotic view of time and pure cyclicality alone as workable models. In addition, a brief historiographical survey, beginning with the Greeks, was presented which served to demonstrated that since the beginning of written history time has been articulated by either cyclical or linear constructs. In contrast to the cyclicality of the Greeks, the Christian theologian and philosopher St. Augustine used the historical realities of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection to postulate a linear paradigm of history in The City of God. As a result, Augustine viewed history as moving along a line with a clear beginning, middle, and end. Despite the clear preeminence of linearism, especially to mid-Acts Grace Believers, it was further demonstrated that God was is also the author of the cyclical.

In the article Reconciling the Cyclical with the Linear, we traced the origin of seasonality in an attempt to explain the nearly universal embracing of cyclicality by the gentiles. In this study we saw how after humanity fell into sin and that Satan moved to distort the seasonal patterns God established at creation to deceive mankind into worshiping the creature more than the creator. Consequently, we concluded that God was the author of the cyclical as well as the linear.
Now having established that both cyclicality and linearism are in fact Biblical concepts, all that remains is for them to be combined into one workable paradigm. Consider the chart at the top of this posting.

The preceding chart seeks to combine linear and cyclical concepts into one complete Biblical model for understanding history. As we have said many times throughout the current study, linearism must remain the primary model for understanding history since the Pauline perspective on right division of the scripture demands it. When we speak about how God has worked in the past (time past), how God is working in the present (but now), and how God will work in the future (ages to come), we are utilizing a strictly linear view of history. Time originated in Genesis 1 and is advancing forward in linear fashion toward a prophesied end, the establishment of the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1). When the Dispensation of the Fulness of Time (Ephesians 1:10) arrives the purpose for which God created time will have been fulfilled. Accordingly, Mid-Acts dispensationalists ought to be the most linear thinkers around.

Meanwhile, as time progresses towards its prophesied end, the cycles of seasonality are also turning. The above chart attempts to reflect this reality within the confines of a linear construct through the circles that represent seasonal cyclicality. As the chart states, economies expand and contract, civilizations rise and fall, and mankind vacillates between periods of rejection and reception of God’s truth. The Apostle Paul is keenly aware of these seasonal realities when he instructs Timothy to “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.”(1) Placing seasonal cyclicality within a linear construct is necessary because without doing so, history would never get anywhere. This is simply not an option for any mid-Acts Grace Believer since we wait with hopeful anticipation for the catching away of the saints that will occur at the end of the Dispensation of Grace. Each day that passes brings us one day closer to the rapture of the church, the 70th week of Daniel, the return of Christ in glory to set up his kingdom, and the centering of all governmental authority in both heaven and earth under the headship of Jesus Christ (the Dispensation of the Fulness of Time).

Now that we have combined cyclical and linear concepts into a single explanatory model of history, only one detail remains for the articulation of a complete paradigm. The chart presented above does not take into account the Law of Human Collapse. For accuracy’s sake, the trajectory of linear progression is best illustrated by a downward sloping line. Drawing the line in this fashion sets the Christian view of history apart from other linear progressive models discussed in previous postings. Unlike the evolutionary or Marxian views of history, humanity is not improving but finding new ways and methods to rebel against God. In Romans Chapter One, Paul summarizes how the reprobate mind works when he reports that human beings are “inventors of evil things.” For the purposes of illustration, please consider the diagram that is depectied in posting above titled Law of Human Collapse Diagram.

As the diagram suggests, Daniel Chapter 2 stands out as the premier example of the Law of Human Collapse in the Bible. In this passage, Nebuchadnezzar sees the image of a man with a head of gold, chest of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet and toes of iron and clay mixed. Moreover, the king sees in his dream a “stone cut without hands” that smashes the feet of the image causing it to crumble and break in pieces. Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and tells him that each part of the statue represents a gentile kingdom beginning with the head of gold, which is his own kingdom of Babylon. In addition, Daniel informs the king that when the “stone cut without hands” topples the image that “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed.” Within Nebuchadnezzar’s dream we see the entire duration of the times of gentiles politically foretold in stunning detail. The only thing not foretold in Daniel Two was that God was going to interrupt the progression of gentile power at the ankles on the image and usher in an unprophesied period of grace and peace, namely the Dispensation of Grace. The mineral degeneration seen in each part of the statue reflects the Law of Human Collapse. Mankind has no hope without God. It is only the revelation of Jesus Christ at his second advent to establish his kingdom that stops humanity’s descent into oblivion.

In short, a complete Biblical view of history must contain the following three characteristics. First, it must reflect the God-ordained method of Bible study by adhering to linearism as its predominant explanatory model. Second, it must recognize that God is also the author of the cyclical and make room for seasonality as God’s linear plan unfolds. Third, the linear progression and imbedded cyclicality must be understood to progress along a line that is downward slopping in its trajectory, thereby taking into account the Law of Human Collapse.

Endnotes

1) II Timothy 4:2

What is Hisory? Imperial History of the Middle East

A colleague of mine recently shared this interactive map with me. If fits perfectly with the last posting in the What is History series. Click on the button below to see the rise and fall of civilizations that have dominate the Middle East throughout history. This map clearly illustrates the main point for the previous posting, every nation including God's nation Israel that has risen to prominence has fallen into memory.

Unfortunately this map needed to be condensed to fit spacial limitations of this blog. To view a full size version of this map click on the following link. Imperial History of the Middle East

What is History? Reconciling the Cyclical with the Linear Part 2

In last week's posting, we studied how God created the universe to follow a cyclical pattern of seasonality. In addition, we saw how the gentiles followed the course of this world charted by Satan which included the usurping and perversion of God's seasonal order. Therefore, it was concluded that while linearism remains the predominant model for conceiving Biblical history, cyclicality needs to find its place within linearism. In short, any paradigm that emphasizes the cyclical over the linear is spurious, just as any linear model that totally excludes the cyclical is incomplete. God is the author of both the linear and the cyclical.

Secular Examples of Cyclicality

Examples of cyclicality abound in the secular world. Historically, one could discuss the rise and fall of great civilizations, or the cyclical nature of the Chinese dynastic cycle. Economists discuss the business cycle in an attempt to describe the alternating periods of economic contraction and expansion. Seasonality and cyclicality can be used to describe many things that occur in the world around us. Christian relationship expert, Dr. Gary Chapman, utilizes the metaphor of seasonal differences to describe the life cycle of marriage in his book The Seasons of Marriage. According to Dr. Chapman all relationships go through different seasons: spring (growth), summer (love, cooperation, and nurturing), fall (drifting apart and disconnection), and winter (cold distance during which thoughts or discussion of divorce may arise). Seasonality and cyclicality persist as explanatory models within our culture because all humans understand seasonal vacillations as they are common to our earthly experience.

Currently, Americans have become reacquainted with cyclicality through the ongoing economic recession of the past eighteen months. Economist Charles Wheelan famously said that economies "proceed in fits and starts."(1) Wheelan is referring to the recurring periods of growth and decline in economic activity that all economies experience.(2) Economists call this recurring pattern the business cycle.

Traditionally, the business cycle consists of four phases. These phases include a period of growth and a period of decline, as well as turning points that mark the shift from one period to the next. A period of economic growth is known as an expansion. During an expansion, real GDP increases along with inflation as unemployment generally declines. Eventually, a period of economic expansion will reach a peak or point of maximum output. At its peak an economy's GDP stops increasing while unemployment stops decreasing, thus indicating a decline in economic activity. Immediately following the peak comes the contraction phase of the business cycle. During a contraction, a period of economic decline, real GDP falls as unemployment is rising just as we have seen in our current economic downturn. Eventually, a contraction will reach its lowest point called the trough. Consequently, the trough represents the lowest point of economic output prior to a new period of expansion as the cycle renews itself. While the term business cycle implies a regular rhythm between peak and trough, business cycles are irregular in terms of both length and magnitude.(3) See the diagram of the Bussiness Cylce at the top the right hand margin.

Students of world history are familiar with Edward Gibbon's seminal work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or William L Shirer's similarly titled, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. Works such as these try to explain the reasons for one of world history's most glaring realities, namely that great civilizations and empires rise and fall only to be replaced by new civilizations or empires which in turn follow the same progression. In fact, one could argue that history's great societies have progressed in exactly the same fashion as the business cycle outlined above. A well-rooted and established culture seeks to take advantage of its surrounding less sophisticated neighbors. Perhaps peaceably at first, often followed by military conquest, one society emerges and expands their power base by subjecting their enemies until they reach a summit of sustainable power. While some cultures where able to maintain their zenith longer than others, corruption and entropy ultimately creep in leading to slow decline and decay. Eventually through the combination of both internal problems and external threats, the civilization falls only to be replaced by a new society that follows the same progression.

Ancient China provides a fascinating case study to demonstrate how the cyclical concepts we saw in the business cycle formed the basis for the Chinese conception of history. The ancient Chinese possessed a cyclical understanding of history which is clearly visible by looking at the Dynastic Cycle. It would start with a powerful family claiming what the Chinese called the Mandate of Heaven, or heaven's blessing, thereby giving them the right to rule and establish a dynasty. Each new dynasty demonstrated they possessed the Mandate of Heaven by accomplishing the following things: bringing peace, rebuilding infrastructure, giving land back to the peasants, and protecting the people from forgiven invaders. As time went by the new dynasty became an old dynasty and demonstrates their signs of age by over taxation, decaying infrastructure, unfair treatment of the populace, and an inability to protect and secure national boarders. As a result, the old dynasty lost the Mandate of Heaven which was revealed to the Chinese people through natural disasters, peasant revolts, bandits raiding the countryside, and invasion by foreign enemies. As one might expect, during this time of political and social upheaval, a new family would inevitably emerge claim the Mandate of Heaven and keep the dynastic wheel turning. See the diagram of the Chinese Dynastic Cylce at the top of the right hand margin.

Eventually, the Mongolian hordes lead by Genghis Khan initially and then his successor, Kublai Khan, subjugated most of China under the authority of a Mongolian Khanate thereby disrupting the pure dynastic cycle of ancient China. After establishing the greatest united land empire in world history, the great Mongolian Empire fragmented and collapsed. Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium, Mongolia, China, Ottomans, Mayan, Aztec, Incan, Spanish, and the British Empires have all followed the same circular pattern. Through a period of expansion they reach a power zenith only to contract, crumble, and pass into memory.

Why should the United States be any different? For the purposes of comparison, most western historians like to gauge the footing of modern America by comparing it with that of the Western Roman Empire at the time of its collapse. Generally speaking, ten leading theories have emerged within the historical community to explain why Rome fell, which include:

1. Barbarian Invasions
   
2. Decline in Morals and Values


3. Environmental and Public Health Problems
   
4. Excessive Military Spending to Defend the Empire
   
5. Inferior Technology
   
6. Inflation
   
7. Political Corruption
   
8. Rise in Christianity
   
9. Unemployment
   
10. Urban Decay
    

Virtually all historians hang their explanatory hat on some combination of the theories listed above. If indeed Rome is a fair comparison for all her Western progeny than even a cursory reading of this list ought to make every American squirm. There is no reason to think that our civilization can escape the clearly established historical pattern.

Biblical Example of Cyclicality

All mid-Acts dispensationalists know that historically God created only one nation, Israel. At this point an inquisitive Bible student might be wondering, where if at all can one observe the type of cyclical progression describe above in Biblical history? First, the Bible records the history of the rise and fall of gentile nations from the vantage point of the nation of Israel. However, the question remains can cyclicality be observed with God's nation? The answer is yes, as the book of Judges stands out as a clear example of Biblical cyclicality.

According to Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts, the book of Judges is organized thematically rather that chronologically. "The book opens with a description of Israel's deterioration, continues with seven cycles of oppression and deliverance, and concludes with two vivid examples of Israel's depravity."(4) The book's authors (who are unnamed for some reason) offer the following elaboration:

The theme of deterioration is highlighted as Judges begin with short-lived military successes after the death of Joshua but quickly turn to the repeated failure of the people to drive out their enemies. The primary reasons for their failure are a lack of faith and a lack of obedience to God (2:1-3).

Repeated deliverance by God are described in the middle section of the book (3:5-16:31) which presents seven cycles of apostasy, oppression, cry for deliverance, salvation, and rest. Israel vacillates between obedience and apostasy as the people continually fail to learn for their mistakes.(5)

J. Sidlow Baxter author of Explore the Book, presents a similar structure to his readership. Baxter outlines Judges by presenting six apostasies, servitudes, and deliverances that reoccur in the following four-stroke rhythm: sin, suffering, supplication, and salvation.(6)

In order to accurately assess the validity of the two schemata presented above, we need to turn our attention to the text of Judges itself. Judges 2:10-19 outlines the cyclical pattern that rest of the book of Judges follows, the passage states:

10) And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.

11) And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim:

12) And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger.

13) And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.

14) And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies.

15) Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed.

16) Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.

17) And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.

18) And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.

19) And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.

In verse 13, Israel does evil in the eyes of the Lord by serving Baal and Ashtaroth. As punishment for their idolatry, Israel is enslaved at the hands of their gentile enemies, according to verses 14 and 15. Discomforted by their enslavement, Israel cries out for deliverance from the hands of their oppressors. Verses 16 and 18 report that God heard the cries of his nation and in his grace raised up a series of judges who deliver Israel from gentile enslavement. Israel's peace was only short-lived according to verses 18 and 19, for after each judge was dead they "returned again and corrupted themselves more than their fathers." In short, Judges Chapter 2 establishes a cyclical pattern that is played out multiple times throughout the duration of the book. Please consider the diagram at the beginning of this posting:

So where does all of this leave us? First, we have seen that God is the author of both the linear and cyclical. Second, the nations do follow the cyclical patterns of seasonality because they have been usurped as part of Satan's lie program to bring worship to the creature rather than the creator. Third, as a result, cyclicality is observable virtually everywhere from the highs and lows of the business cycle to the rise and fall of civilizations. Fourth, even the nation of Israel experienced life according to a cyclical pattern laid out in the book of Judges. In fact, if one views the kingships of David and Solomon as the pinnacle of Israel political power, it is not difficult to make the argument that the nation entered into a contractionary decline when the split between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. Eventually, both Israel and Judah were conquered by gentile powers thereby ushering in the times of the gentiles politically and completing Israel's fall into political irrelevance due to her habitual unbelief. Despite having succumbed to the same cyclical collapse as the gentile nations surrounding Israel, time marched on. The linear was driven forward by the covenants and promises that God made to his nation that have not yet come to pass. Therefore, while the nations are rising and falling in predicable fashion, history is being pulled along a linear plane towards God's prophesied end.

Endnotes

1) Bill Bosshart. Econ Alive: The Power to Chose. (Palo Alto, CA: Teachers Curriculum Insitute, 2010), 266.

2) Ibid., 266.

3) Ibid., 266-267.

4) Nelson's Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996), 76.

5) Ibid., 76.

6) J. Sidlow Baxter. Explore the Book. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1960).

What is History? Reconciling the Cyclical with the Linear Part 1

In a previous posting, we saw that linearism is the accepted historical paradigm amongst Christian philosophers, historians, and theologians. We also demonstrated how linearism is rudimentary to a dispensational understanding of the scriptures. Consequently, mid-Acts grace believers should have no difficulty recognizing the importance of linear thinking to their theological construct. Now that we have demonstrated that linearism is fundamental to the Christian worldview, we can now investigate whether there is room within the Christian worldview for cyclical thinking.

A careful reading of the previous posting reveals an interesting piece of information: virtually all gentile societies have viewed time as cyclical in nature. Regardless of their geographic location or despite their lack of contact with each other, pagan cultures all possessed a circular view of life linked to the seasonality observable in nature. In fact, it was only Judaism, followed by Christianity, that embraced any semblance of linear thinking. Pagan holidays and festivals coincided with seasonal occurrences such as the winter and summer solstices as well as the spring and autumnal equinoxes’. After the so-called conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 312 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church slowly began the process of trying to Christianize pagan holidays. As a result, the Church positioned Christmas, Easter, and All Saints Day or All Hollows Eve to coincide with pagan festivals that celebrated the seasonal changes of nature. Where did the gentiles obtain this seasonal celestial view of the universe?

What Did Humanity Know and When Did We Know It?

The notion that early men were primitive (e.g., cave men) is an evolutionary supposition that Bible believers should reject. Adam, the first man, was not a half man/half animal creature as evolutionary pseudoscience teaches. Rather, Adam was created in the image of God as a fully functioning adult male possessing superior physical, mental, spiritual, and emotion faculties as you or I.(1) Moreover, Adam was placed into a mature, fully functioning, and perfectly created environment. Adam was given a charge to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over . . . every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”(2) Adam was given the job of dressing and keeping the Garden of Eden in which he enjoyed unbroken fellowship and communion with God.(3)

Before God created Adam and placed him in the Garden of Eden, He created the planetary bodies of the universe. Genesis 1:14-19 records this event:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the
day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days,
and years: 15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give
light upon the earth: and it was so. 16) And God made two great lights;
the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he
made the stars also. 17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give
light upon the earth, 18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to
divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19) And the
evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Note a few significant details. First, the alignment and position of the planetary bodies serve the purpose of providing light upon the earth. Second, the relationship between the earth and the celestial bodies of the firmament would not only account for the differences between day and night but would also serve as a mechanism for rendering seasons as well as for counting days, weeks, and years. Third, the dividing of day and night, seasonal differences, and the counting of days and years were designed in verse 14 to serve as signs to the inhabitants of the earth. According to Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew word translated “signs” in the King James Bible means “a signal, a distinguishing mark, banner, remembrance, miraculous sign, omen, or warning.” Therefore, Adam was placed in an environment in which the planetary bodies served as signs of God’s existence and handiwork.

The daily rotation of the earth on its axis would bring day and night. Likewise, the combination of the earth’s yearly revolution around the sun along with the tilting of the earth’s axis at 23 1/2 degrees would produce the yearly seasonal differences. All of these natural phenomena were designed by God to serve as a sign and testimony to his existence and creative genius. Consequently, God placed Adam in an environment that had been intentionally designed to bear witness to the glory and splendor of God. Genesis further reports of humanity’s fall into sin, which not only wreaked havoc on God’s pristine creation but also clouded and distorted man’s willingness to see God’s handwork in the natural world.

In Romans chapter one, the Apostle Paul reports how mankind’s fall into sin distorted his willingness to see the witness God placed within creation. Paul wrote:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed
it unto them. 20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21) Because that, when they
knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain
in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22) Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23) And changed the glory of the
uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and
fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Romans 1:19-23

The following points about post-fall man are clearly observable from this passage. First, mankind clearly knew who God was through his creation. Second, based on the testimony of creation alone, mankind is without excuse for not desiring to retain God in his knowledge.(4) Third, the ultimate result of not glorifying God as God, lack of thankfulness, and vain imaginations is the changing of the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man. In short, mankind took the witness of God through creation and perverted it in an attempt to escape accountability. The end result was that humanity changed the truth of God into a lie (5) for which “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.” (6)

Therefore, from the very beginning mankind was aware of the seasonal nature of God’s creation. After the fall, the sons of Adam, in an attempt to remove God from their knowledge, took the signs and seasonal markers God established when he created the planetary bodies and hijacked them as part of their religious systems. Herein lays the explanation for why virtually all pagan societies in the ancient world viewed time as cyclical. They were simply following the course of this world, a perverdion of the knowledge of God authored by Satan and his lie program. This is precisely what E. W. Bullinger argues in his landmark book The Witness of the Stars, namely, that the Zodiac is a satanic distortion of the witness God placed in the heavens when he garnished them with the various celestial bodies.
Pagan Calendar: Note the cyclical structure and polar positioning of the winter and summer solstice as well as the spring and autumnal equinox. See the examples of Pagan Cyclicality at the top of the right hand margin.

This author believes that the giving up of the gentiles to a reprobate mind that Paul speaks of in Romans 1 took place in Genesis 11. It was at Babel that God “suffered the gentiles to walk in their own way,” because in Genesis 12 God calls out Abram and made a covenant with him to bring from him a great nation that would be formed from Abram’s seed. When God allowed the gentile nations to follow after their own foolishness, he did not reorganize or restructure the physical mechanisms of his creation. Rather, God still uses the seasonality of his creation as a testimony to the nations of his existence. Consider what Paul says to the inhabitants of Lystra in Acts 14:16-17, “Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” Notice that God left the signs of seasonality in place to serve as a witness to the gentiles of his existence despite their perversion of it.

Rather than God setting up the nations to follow a cyclical seasonal progression, the nations chart their own course that follows Satan’s distortion of God’s created order. In other words, seasons continue not because pagan religious rituals bring about their passage but because God ordained his universe at creation to function in this fashion. Sin has not disrupted the seasonal patters of creation but has instead distorted mankind’s understanding of them. In Genesis 8:22, Moses says the following regarding the cyclical functioning of the seasons: “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” The famous passage from Ecclesiastes 3 concurs with Moses’ statement:

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2) A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up
that which is planted; 3) A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break
down, and a time to build up; 4) A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to
mourn, and a time to dance; 5) A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather
stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6) A
time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7) A
time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8)
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Initially, the passing from day to night, winter to spring, and year to year were designed as sings to manifest the genius of almighty God, but Satan’s lie program utilizes this cyclicality to promote worship of the creature rather than the Creator.

While linearism remains the predominant model for understanding history, we must also recognize that God is also the author of cyclical seasonality. Consequently, to arrive at a complete paradigm of history, we must embrace the reality that as time moves forward linearly towards its prophesied end, cycles are also occurring. A proper understanding of cyclicality is necessary to arrive at a complete Biblical paradigm of history. Stay tuned for more on this in our next posting.

End Notes:
1) Genesis 1:26-27.
2) Genesis 1:28.
3) Genesis 2:15.
4) Romans 1:28.
5) Romans 1:25.
6) Romans 1:28.