Your Worldview

According to Ronald Nash, a worldview is the fundamental perspective through which an individual interprets all of life, shaping their beliefs about reality, existence, morality, and purpose. It provides the lens through which people understand the world and make sense of their experiences.

Click Here

Click on book.

.Dr. Ronald H. Nash (1936-2006) taught for over 40 years, teaching in the areas of worldview, apologetics, ethics, theology, and history. He was the author of numerous books, including The Concept of God and Faith and Reason. He earned his Bachelor's degree at Barrington College, and a Master's degree at Brown University, before going on to receive his Doctorate in Doctoral Philosophy Syracuse University in 1964. Following his doctoral work, Nash became the Chairman of the Department of Philosophy and Religion and Director of Graduate Studies in Humanities at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, where he served for 27 years. In 1991, he became Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida and served there until 2002. Dr. Nash was also Professor of Philosophy at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky from 1998-2005. Ronald Nash passed away on March 10, 2006. He was survived by his wife, Betty Jane, and two children.

Click on picture for courses in Philosophy with DR Nash.

Worldviews

The Islamic Worldview

The Atheist Worldview

The Hindu Worldview

The Buddhist Worldview

Helvetica Light is an easy-to-read font, with tall and narrow letters, that works well on almost every site.

Cornelius VanTil (1895-1987)

Click on the writing to get the works of Vantil

Biographical sketch

Born on May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, The Netherlands he was the sixth son of Ite and Klazina Van Til, who emigrated to the United States when "Kees," as he was known to friends, was 10. He grew up helping on the family farm in Highland, Indiana.

Van Til graduated from Calvin College in 1922, receiving a ThM from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1925 and his PhD from Princeton University in 1927. He began teaching at Princeton, but shortly went with the conservative group who founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years of his life as a professor of apologetics.

He was also a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987, and in that denomination, he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with Gordon Clark over God's incomprehensibility known as the Clark-Van Til Controversy in which, according to John Frame, neither man was at his best and neither quite understood the other's position.

Van Til's thought

Van Til is perhaps best known for the development of a fresh approach to the task of defending the Christian faith. Although trained in traditional methods he drew on the insights of fellow Calvinistic philosophers Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd to formulate what he viewed as a more consistently Christian methodology. His apologetic focused on the role of presuppositions, the point of contact between believers and unbelievers, and the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews.

He didn't particularly care for the label describing his approach as "presuppositional," which more accurately represents the apologetical method of Gordon Clark, but he (and his students) accepted it as a matter of convention because it is at least useful in grouping methods into those which deny neutrality and those which do not.

In Van Til: The Theologian, Frame, a sympathetic critic of Van Til, describes Van Til's contributions to Christian thought as comparable in magnitude to those of Immanuel Kant in non-Christian philosophy. He indicates that Van Til identified the disciplines of systematic theology and apologetics, seeing the former as a positive statement of the Christian faith and the latter as a defense of that statement -- "a difference in emphasis rather than of subject matter." Frame summarizes Van Til's legacy as one of new applications of traditional doctrines:

Unoriginal as his doctrinal formulations may be, his use of those formulations -- his application of them -- is often quite remarkable. The sovereignty of God becomes an epistemological, as well as a religious and metaphysical principle. The Trinity becomes the answer to the philosophical problem of the one and the many. Common grace becomes the key to a Christian philosophy of history. These new applications of familiar doctrines inevitably increase [Christians'] understanding of the doctrines themselves, for [they] come thereby to a new appreciation of what these doctrines demand of [them]. Sometimes these new understandings are of quite a radical sort -- radical enough to require new formulations, or at least supplementary formulations, of the doctrines themselves. Van Til...rarely provides such revised formulations, though he does at some significant points.... But there is much in Van Til that will require future orthodox Reformed dogmaticians to rethink much of the traditional language and thus to go beyond Van Til himself. Not that the traditional language is wrong (generally speaking); it is just that through reading Van Til we often become painfully aware of how much more needs to be said. Similarly, Van Til's innovative application of the doctrines of total depravity and the ultimate authority of God led to his reforming of the discipline of apologetics. Specifically, he denied neutrality on the basis of the total depravity of man and the invasive effects of sin on man's reasoning ability (as per the usual Calvinistic understanding of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans), and he insisted that the Bible, which he viewed as a divinely inspired book, be trusted preeminently because he believed the Christian's ultimate commitment must rest on the ultimate authority of God. As Frame says elsewhere, "the foundation of Van Til's system and its most persuasive principle" is a rejection of autonomy since "Christian thinking, like all of the Christian life, is subject to God's lordship" ( Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic, p. 282).

Many recent theologians have been influenced by Van Til's thought, including John Frame, Greg Bahnsen, R. J. Rushdoony, and current Westminster Theological Seminary faculty members Vern Poythress, William Edgar, and K. Scott Oliphint.

Resources

William White, Jr., Van Til : defender of the faith : an authorized biography. ISBN 0840756704.
E. R. Geehan (editor), Jerusalem & Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, a Festschrift, ISBN 0875524893
John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought ISBN 0875522203
Greg Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis ISBN 0875520987
Jim S. Halsey, For a Time Such as This: An Introduction to the Reformed Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, (1976) Philadelphia, Penn : Presbyterian and Reformed.
Rousas John Rushdoony, By what standard? : an analysis of the philosophy of Cornelius Van Til, (1959) Philadelphia, Penn : Presbyterian and Reformed (Reprint by Chalcedon Dec 2003). ISBN 187999805X.

The Islamic World View

The Islamic worldview is centered on the sovereignty of Allah, the prophethood of Muhammad, and the authority of the Qur'an as the final revelation. It emphasizes God's absolute control over all creation, moral obedience to divine law, and submission (Islam) as the pathway to righteousness. While these elements provide a coherent religious framework, critics from a Reformed perspective raise important questions about its metaphysical, moral, and redemptive implications.

Ronald Nash would point out that Islamic theology’s strict divine sovereignty leaves little room for human free will in the libertarian sense, emphasizing God's predestining will in all things. Nash might ask: "If Allah has decreed everything that happens, how can human responsibility and moral accountability be meaningful?" Greg Bahnsen would add that the Islamic view of divine sovereignty can lead to a fatalistic outlook that diminishes the biblical doctrine of human responsibility and grace. Bahnsen states, "A worldview that denies the compatibility of divine sovereignty and human responsibility tends toward despair or legalism, not biblical grace." (Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics).

Furthermore, critics argue that Islamic law (Sharia) fosters a legalism that emphasizes external obedience over internal transformation. From a Reformed perspective, this raises questions about the nature of true righteousness. Nash might ask: "Does Islamic legalism lead to genuine moral change, or does it merely produce outward conformity?" The biblical emphasis on internal regeneration through the Holy Spirit contrasts sharply with the Islamic focus on external adherence. As Bahnsen emphasizes, "True righteousness is rooted in the heart’s renewal by God's grace, not merely external compliance." (Bahnsen, Always Be Ready).

Finally, the redemptive-historical focus of Christianity, centered on Christ’s atoning work, sharply contrasts with Islam’s view of salvation through submission and obedience. From a biblical perspective, salvation is a gift of grace through faith, not a result of human effort. Nash would ask: "Does Islam’s emphasis on works and submission to Allah’s law adequately address the human need for grace and forgiveness?" The biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, is fundamentally different from Islam’s reliance on works and obedience.

Bibliography

Nash, Ronald H. Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas. Zondervan, 1992.
Bahnsen, Greg. Always Be Ready: A Study of Defending the Christian Faith. Covenant Media Foundation, 1996.
Geisler, Norman L. When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook of Bible Difficulties. Baker Books, 1999.
Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain. HarperOne, 2001. (While not a Reformed scholar, Lewis's critique of works-based salvation aligns with the biblical view.)

Questions for Students

How does the Islamic view of divine sovereignty impact human responsibility and moral accountability?
Does the emphasis on works and submission in Islam provide a sufficient basis for true moral change? Why or why not?
In what ways does the Islamic concept of salvation differ from the biblical doctrine of grace?
Can Islam’s focus on law and obedience truly satisfy the human need for forgiveness and inner transformation? Why or why not?
How does the biblical understanding of redemptive history contrast with Islam’s view of salvation?

The Atheist Worldview

The atheist worldview asserts that the universe and everything within it can be explained entirely through natural causes and scientific investigation, without any need for a divine being or supernatural intervention. While this perspective emphasizes empirical evidence and rational inquiry, critics argue that it faces significant philosophical and logical challenges. Nash would suggest examining the foundational assumptions of atheism, questioning whether it can provide a coherent and comprehensive account of reality, morality, and human purpose.

One of the primary issues with the atheist worldview is its reliance on methodological naturalism— the idea that only natural causes are valid in scientific inquiry. Critics argue that this limits understanding and dismisses the possibility of anything beyond the physical universe. Nash might ask: "If natural causes are all that exist, how does the atheist explain the origin of the universe, consciousness, or moral values?" The famous philosopher William Lane Craig counters this by saying, "Naturalism cannot adequately explain the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of physical constants, or the existence of moral laws." (Craig, Reasonable Faith). Without a transcendent source, atheists often struggle to justify why anything exists at all.

Furthermore, the atheist worldview tends to deny the existence of objective moral values, asserting that morality is a human construct. Nash would challenge this by asking: "If morality is purely subjective or culturally relative, how can we condemn atrocities or praise acts of heroism universally?" The absence of an absolute moral lawgiver leaves moral debates without a solid foundation. As philosopher J.L. Mackie argued, moral judgments in an atheistic universe are simply expressions of personal or cultural preferences, which raises questions about moral objectivity and justice.

Finally, critics point out that atheism offers little explanation for human purpose, meaning, or hope beyond biological survival. Nash might conclude: "If life has no ultimate purpose or divine meaning, does that not lead to nihilism or despair?" Many thinkers, like C.S. Lewis, have argued that atheism ultimately cannot sustain a meaningful understanding of human dignity or destiny. Lewis famously wrote, "If the universe has no purpose, then our pursuits, our hopes, are ultimately empty." (Lewis, The Problem of Pain).

Bibliography

Nash, Ronald H. Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas. Zondervan, 1992.
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Crossway, 2008.
Mackie, J.L. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin Books, 1977.
Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain. HarperOne, 2001.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Bantam Press, 2006.

Questions for Students

What are the main philosophical difficulties faced by the atheist worldview concerning the origin of the universe?
How does the atheist perspective challenge the idea of objective moral values?
Can a life without belief in God provide true meaning and purpose? Why or why not?
How does the atheist worldview address the problem of human suffering and moral evil?
Do the criticisms of atheism presented here suggest that it is an incomplete view of reality? Why or why not?

The Hindu Worldview

The Hindu worldview is rooted in a complex system of beliefs involving reincarnation, karma, dharma, and the pursuit of spiritual liberation (moksha). It emphasizes an eternal, cyclical view of time and reality, where the soul (atman) undergoes countless rebirths until it achieves unity with Brahman—the ultimate, impersonal divine reality. Nash would suggest examining the coherence of this worldview with respect to its metaphysics, morality, and purpose.

One critical challenge to Hinduism concerns its concept of ultimate reality. The doctrine of Brahman as an impersonal, infinite, and unchanging absolute contrasts sharply with the personal God of the Christian faith. Nash might ask: "Is an impersonal divine principle capable of providing a meaningful relationship or moral guidance?" Critics argue that if Brahman is impersonal, it undermines the personal nature of moral accountability and relationality. As Reformed scholar Greg Bahnsen might note, "A worldview that denies the personal nature of ultimate reality cannot sustain a meaningful moral order or personal relationship with the divine."

Another issue relates to the doctrine of karma and reincarnation. While these concepts aim to explain justice and moral order, critics contend they can lead to a fatalistic view of life, where individuals are trapped in the cycle of rebirth regardless of effort. Nash might question: "Does the belief in karma diminish the significance of divine grace and moral effort, or does it promote a deterministic view of human existence?" The emphasis on karma can obscure the Christian doctrine of grace and salvation through Christ, which offers forgiveness and transformation rather than endless cycles of rebirth.

Finally, the ultimate goal of moksha—liberation from the cycle of rebirth—raises questions about human purpose and moral responsibility. Nash would ask: "If the highest goal is liberation from individual existence, how does this worldview account for moral obligations to others or the purpose of human life?" Critics argue that Hinduism’s focus on individual salvation can neglect social justice and personal moral responsibility in this life. As Nash would conclude, the Hindu worldview’s emphasis on detachment and liberation from the world may diminish the importance of moral action and relational love in human life.

Bibliography

Nash, Ronald H. Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas. Zondervan, 1992.
Bahnsen, Greg. Always Be Ready: A Study of Defending the Christian Faith. Covenant Media Foundation, 1996.
Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. The Philosophy of Hinduism. Harper & Brothers, 1948.
Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. The Science of Self-Realization. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1972.

Questions for Students

How does the impersonal nature of Brahman compare to the personal God of Christianity?
Does the doctrine of karma promote moral responsibility or fatalism? Why?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Hindu concept of moksha as the ultimate goal?
In what ways does the Hindu worldview influence social and moral responsibilities?
Can the cycle of rebirth and karma provide a satisfying explanation for justice and morality? Why or why not?

The Buddhist Worldview

From a biblical worldview rooted in Reformed theology, Buddhism is seen as fundamentally incompatible with Christianity because it denies the personal, sovereign God of Scripture. Buddhism's focus on self-effort, detachment, and the absence of a personal Creator leads away from the biblical understanding of salvation, human purpose, and moral accountability.

Key Points:

Denial of the Personal God: Buddhism generally denies the existence of a personal, sovereign God who creates and sustains all things. Instead, it emphasizes an impersonal ultimate reality (nirvana, emptiness, or the universe itself), which undermines the biblical doctrine of God's personal nature.
Self-Effort and Human Salvation: Buddhism teaches that individuals must achieve enlightenment through their own efforts, which contrasts sharply with the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Ultimate Purpose: Buddhism aims at escaping the cycle of rebirth (samsara) through enlightenment. From a biblical perspective, this is a futile attempt to find ultimate meaning apart from God's redemptive plan.

Quotes from Reformed Thinkers

Greg Bahnsen:
"Pantheism (which underpins much of Buddhist thought) reduces God to the impersonal universe, denying His personal attributes and sovereignty. Christianity, by contrast, teaches that God is a personal, loving Creator who saves sinners by grace."
— From Bahnsen’s writings on worldview and theology.
Ronald Nash:
"Buddhism’s emphasis on self-effort and the denial of a personal, sovereign God leads to moral and spiritual despair. Without the biblical God, ultimate meaning and purpose are impossible to ground."
— Worldviews in Conflict, p. 174.
J. I. Packer (aligning with Reformed theology):
"Buddhism, with its denial of a personal Creator and Savior, cannot satisfy the deep human need for forgiveness, relationship, and eternal life."

Questions for Students

How does the Buddhist view of ultimate reality differ from the biblical understanding of God?
Why do Reformed Christians see the emphasis on self-effort in Buddhism as a problem for salvation?
In what ways does Buddhism's goal of achieving enlightenment contrast with the Christian teaching of salvation by grace through faith?
How does the rejection of a personal God in Buddhism impact its view of morality and human purpose?
Can Buddhism provide a sufficient answer to human sin and the need for divine forgiveness? Why or why not?

The Pantheist Worldview

Ronald Nash:
Nash critiques pantheism for its denial of a personal, transcendent God. He argues that pantheism equates God with the universe itself, which leads to a loss of personal distinction, moral accountability, and ultimate purpose. Nash emphasizes that the biblical God is a personal, sovereign Creator who is separate from His creation, providing a foundation for moral responsibility and meaningful relationship. He states:

"Pantheism collapses the distinction between Creator and creation, thereby undermining the biblical doctrine of God's personal nature and sovereignty. Without a personal God, moral absolutes lose their foundation, and human beings are left without a true purpose."
— Worldviews in Conflict, p. 142.

Greg Bahnsen:
Bahnsen criticizes pantheism for reducing God to an impersonal force or the universe itself, which makes it impossible to have a personal relationship with God or to appeal to divine moral authority. He notes that pantheism leads to fatalism and nihilism because it denies the personal, sovereign God who governs history and moral order. Bahnsen states:

"Pantheism's identification of God with the universe negates the biblical doctrine of God's personal sovereignty and moral governance. It ultimately leads to despair because it offers no personal hope or moral accountability outside of oneself."
— From his debates and writings on worldview.

Summary:
Both Nash and Bahnsen agree that pantheism's fundamental flaw is its denial of a personal, moral God. This leads to relativism, nihilism, and a loss of ultimate meaning, which they see as incompatible with biblical Christianity.

Questions for Students

How does pantheism’s identification of God with the universe differ from the biblical view of God as a personal, sovereign Creator?
Why do Nash and Bahnsen consider pantheism to undermine moral responsibility and ultimate meaning?
In what ways does the rejection of a personal God in pantheism affect human purpose and accountability?
How does pantheism lead to nihilism or despair, according to Nash and Bahnsen?
Can pantheism provide a coherent foundation for morality and purpose? Why or why not?

The Mormon Worldview

Jeff Durbin:
Jeff Durbin condemns Mormonism as a false gospel that deviates from biblical Christianity by adding works, rituals, and additional scriptures (like the Book of Mormon). He emphasizes that Mormonism teaches a different Jesus and salvation by works, which is incompatible with the biblical message of salvation by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ.

Quote:
"Mormonism presents a different Jesus—one who is not the eternal Son of God but a created being—and offers salvation through human effort and temple rituals, not through grace alone."

Ronald Nash:
Nash critiques Mormonism for its doctrinal deviations, especially its view of God, salvation, and the nature of Christ. He argues that Mormonism’s view of multiple gods and the potential divine nature of humans contradicts biblical monotheism. Nash emphasizes that Mormonism adds to Scripture, creating a different worldview that ultimately leads away from biblical truth.

Quote:
"Mormonism’s teachings about a plurality of gods and the potential for humans to become gods distort the biblical doctrine of the one true God and the exclusive salvation offered through Jesus Christ."
— Worldviews in Conflict, p. 193.

Greg Bahnsen:
Bahnsen strongly criticizes Mormonism for its doctrinal errors, especially its denial of the biblical Trinity and its reliance on works and temple rituals for salvation. He warns that Mormonism’s teachings are fundamentally different from biblical Christianity and pose a serious threat to biblical truth.

Quote:
"The Mormon system, with its denial of the Trinity and salvation through grace, is a different gospel that cannot save. It replaces the biblical message of Christ’s atoning work with human effort and ritual."

Questions for Students

What are the main doctrinal differences between biblical Christianity and Mormonism, especially regarding Jesus Christ and salvation?
How does Mormonism’s view of God and the potential for humans to become gods conflict with biblical teaching?
Why do Nash and Bahnsen consider Mormonism to distort the biblical gospel?
In what ways do Mormon practices, such as temple rituals, differ from biblical salvation through faith alone?
Can Mormonism offer a true and sufficient answer to humanity’s spiritual needs? Why or why not?
How does the addition of extra scriptures like the Book of Mormon impact the authority of biblical Scripture?