FUNDAMENTALIST METHOD

-ITS CONSEQUENCES AND PUZZLES-

D. GLIGOROVIC

FACULTY OF ORTHODOX THEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE

damjangligorovic@hotmail.com

Abstract

In the twenty-first century, the applicability of the fundamentalist method is present in all Christian

churches. The consequences of this application are first and foremost immoral, but especially

epistemologically unacceptable. The reason for this application lies in the fact that the Bible is

very old and has given rise to various epochs that influenced the biblical text. These influences of

different epochs are still present today in the understanding of the biblical text. We need an analysis

of the fundamentalist method in order to get rid of traditional influences. These traditional

influences have encouraged many Serbian philosophers to basically accept the biblical text and

criticize immoral principles. On the other hand, atheists do not understand the biblical text

precisely because they violently apply the fundamentalist method. Modern atheist does not view

the biblical text in the context of its origin, but accepts the words of the Bible as bare facts.

The aim of this paper is researching the fundamentalist method. The paper consists of two main

parts. In the introduction, I am going to define the fundamentalist method and its application and

basic assumptions. In the first part, I will also show the consequences of applied the fundamentalist

method and I will show the non-fundamentalist way of understanding the Golden rule (Mt. 7:12)

1
and Evil God (Isa. 45:6-7). In the second part, I show the solution of the fundamentalists puzzles

a sinless conception and birth from the Holy Spirit (Mt. 1:18-25) and Divinity of the Jesus Christ

Mt 16:16, Finanlly, I will make a conclusion. Before I define the fundamentalist method, I would

like to explain what basic beliefs are? Basic beliefs are not based on other beliefs. For example, I

believe that table exists because I can observe it but that belief is justified upon other belief. Basic

beliefs are too basic for us. For example, today being Friday is something too basic for me. I don’t

need proof that now is night.1 In the nineteenth century, a fundamentalist method emerged as a

reaction to Darwinism. This fundamentalist method is not a real method, already this is only

reading the text without giving any interpretation. For example, imagine that person S wants to

apply the fundamentalist method on the following versus: “Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you

are the Son of God.” It would get thought of divinity of the Jesus Christ. Therefore, the

fundamentalist method means only accepting bare facts and basic belief that justified themselves.

This act of free reading without interpretations relies on basic assumptions. In 1978 within Chicago

Biblical community, respectable evangelical theologians such as Carl Henry, J. I. Packer, Francis

Schaeffer, and R. C. Sproul stated three fundamentalist assumptions:2

1. Holy Scripture, being God’s own word, written by men superintended by His Spirt

2. The God’s word is infallible

3. The Holy Scripture is the primary authority3

1
A. Plantinga, Is belief in god properly basic, Noûs, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1981 A. P. A. Western Division Meetings (Mar.,
1981), p. 41
2
N. C. Grubbs WHAT DOES THEOLOGY HAVE TO DO WITH THE BIBLE? A CALL FOR THE EXPANSION OF
THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION, JETS 53/1 (March 2010) p.69
3
M. Grisanti, INSPIRATION, INERRANCY, AND THE OT CANON: THE PLACE OF TEXTUAL UPDATING IN AN
INERRANT VIEW OF SCRIPTURE, JETS, 44/4 (December 2001), p.595

2
These assumptions are too basic for fundamentalists. 4

(1) The first an assumption implies that it doesn't matter what genre of the book is. For example,

imagine, one day you write a book and state the following versus: Faster! Stronger! Better! After

15000 years people find your book and apply the fundamentalist method on the previous versus.

They would get the basic belief about motivation. But they didn’t the determine the genre of the

book. Maybe your book is a political satirical novel and you have intention to ironically ridicule

political power. So, the fundamentalist method misses the intention of the writer. Moberly agrees

with me: If one misjudges the genre, then one may produce poor and misguided interpretations. 5

Next example, there is a metaphor in the book of the prophet Jonah that clearly indicates us that

the work is just a satirical novel: Now the Lord provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah

was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights.6 According to the fundamentalist

method, this versus is just a bare fact of camping days of Jonah in the belly of the fish. For the first

an assumption, social and cultural influences are not relevant within the life context in which the

text originated. For example, if the writer criticizes a particular social problem, then the cause does

not lie in the writer's life context but in God's inspiration. Also, there is no influence from the

writer’s education. For instance, if the writer was a philosopher (apostle John) by profession, then

the philosophical terminology has no cause in the author's education but in divine inspiration.

4
All three an assumptions agree that Holy Scripture is God-breathed. The apostle Paul thinks in the same way: All
Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the
servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.4 The question is: what is inspiration? One of the
best evangelical theologian Carl Herny in his work God, Revelation and Inspiration explained the process of
inspiration: Inspiration is a supernatural influence upon divinely chosen prophets and apostles whereby the Spirit of
God assures the truth and trustworthiness of their oral and written proclamation.4
5
R. W. L. Moberly - The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Old Testament Theology)-Cambridge University Press
(2009) p.21
6
Jon 1,17

3
(2) The second an assumption doesn’t imply any possibility for historical and ethical mistakes.

For example, the historical chronology of emperors is perfectly accurate. On the other hand, every

imperative or rule in the Bible is moral.

(3) The third an assumption tells us that Holy Scriptures are more important than scientific

researches. For example, the spine exists in both monkeys and humans, but works better with on

animals walking on four legs. If the adaptation of the individual is perfect, then the Creator would

have to find a different solution for the two different individuals.7 This evidence clearly refutes the

perfect adaptation of the individual, but according to fundamentalist method, we still have to take

the Bible for our primary authority. Elliott Sober calls this approach dogmatic and unscientific. 8

Therefore,the fundamentalist method denies the genre of the book, life context (Sitz im leben) the

historical and scientific proofs, as well as the writer’s education, intention, social and cultural

background.

CONSEQUENCES OF APPLIED FUNDAMENTALIST METHOD

- THE GOLDEN RULE –

There are two versions of the Golden rule in the Bible. One version is positive and the other version

is negative. The positive version is found in Matthew's Gospel and reads: “Therefore, all things

whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the

prophets (Mt. 7:12.) The negative version does not include subjective interests: “And as ye would

that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” (Lk. 6:31) In this paper we will analyse

only the positive rule because it includes interests. John Stuart Mill applied the fundamentalist

7
E. Sober, Philosophy of biology, Perseus, 2000, p.56
8
E. Sober, Philosophy of biology, Perseus, 2000, p.42

4
method to the positive version of the Golden rule.9 In his life context, Christianity has had a lot of

influence in society. Applying the fundamentalist method to the Gospel, he intended, to give his

view more authority. Criticizing John Stuart Mill, the Serbian philosopher Jovan Babic also

applied the fundamentalist method in his critique. He asks us to imagine a masochist reading the

Golden rule. In this case, the masochist would follow the imperative: "torment other.” Therefore,

a masochist would become a sadist. Jovan Babic made the conclusion that Gospel is an immoral

book.10 It seems that (2) the fundamentalist an assumption is wrong. Before, to defend Mt. 7:12 I

just want to put forward a defensive analogy for moral relativism: a golden coin, we can use it for

good things or we can use it for bad things. We can use the golden rule in the same way. Jeffrey

Wattels argues similarly: the golden rule is the spiritual teaching whose external and formal

counterpart is the categorical imperative; they are "two sides of the same coin.” 11 In my opinion,

there is a difference between the golden rule within and beyond the Gospel of Mattew. Golden rule

beyond the Gospel has an arbitrary understanding while the golden rule within the Gospel has a

definite function. This particular function is implicit and is revealed when looking at the whole of

the preceding and forthcoming text. The explanatory sentence in Mt. 7:12 for this is the law and

the prophets is often omitted in philosophical discussions. The law of the Jesus Christ is based on

two main commandments: 1) thou shalt love the Lord thhy God with all thy heart and with all thy

soul and with all thy mind and 2) Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The forthcoming text

of the golden rule explains the explanatory sentence in Mt. 7:12: on these two commandments

hang all the law and the prophets. Mt. 22:40 Also, apostle Paul follows the Gospel: Love does no

wrong to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law. Rom. 13:8 The problem is

9
J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism, Chicago 1906, p.18
10
J. Babic, Ethics and Morality, Theoria 2/2008, p. 43
11
J. Wattles - The Golden Rule, Oxford University Press (1996),p.159

5
quantifier “all.” (therefore all things whatsoever) Even though love is a fulfillment of the law, it is

still possible for a masochist to follow a sadistic practical attitude. The quantifier “all” implies

things beyond love. To understand this, we need to analyze the previous text from the golden rule.

The fourth chapter clearly states that Jesus is going to preach the kingdom of God: From that time

Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Mt. 4:17 Jesus'

preaching about the Kingdom of God begins with the Sermon on the Mount. In my opinion, we

should understand the section from Mt. 5:1 to Mt. 7:12 as a logical whole within text. What does

it mean for a section to function as a logical whole? This means that each part uses the same logical

reasoning, that is, each ethical instruction stands as the basis of second commandment of Christ.

For example, But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right

cheek turn to him the other also. Mt. 5:39 And if any man will sue thee at thela, and take away

thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. Mt. 5:40 In the previous versus’ there is a feeling and concern

for the neighbour that is correlated with Jn.15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this that man

lay down his life for his friends. And now imagine that someone takes following versus:” And if

thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.”Mt. 5:30 and interprets the need to massacre oneself. This

interpretation would be contrary to logical reasoning in this logical whole. With this logical whole

Mt. 5:1 – Mt. 7:12 the writer wanted to achieve something. He had a certain intention. The writer

did not arbitrarily give ethical instructions. To understand the writer’s intention, we need to

determine the genre of the Gospel of Mattew and its recipients. Based on form and structure

(Prologue, organization of text), we can classify the Gospel of Matthew in the Epistle of

Antiquity.12 This implies that the Gospel of Matthew is not an ethical book. An ancient epistle

may encompass ethics, but it is not determined by ethics. Genealogies were determining who

12
W. J. Harrington, Record of the fulfillment: The New Testament, 1996, p.166

6
would be in Jewish society. Based on the first verse of Matthew's Gospel, we see that the writer

of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ emphasizes that the one to be born is of the Imperial and priestly

blood. Genealogies determined who would be in the Jewish society. The writer of the Gospel of

Matthew intended to draw a parallel between the Torah and the gospel. Thus, the recipients of the

Matthew gospel are Jews. 13There was a great deal of tension in the Jewish mentality to enforce

the law at all costs. For example, David disobeyed the Torah and killed a man. Also, Ahaz

disobeyed the law and surrendered to syncretism. The Jewish authorities condemned the emperors

not to live in the Torah and at the same time forgave the man. According to the Jews, Law was

more important than Man himself, and thus Law itself could not be fulfilled. Therefore, Christ had

to come to fulfill Law and to make the Man more important than Law itself: think not that I am

coming to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not to come to destroy but to fulfill. Mt. 5:17 If

Man is more important than Law, then love is basic to every law and rule. Therefore, the

quantifier “all” in Mt. 7:12 refers to everything that belongs within Christ's law of love. If

one pulls the golden rule beyond the logical whole of Mt. 5: 1 – 7:12 then the golden rule

ceases to have the logical reasoning of the second commandment of Christ as the basis.

EVIL GOD
One of the most difficult problem for the fundamentalist method is following the versus in the

Book of the prophet Isaiah:” I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form the light and create

darkness, I bring prosperity and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.” Isa. 45:6-7 14 In this

case, all three fundamentalist assumptions are wrong. What kind of consequences does a

fundamentalist approach have under this verse? There are three main consequences. The first

13
W. J. Harrington, Record of the fulfillment: The New Testament, 1996, p.164
14 T. D. Nilsen, The Creation of Darkness and Evil (Isa 45:6c-7) 2008, p.1

7
consequence is based on the Katharines’ objection. Katharine Dell applied the fundamentalist

method on the Book of the Job and claimed that there is a difference in the moral standards of God

and people.15 God behaves unethically in the human moral standards. 16 It seems that

fundamentalists can deal with Evil God because our evil standard is not the same as God’s evil

standard. The second consequence is related to the theistic definition. If God created evil then he

is morally responsible for all evil in the world. The third consequence is related to Anselmo's

definition of God. If God created the evil then the following set would be contradictory: 17

1. God is an omnipotent

2. God is omniscient

3. God is perfectly good

4. God created evil

5. Evil exists

This set is logically contradictory because there is 2:1 relation. If I say:” The chair is red and the

chair is without color.” The relation will be 1:1. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Before I explain why these three consequences are not acceptable in Christian theology, I want to

make a distinction that most theologians and philosophers forget to make. When we use the

concept of God, we are under that concept referring to a certain definition of God. If we claim

that God is related to X, then we have argued that the definition of God is related to X. We cannot

omit the definition of God from the concept of God, nor can we mix the different definitions of

15
K. Dell - Ethical and Unethical in the Old Testament, p.182
16
K. Dell - Ethical and Unethical in the Old Testament, p.182
17
A. Plantinga, Ontological argument from St. Anselm to contemporary philosophers, Garden City, 1965, pp.1-2

8
God in different contexts. There are a lot of definitions of God. I will list the five most represented

definitions in the history of philosophy of religion.

Pseudo Anselmo The Theistic Einstein's

Dionysius' Kentenberian physicalistic definition of definition of
definition of definition of definition of God God20
God18 God19 God
God is being God is a being God is an God is a God is a
who is free from than which no impersonal personal being absolutely
everything and greater can be power whom has infinite being,
transcendent conceived relationships i.e., a substance
completely with humans consisting of an
beings. infinity of
attributes, of
which each one
expresses an
eternal and
infinite essence
that reveals
himself in the
harmony of all
that exists.

The problem is that Kathаrine did not explicitly state the definition of God. Since, Anselm's

premise implies that God is perfectly good, then we can assume that Katharine does not represent

that definition. She spoke of God from the perspective of the book of Job, we can assume that she

did not mean the Einstein's concept of God nor the Physicalist definition of God because it is an

impersonal God. So, all we have left is Pseudo Dionysius and Theistic God. It is more likely that

18
P. Dionysius: The Divine Names and Mystical Theology, trans. J. Jones, Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University
Press, 1980, p.137
19
A. Plantinga, Ontological argument from St. Anselm to contemporary philosophers, Garden City, 1965, p.1
20
J.T. Menezes, ON UNDERSTANDING PHYSICALISM, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, 2018, p.514

9
Katharine was referring to the theistic definition of god rather than Dionysius because it is a book

about Job. However, the claim that God has different moral standards than us would mean that he

is free from our knowledge. According to the claim, this would be more in line with Dionysius'

definition.

I contra – argument: Katharines' approach is absolutely irrational and gnostic. The claim God is

in relation to X would be – “a being who is free from everything and transcendent completely and

has its own moral standards.” According to definition, it follows X has own X. Why? I know the

transcendent God but God being beyond my domain of knowledge is a meaningless statement. We

can not know anything without our epistemological standards (logical terms, domain of

knowledge, theory of language). For example, a round square is something logically impossible

and unimaginable. It is not logically impossible that God has Its own moral standards but it is

unimaginable for us. If tried to imagine some transcendent moral rule or imperative, it would be

immanent. It is not possible to imagine transcendent moral standards. Therefore, if we say that

some X contains Its own X, then we have made a secret knowledge from one puzzle. This approach

is not even in line with John's Gospel. “I am the way and the truth and the life.” This versus is a

direct critique of Gnostics who claimed that the knowledge of God is a secret knowledge and

unavailable.

II contra – argument: According to moral standards, there is a supreme goal. An idea of goal is

a regulating ultimate principle which we use to understand coherence and unity. Kant claimed that

we cannot prove the existence of God but we have to accept the idea of God as supreme Good. 21

21
I. Kant, the Critique of the Power of Judgment, 1790, p.227

10
If we do not accept the regulatory idea of God then our moral life will not be possible. 22 A

regulatory an idea of God constitutes the moral argument of God’s existence rendering to which
23
we have to admit a ultimate cause of goodness, God, to make an assumption Although, if a

personal God has different moral standards than ours, then we cannot have a moral life. Therefore,

an idea of God is essential for moral theology.

III contra - argument: The attributes of God ascribed to him by Anselmo do not conform to the

Christian definition of God. Anselm's definition of God is more in line with the Platonic idea of

Good, which gives an ontological and epistemological possibility to other ideas. First of all,

omnipotence implies that God cannot die. If God died then He is not almighty. The Christian god

is personal and free. The attribute free does not imply that it is beyond our knowledge, but that it

is free from omnipotence. Therefore, the conclusion "God does not exist" of the above set of

premises is acceptable but not related to the Christian definition of God.

FUNDAMENTALIST PUZZLES
-DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST-

In the previous chapters, we saw that the fundamentalist method can not deal with the

consequesnces but may we deal with the fundamentalist puzzles? If we apply the fundamentalist

method to the Book of the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 45: 6-7) we would get an Evil God. If we don’t

apply the fundamentalist method on the versus “Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son

of God” (Jn,1:49) then the God didn’t die on the cross and we are not saved from perishability.

Our faith would fail. First of all, we can understand the deity of Jesus Christ in a non-

fundamentalist way.

22
Ibid, p.317
23
Ibid, p.317

11
In my explanation I will focus on two symbolisms: the first symbolism is a dove while the second

is the Son of God. At the baptism of Jesus Christ, a hermeneutic symbol appears in the form of a

dove. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was

opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. (Mt. 3:16) This

hermeneutical symbol of the dove is present in the Old Testament always where the will of God is

present. For example, when God makes a covenant with Abram and does his will then a dove is

present in Abram's sacrifice. So the Lord said to him, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each

three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon. (Gen. 15:9) He is also present in the story

of the flood when Noah sent the dove to see the water had receded. He waited seven more days

and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him. (Gen. 8:12) In the book of the

prophet Jonah, the main character Jonah does not fulfill the will of God and does not go to the city

of Nineveh but to the city of Tarshish. The name Jonah in Hebrew language means Dove. Jonah

himself is, in a metaphorical sense, Israel who is unstable in faithfulness to Yahweh.

The phrase Son of God is present in Nathanael's declaration of the divinity of Jesus. It is well

known that the Roman emperors were designated as sons of God. Thus, in symbolic connection,

we have two hermeneutic characters of Jesus Christ: as an emperor and as one in accordance with

the will of God. Is being an emperor and being in accordance with a willing divine the same as

being a deity? To answer this question, we need to understand the Jewish mentality that awaits the

political Messiah. The Jews believed that the Messiah to come was of David's descent. The notion

of a political Messiah is consistent with an emperor who is by the will of God. Therefore, the son

of God and the dove are clear hermeneutical symbols on the basis of which we can avoid the

fundamentalist method.

12
 CONCEPTION AND BIRTH FROM HOLY SPIRIT

The Immaculate Conception and Birth are set forth in Matthew's Gospel. This is how the birth of

Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before

they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Mt. 1:18 The

Immaculate Conception and Birth of the Virgin Mary is understood in our life context as a

miracle.24 It is not acceptable for this event to be understood as a miracle because the basis of

gospel life is freedom from sensation. In the story of tasting in the desert, Jesus does not want to

make a sensation by jumping from above because his relationship with God is first and foremost

freedom, not determination. The story of the sinless conception and birth was understood in history

as a miracle because it was in line with the Platonic philosophy. Christianity is created in Platonic

life context where there is a dualism between the world of ideas and the perceptive world. The

perceptive world is inferior to the world of ideas. Therefore, in Christianity, sexual activity is

understood as something inferior. The biblical text is inconsistent with such an anti-sexual stance.

We see this in the example of Jacob and Rachel. Then Jacob kissed Rachel and began to weep

aloud. (Gen. 29:11) Also, we see an anti-sexual attitude in the example with Jacob when he prays

for his wife. Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife. My time is complete, and I want to

make love to her.” (Gen. 29:21) Perhaps the best example is the Song of Songs which describes

love and sex.b How beautiful you are and how pleasing, my love, with your delights! Your stature

is like that of a palm tree, and your breasts are like clusters of fruit. I said, “I will climb the palm

tree; May your breasts be like clusters of grapes on the vine, the fragrance of your breath like

apples, She and your mouth like the best wine. May the wine go straight to my beloved, flowing

gently over lips and teeth. (Song of Sg. 7: 6-12) Obviously, the biblical text is not against sex. So

24
P. Wegner, HOW MANY VIRGIN BIRTHS ARE IN THE BIBLE? (ISAIAH 7:14): A PROPHETIC PATTERN
APPROACH, JETS 54.3 (September 2011), p.481

13
why is it a problem to accept a sexual relationship between Our Lady Mary and Joseph? First of

all, the writer had no intention of talking about sexual intercourse. 25 We noted that the writer of

the Gospel of Matthew intended to depict the Torah in one gospel way, that is, to persuade Jews

that Christ was the Messiah. First of all, the writer had no intention of talking about sexual

intercourse. We have noted that the recipients of the Gospel of Matthew are Jews whom the writer

in one way wishes to bring the Gospels closer. In the Jewish mentality, Egypt signified the

remembrance of the great work of the LORD. If we imagine that the gospel was written to the

Serbs, then the writer would point out that Christ was fleeing to Kosovo because Kosovo is very

basic to the Serbs in the same way as Egypt was to the Jews. Before this parallel with Egypt, the

writer draws a parallel with the birth of Jesus and the birth of Moses. (Ex. 1,15) (Ex. 2,1-8) The

connection between the two births in a similarly miraculous way had an impact on a Jew. For

example, the separation of the Red Sea was not a miracle for a Jew, but rather a motivational

hermeneutical framework in which he finds Yahweh. So, in this way, we can avoid and solve

fundamentalist puzzles. We can conclude that none of the three fundamentalist assumptions is

acceptable. The fundamentalist method cannot cope with the immoral and epistemological

consequences. Although the fundamentalist method is applied in the Church in the twenty-first

century, it is still possible to overcome and solve the puzzles of basic beliefs. Therefore, the

fundamentalist method is not enough to understand the biblical text, but as Socrates thinks, another

navigation is needed in which greater powers are used.

25
Ibid, p.481

14
 CONTENTS

Abstract 1-3
Consequences of applied fundamentalist method -Golden rule- 4-7
Evil God 7-11

Fundamentalist puzzles Divinity of Jesus Christ 11-12

Conception and birth from Holy Spirit 12-14
Contents 15
Literature 16

15
 LITERATURE

1. Michael Grisanti, INSPIRATION, INERRANCY, AND THE OT CANON: THE PLACE OF

TEXTUAL UPDATING IN AN INERRANT VIEW OF SCRIPTURE, JETS, 44/4 (December
2001)
2. Jeffrey Wattles - The Golden Rule, New York Oxford Oxford University Press (1996)
3. Katharine Dell - Ethical and Unethical in the Old Testament, London 2010
4. Tina Dykesteen Nilsen, The Creation of Darkness and Evil (Isaiah 45:6c-7) 2008
5. Wilfrid J Harrington, Record of the fulfillment: The New Testament, 1996
6. R. W. L. Moberly - The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Old Testament Theology)-
Cambridge University Press (2009)
7. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chicago 1906
8. Elliot Sober, Philosophy of Biology Perseus, 2000
9. Jovan Babic, Morality and Our Time, 2nd ed. Sluzbeni Glasnik, Belgrade 2005
10. Alvin Plantinga, Ontological argument from St. Anselm to contemporary philosophers,
Garden City, 1965
11. Alvin Plantinga, Is belief in god properly basic, Calvin College, 1981
12. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names and Mystical Theology, trans. J. Jones, Milwaukee,
WI: Marquette University Press, 1980
13. Immanuel Kant, the Critique of the Power of Judgment, 1790
14. Paul Wegner, HOW MANY VIRGIN BIRTHS ARE IN THE BIBLE? (ISAIAH 7:14): A
PROPHETIC PATTERN APPROACH, JETS 54.3 (September 2011)

16