Family Update May 2025
Greetings
May is upon us and with it come all sorts of outdoor glories! As you get outside, be sure to enjoy the news below. Upcoming events, a devotional thought on motivations to pray, fellowship meal sign-up, and a new book review (Thanks, Tyson!), not to mention ways to pray for our body, and this month's catechism and Scripture reading schedules. May the Lord richly bless you as you peruse the plans below!
Devotional Fuel For Life And Joy
“Life has it’s ups and downs,” we say. But the “ups” and “downs” can be so extreme that they feel more like triumphs and tears. The psalmist speaks of both in Psalm 30 when he says,
Now in my prosperity I said,
“I shall never be moved.”
Lord, by Your favor You have made my mountain stand strong;
You hid Your face, and I was troubled. (Ps. 30:6-7)
When you feel as strong as mountain, you quite literally feel like you’re on top of the world. And then, for reasons we usually don’t understand, it seems as though the Lord hides his face, and the trouble arrives. It might even feel as though the mountain has dog piled on us.
How do you pray then? What do you say to the One who has sworn to do you good but who seems to be absent-minded or to have forgotten you? How do you plead with him, and for what do you plead? There are many good and right answers to these questions, but one in particular needs unpacking. The answer this psalm models for us goes like this:
I cried out to You, O Lord;
And to the Lord I made supplication:
“What profit is there in my blood,
When I go down to the pit?
Will the dust praise You?
Will it declare Your truth?
Hear, O Lord, and have mercy on me;
Lord, be my helper!” (Ps. 30:8-10)
The “ask” is clear enough: save me! Help me! Don’t let me lose (my life, my reputation, my livelihood, etc.) But the reason he gives is arresting, and it comes in the form of questions:
These rhetorical questions have obvious answers, but their logic is important. And they might not even sound like the normally pious, reverent-sounding reasons we usually give. Taking them one a at a time, they can be unpacked as follows:
Question: “What profit is there in my blood?”
(Translation: Lord, what good comes from my death?)
Question explained: “If I’m being honest, I don’t see how my death profits anyone. In fact, Lord, it would seem that leaving me in my trouble puts a spot on your reputation, since I’ve told everyone how great your love is. Don’t you remember what you said to me in Romans 8:32? So, how, precisely, does your name shine admirably in my death?”
Question: “Will the dust praise you?”
(Translation: When I am buried in the ground and return to dust, how do I praise you then?)
Answer: “I don’t. Dead people can’t be heard by the living, and the living certainly won’t hear dead people praise God for a deliverance that he didn’t bring.”
Question: “Will it declare Your truth?”
Translation: Will the dust celebrate the salvation that didn’t come?
Answer: “No, the living, and not the dead, are testimonies to God’s glorious power and salvation, because in saving them they become trophies of his achievements.”
Where does this leave us?
It leaves us asking the Lord to save us for the sake of his name, and not merely for our own welfare. When we read that the Lord, our shepherd, leads us in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake, part of what that means is that he leads us in a way that will reflect well upon him, in addition to blessing us. This is what it means for God to get glory in saving sinners. He gets the glory, we get the good. And if he doesn’t save us, that’s glory that he doesn’t get.
Now in my prosperity I said,
“I shall never be moved.”
Lord, by Your favor You have made my mountain stand strong;
You hid Your face, and I was troubled. (Ps. 30:6-7)
When you feel as strong as mountain, you quite literally feel like you’re on top of the world. And then, for reasons we usually don’t understand, it seems as though the Lord hides his face, and the trouble arrives. It might even feel as though the mountain has dog piled on us.
How do you pray then? What do you say to the One who has sworn to do you good but who seems to be absent-minded or to have forgotten you? How do you plead with him, and for what do you plead? There are many good and right answers to these questions, but one in particular needs unpacking. The answer this psalm models for us goes like this:
I cried out to You, O Lord;
And to the Lord I made supplication:
“What profit is there in my blood,
When I go down to the pit?
Will the dust praise You?
Will it declare Your truth?
Hear, O Lord, and have mercy on me;
Lord, be my helper!” (Ps. 30:8-10)
The “ask” is clear enough: save me! Help me! Don’t let me lose (my life, my reputation, my livelihood, etc.) But the reason he gives is arresting, and it comes in the form of questions:
- What profit is there in my blood?
- Will it declare Your truth?
- Will the dust praise You?
These rhetorical questions have obvious answers, but their logic is important. And they might not even sound like the normally pious, reverent-sounding reasons we usually give. Taking them one a at a time, they can be unpacked as follows:
Question: “What profit is there in my blood?”
(Translation: Lord, what good comes from my death?)
Question explained: “If I’m being honest, I don’t see how my death profits anyone. In fact, Lord, it would seem that leaving me in my trouble puts a spot on your reputation, since I’ve told everyone how great your love is. Don’t you remember what you said to me in Romans 8:32? So, how, precisely, does your name shine admirably in my death?”
Question: “Will the dust praise you?”
(Translation: When I am buried in the ground and return to dust, how do I praise you then?)
Answer: “I don’t. Dead people can’t be heard by the living, and the living certainly won’t hear dead people praise God for a deliverance that he didn’t bring.”
Question: “Will it declare Your truth?”
Translation: Will the dust celebrate the salvation that didn’t come?
Answer: “No, the living, and not the dead, are testimonies to God’s glorious power and salvation, because in saving them they become trophies of his achievements.”
Where does this leave us?
It leaves us asking the Lord to save us for the sake of his name, and not merely for our own welfare. When we read that the Lord, our shepherd, leads us in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake, part of what that means is that he leads us in a way that will reflect well upon him, in addition to blessing us. This is what it means for God to get glory in saving sinners. He gets the glory, we get the good. And if he doesn’t save us, that’s glory that he doesn’t get.
Table Talk Question
At the risk of sounding irreverent, when was the last time you earnestly asked the Lord to do something in your life or someone else’s by reminding the Lord, like the psalmist does in Ps. 30, that his own reputation is at stake in your life? It’s sounds risky, in part because it is, but we’re not holier than God. He himself says over and over again that he does what he does for the sake of his name (he leads us in paths of righteousness, Ps. 23:3; brings us out of trouble, Ps. 143:11; restrains himself from anger, Is. 48:9; brought Israel out of Egypt, Ezek. 20:9; makes a new covenant, Ezek. 36:22). If God is seeking his own glory in answering our prayers, we should agree with him.
Rather than praying merely for your children to learn obedience, pray for your children to love his word and hate their sin, so that his reputation in them is great.
Rather than praying merely for a problem-free or solution-filled day at work, pray for solutions at work that will reflect well upon him in your life and that your faith appears well-founded to others.
Rather than praying merely for a pastor to relieve the elders of some shepherding, ask him to send a pastor so that His goodness and glory are more widely known in Spokane Valley.
Rather than praying merely for financial solutions at home, ask him for wisdom to solve your financial conundrums in such a way that his generosity, and not your ingenuity, find the spotlight.
Rather than praying merely for your children to learn obedience, pray for your children to love his word and hate their sin, so that his reputation in them is great.
Rather than praying merely for a problem-free or solution-filled day at work, pray for solutions at work that will reflect well upon him in your life and that your faith appears well-founded to others.
Rather than praying merely for a pastor to relieve the elders of some shepherding, ask him to send a pastor so that His goodness and glory are more widely known in Spokane Valley.
Rather than praying merely for financial solutions at home, ask him for wisdom to solve your financial conundrums in such a way that his generosity, and not your ingenuity, find the spotlight.
Catechism at Home
Lord’s Day 23
WSC Q. 39. What is the duty which God requires of man?
A. The duty which God requires of man is obedience to his revealed will.
WSC Q. 40. What did God at first reveal to man for the rule of his obedience?
A. The rule which God at first revealed to man for his obedience was the moral law.
WSC Q. 41. Wherein is the moral law summarily comprehended?
A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments.
WSC Q. 42. What is the sum of the Ten Commandments?
A. The sum of the Ten Commandments is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength, and with all our mind; and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Lord’s Day 24
WSC Q. 43. What is the preface to the Ten Commandments?
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments is in these words, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”
WSC Q. 44. What does the preface to the Ten Commandments teach us?
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments teaches us, that because God is the Lord, and our God, and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments.
Lord’s Day 25
WSC Q. 45. Which is the first commandment?
A. The first commandment is, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”
WSC Q. 46. What is required in the first commandment?
A. The first commandment requires us to know and acknowledge God to be the only true God, and our God; and to worship and glorify him accordingly.
WSC Q. 47. What is forbidden in the first commandment?
A. The first commandment forbids the denying, or not worshiping and glorifying, the true God as God, and our God; and the giving of that worship and glory to any other, which is due to him alone.
WSC Q. 48. What are we specially taught by these words before me in the first commandment?
A. These words before me in the first commandment teach us, that God, who sees all things, takes notice of, and is much displeased with, the sin of having any other god.
Lord’s Day 26
WSC Q. 49. Which is the second commandment?
A. The second commandment is, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
WSC Q. 50. What is required in the second commandment?
A. The second commandment requires the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has appointed in his Word.
WSC Q. 51. What is forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The second commandment forbids the worshiping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his Word.
WSC Q. 52. What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment?
A. The reasons annexed to the second commandment are, God's sovereignty over us, his propriety in us, and the zeal he has to his own worship.
WSC Q. 39. What is the duty which God requires of man?
A. The duty which God requires of man is obedience to his revealed will.
WSC Q. 40. What did God at first reveal to man for the rule of his obedience?
A. The rule which God at first revealed to man for his obedience was the moral law.
WSC Q. 41. Wherein is the moral law summarily comprehended?
A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments.
WSC Q. 42. What is the sum of the Ten Commandments?
A. The sum of the Ten Commandments is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength, and with all our mind; and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Lord’s Day 24
WSC Q. 43. What is the preface to the Ten Commandments?
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments is in these words, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”
WSC Q. 44. What does the preface to the Ten Commandments teach us?
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments teaches us, that because God is the Lord, and our God, and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments.
Lord’s Day 25
WSC Q. 45. Which is the first commandment?
A. The first commandment is, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”
WSC Q. 46. What is required in the first commandment?
A. The first commandment requires us to know and acknowledge God to be the only true God, and our God; and to worship and glorify him accordingly.
WSC Q. 47. What is forbidden in the first commandment?
A. The first commandment forbids the denying, or not worshiping and glorifying, the true God as God, and our God; and the giving of that worship and glory to any other, which is due to him alone.
WSC Q. 48. What are we specially taught by these words before me in the first commandment?
A. These words before me in the first commandment teach us, that God, who sees all things, takes notice of, and is much displeased with, the sin of having any other god.
Lord’s Day 26
WSC Q. 49. Which is the second commandment?
A. The second commandment is, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
WSC Q. 50. What is required in the second commandment?
A. The second commandment requires the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has appointed in his Word.
WSC Q. 51. What is forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The second commandment forbids the worshiping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his Word.
WSC Q. 52. What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment?
A. The reasons annexed to the second commandment are, God's sovereignty over us, his propriety in us, and the zeal he has to his own worship.
Upcoming Events
Elder Report
Pulpit Supply
Here is a schedule of who will be filling our pulpit for the next several weeks. Please consider praying for them as they prepare to minister to us in word and prayer.
May 4: André Fowlkes
May 11: Ben Tate
May 18: Jeremiah Jasso
May 25: Kaleb Trotter
Scripture Readers
May 4: Ben Palpant, Psalm 30, Rev 5:6-14
May 11: Ben Tate, Psalm 23, John 10:11-30
May 18: Ken Trotter, Psalm 145, John 13:31-35
May 25: John Unger, Isaiah 43:8-13, Acts 14:8-18
Here is a schedule of who will be filling our pulpit for the next several weeks. Please consider praying for them as they prepare to minister to us in word and prayer.
May 4: André Fowlkes
May 11: Ben Tate
May 18: Jeremiah Jasso
May 25: Kaleb Trotter
Scripture Readers
May 4: Ben Palpant, Psalm 30, Rev 5:6-14
May 11: Ben Tate, Psalm 23, John 10:11-30
May 18: Ken Trotter, Psalm 145, John 13:31-35
May 25: John Unger, Isaiah 43:8-13, Acts 14:8-18
Digging for Diamonds
This month's book review is supplied by Tyson Schlect, for which we are grateful. If there is a book you have found valuable and think deserves a wider audience, and you would like to be instrumental in giving it that wider audience, please contact Ben.
The Christian Virtuosos, by Robert Boyle
by Tyson Schlect
“Credo ut intelligam.”
“I believe that I may understand.”
Anselm of Canterbury
Credulity is more natural to man than agnosticism, rendering every attempt of atheist polemics ultimately futile. Perhaps we ought to remember this when we feel we must defend belief in God (or more likely, defend a God-honoring political order). Atheists and secularists would attempt to compel all believers to prove that they are not somehow broken or devoid of reason, but in reality the burden of proof goes the other way; it is the atheist’s responsibility to prove that he is not broken in the head (and the secularist’s responsibility to prove that he has a head at all).
What does it mean, however, to suggest that credulity is natural to man? In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, orthodox Christians found themselves arguing in favor of something they called “natural religion” as a way of counteracting an emerging trend of deism and atheism which was arising, in part, from investigations in the new science (Newton, Descartes, Bacon). American reverend Ebenezer Gay referred to it in his 1759 Dudleian lecture at Harvard College: “Religion is divided into natural and revealed: Revealed Religion, is that which God hath made known to Men by the immediate Inspiration of his Spirit, the Declarations of his Mouth, and Instructions of his Prophets: Natural, that which bare Reason discovers and dictates: As ’tis delineated by the masterly Hand of St. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, in the Words of holy Scripture.” 1 Belief in God, for Gay and others like him, was not a blind commitment to arbitrary truth, but a necessary demonstration of human reason, commensurate with the end (or purpose) of man. Atheism and secularism are unnatural and unreasonable, in other words.
Dr. Mitch Stokes articulates a similar principle regarding natural belief-forming faculties, arguing that a natural willingness to believe something based on testimony (what he defines as faith) is the default, rational setting for human beings. “Credulity is a type of belief-forming mechanism, like sense perception, reason, and memory, so we can add it to our list of cognitive faculties. And, using our definition of rationality, we are rational in believing testimony insofar as our credulity mechanism is functioning properly in the appropriate environment.” 2
In his work entitled The Christian Virtuoso, the great Anglo-Irish chemist Robert Boyle 3 took the argument a step further, claiming that pursuing Experimental Philosophy (the new science) uniquely advantages one in becoming a better Christian, precisely because experimental philosophy encourages a proper functioning of the credulity mechanism. Boyle, in recalling an observation from Sir Francis Bacon, noted that, “God never performed miracles to convince atheists because He has already provided sufficient evidence of His existence and power in His visible works, if only they are not lacking in themselves.” In other words, a practitioner of experimental philosophy who does not recognize the power of God in His visible works lacks something. Broken in the head. A locked groove on your favorite jazz vinyl. Credulity mechanism not properly functioning.
A faithful Christian does not lack in this way, but adequately and rightly discerns God’s invisible attributes according to proper reason. Boyle says, “Experimental philosophy, by providing us with a clearer revelation of the divine excellences manifested in the structure and operation of the universe and its constituent creatures than those who are unfamiliar with it possess, greatly disposes [prevents] the mind to attribute such remarkable effects to a cause as inadequate and pitiful as blind chance or the chaotic collisions of atomical portions of insentient matter. Instead, it directs the mind directly towards the acknowledgement and adoration of a most intelligent, powerful, and benevolent Author, to whom these excellent productions may most fittingly be ascribed.” Thus, in Boyle’s estimation, rigorous engagement with experimental science makes firm the reasonable ground upholding initial principles of natural religion (God’s existence and key attributes), which are prerequisites for revealed religion in general. Boyle continues in another place: “If any of the practitioners of real philosophy 4 pervert it to support atheism, it is undoubtedly the fault of the individuals themselves, not the doctrine, which should be judged based on its inherent tendencies rather than the improper application some wicked people may make of it.”
Boyle proceeds to form a clever argument that commitment to experimental science leads one to reasonably believe in an immortal soul, whereas contemporary Aristotelian philosophy and traditional arguments about substance and nature had left the door open to materialistic assumptions about the human soul (that it also dies). Experimental science, in engaging with abstract objects such as geometric shapes, incomprehensible lines (meaning infinitely thin), and irrational numbers, reveals that the rational soul is a being of higher order than irrational bodies (animals). Boyle contrasts this with contemporary Aristotelian philosophy which claimed that the substantial form of the soul was tied inextricably with matter, such that human rational faculties differ only slightly (and only by degree) from animals like apes and elephants. Further, in Aristotelian philosophy, the rational faculties are “educated” out of the potentiality of matter and therefore die when the matter dies, thereby opening the door to atheistic arguments challenging the soul’s immortality. This argument should be a caution for us in the context of revitalized interest in Aristotle during our own day, and should appropriately temper our criticisms of the scientific revolution.
Boyle then returns to his defence of orthodox Christian belief by developing two key propositions, which if true, counter any notion that scientific rigor requires materialistic assumptions (and in fact, scientific rigor requires belief in natural religion).
In the first proposition, Boyle asserts that “We should believe various things based on the information provided by experience (whether immediate or indirect) that, without such information, we would deem unfit to believe or, prior to it, actually judge contrary to reason.” The key idea here is Boyle’s expansion of experience to vicarious sources (recall Stokes’ definition of faith - to believe something based on testimony). Experience is expansive in Boyle’s mind, and should be in ours. Consider that the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ, key elements of the Christian creed, might seem initially contrary to reason. Nonetheless, Christians believe in the resurrection because of experience, albeit vicarious experience. The Apostle John declares: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” Boyle points out that such belief is the same as believing in certain scientific principles based on experience, and equally valid.
In the second proposition, Boyle hammers home the point, saying that, “We should attach significant and specific importance to those things that are supported by our belief through experiences that have been substantiated as real, even if they fall outside the realm of the natural.” Here, Boyle treads on holy ground. The debate in the sciences is always about what counts as science and what doesn’t, and the tacit assumption is that only naturalistic explanations count as science. One may agree or disagree with that boundary for science; but Boyle sidesteps the question, pointing out that to expose one’s beliefs to the tribunal of experience, as a scientist ought to do, must lead one to adopt truths that are real, even if they are not naturalistic. Being a Christian virtuoso (experimental philosopher) necessarily obligates one to accept truth based on experience, whether or not that truth is material. To deny immaterial truth in the face of experience (including the experience arising from the testimony of trustworthy witnesses) is to lack sound reason.
And thus we confess, with the Westminster Divines: “There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions.”
Footnotes:
1: In reference to Romans 2:14-15. “Natural Religion as Distinguished from Revealed.” Dudlian Lecture at Harvard College, May 9th, 1759. Re-published by American Reformer: https://americanreformer.org/2024/09/natural-religion-as-distinguished-from-revealed/
2: A Shot of Faith to the Head, by Mitch Stokes, page 33. Thomas Nelson, 2012.
3: Namesake of Boyle’s Law: P1*V1 = P2*V2
4: Experimental Philosophy, also known as New, Cartesian, Real, Atomic, or Mechanical Philosophy.
The Christian Virtuosos, by Robert Boyle
by Tyson Schlect
“Credo ut intelligam.”
“I believe that I may understand.”
Anselm of Canterbury
Credulity is more natural to man than agnosticism, rendering every attempt of atheist polemics ultimately futile. Perhaps we ought to remember this when we feel we must defend belief in God (or more likely, defend a God-honoring political order). Atheists and secularists would attempt to compel all believers to prove that they are not somehow broken or devoid of reason, but in reality the burden of proof goes the other way; it is the atheist’s responsibility to prove that he is not broken in the head (and the secularist’s responsibility to prove that he has a head at all).
What does it mean, however, to suggest that credulity is natural to man? In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, orthodox Christians found themselves arguing in favor of something they called “natural religion” as a way of counteracting an emerging trend of deism and atheism which was arising, in part, from investigations in the new science (Newton, Descartes, Bacon). American reverend Ebenezer Gay referred to it in his 1759 Dudleian lecture at Harvard College: “Religion is divided into natural and revealed: Revealed Religion, is that which God hath made known to Men by the immediate Inspiration of his Spirit, the Declarations of his Mouth, and Instructions of his Prophets: Natural, that which bare Reason discovers and dictates: As ’tis delineated by the masterly Hand of St. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, in the Words of holy Scripture.” 1 Belief in God, for Gay and others like him, was not a blind commitment to arbitrary truth, but a necessary demonstration of human reason, commensurate with the end (or purpose) of man. Atheism and secularism are unnatural and unreasonable, in other words.
Dr. Mitch Stokes articulates a similar principle regarding natural belief-forming faculties, arguing that a natural willingness to believe something based on testimony (what he defines as faith) is the default, rational setting for human beings. “Credulity is a type of belief-forming mechanism, like sense perception, reason, and memory, so we can add it to our list of cognitive faculties. And, using our definition of rationality, we are rational in believing testimony insofar as our credulity mechanism is functioning properly in the appropriate environment.” 2
In his work entitled The Christian Virtuoso, the great Anglo-Irish chemist Robert Boyle 3 took the argument a step further, claiming that pursuing Experimental Philosophy (the new science) uniquely advantages one in becoming a better Christian, precisely because experimental philosophy encourages a proper functioning of the credulity mechanism. Boyle, in recalling an observation from Sir Francis Bacon, noted that, “God never performed miracles to convince atheists because He has already provided sufficient evidence of His existence and power in His visible works, if only they are not lacking in themselves.” In other words, a practitioner of experimental philosophy who does not recognize the power of God in His visible works lacks something. Broken in the head. A locked groove on your favorite jazz vinyl. Credulity mechanism not properly functioning.
A faithful Christian does not lack in this way, but adequately and rightly discerns God’s invisible attributes according to proper reason. Boyle says, “Experimental philosophy, by providing us with a clearer revelation of the divine excellences manifested in the structure and operation of the universe and its constituent creatures than those who are unfamiliar with it possess, greatly disposes [prevents] the mind to attribute such remarkable effects to a cause as inadequate and pitiful as blind chance or the chaotic collisions of atomical portions of insentient matter. Instead, it directs the mind directly towards the acknowledgement and adoration of a most intelligent, powerful, and benevolent Author, to whom these excellent productions may most fittingly be ascribed.” Thus, in Boyle’s estimation, rigorous engagement with experimental science makes firm the reasonable ground upholding initial principles of natural religion (God’s existence and key attributes), which are prerequisites for revealed religion in general. Boyle continues in another place: “If any of the practitioners of real philosophy 4 pervert it to support atheism, it is undoubtedly the fault of the individuals themselves, not the doctrine, which should be judged based on its inherent tendencies rather than the improper application some wicked people may make of it.”
Boyle proceeds to form a clever argument that commitment to experimental science leads one to reasonably believe in an immortal soul, whereas contemporary Aristotelian philosophy and traditional arguments about substance and nature had left the door open to materialistic assumptions about the human soul (that it also dies). Experimental science, in engaging with abstract objects such as geometric shapes, incomprehensible lines (meaning infinitely thin), and irrational numbers, reveals that the rational soul is a being of higher order than irrational bodies (animals). Boyle contrasts this with contemporary Aristotelian philosophy which claimed that the substantial form of the soul was tied inextricably with matter, such that human rational faculties differ only slightly (and only by degree) from animals like apes and elephants. Further, in Aristotelian philosophy, the rational faculties are “educated” out of the potentiality of matter and therefore die when the matter dies, thereby opening the door to atheistic arguments challenging the soul’s immortality. This argument should be a caution for us in the context of revitalized interest in Aristotle during our own day, and should appropriately temper our criticisms of the scientific revolution.
Boyle then returns to his defence of orthodox Christian belief by developing two key propositions, which if true, counter any notion that scientific rigor requires materialistic assumptions (and in fact, scientific rigor requires belief in natural religion).
In the first proposition, Boyle asserts that “We should believe various things based on the information provided by experience (whether immediate or indirect) that, without such information, we would deem unfit to believe or, prior to it, actually judge contrary to reason.” The key idea here is Boyle’s expansion of experience to vicarious sources (recall Stokes’ definition of faith - to believe something based on testimony). Experience is expansive in Boyle’s mind, and should be in ours. Consider that the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ, key elements of the Christian creed, might seem initially contrary to reason. Nonetheless, Christians believe in the resurrection because of experience, albeit vicarious experience. The Apostle John declares: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” Boyle points out that such belief is the same as believing in certain scientific principles based on experience, and equally valid.
In the second proposition, Boyle hammers home the point, saying that, “We should attach significant and specific importance to those things that are supported by our belief through experiences that have been substantiated as real, even if they fall outside the realm of the natural.” Here, Boyle treads on holy ground. The debate in the sciences is always about what counts as science and what doesn’t, and the tacit assumption is that only naturalistic explanations count as science. One may agree or disagree with that boundary for science; but Boyle sidesteps the question, pointing out that to expose one’s beliefs to the tribunal of experience, as a scientist ought to do, must lead one to adopt truths that are real, even if they are not naturalistic. Being a Christian virtuoso (experimental philosopher) necessarily obligates one to accept truth based on experience, whether or not that truth is material. To deny immaterial truth in the face of experience (including the experience arising from the testimony of trustworthy witnesses) is to lack sound reason.
And thus we confess, with the Westminster Divines: “There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions.”
Footnotes:
1: In reference to Romans 2:14-15. “Natural Religion as Distinguished from Revealed.” Dudlian Lecture at Harvard College, May 9th, 1759. Re-published by American Reformer: https://americanreformer.org/2024/09/natural-religion-as-distinguished-from-revealed/
2: A Shot of Faith to the Head, by Mitch Stokes, page 33. Thomas Nelson, 2012.
3: Namesake of Boyle’s Law: P1*V1 = P2*V2
4: Experimental Philosophy, also known as New, Cartesian, Real, Atomic, or Mechanical Philosophy.
Prayers to Pray at Home
Psalm 145:1-5
Lord, I cry out to You;
Make haste to me!
Give ear to my voice when I cry out to You.
Let my prayer be set before You as incense,
The lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.
Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth;
Keep watch over the door of my lips.
Do not incline my heart to any evil thing,
To practice wicked works
With men who work iniquity;
And do not let me eat of their delicacies.
Let the righteous strike me;
It shall be a kindness.
And let him rebuke me;
It shall be as excellent oil;
Let my head not refuse it.
~ King David
Lord, I cry out to You;
Make haste to me!
Give ear to my voice when I cry out to You.
Let my prayer be set before You as incense,
The lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.
Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth;
Keep watch over the door of my lips.
Do not incline my heart to any evil thing,
To practice wicked works
With men who work iniquity;
And do not let me eat of their delicacies.
Let the righteous strike me;
It shall be a kindness.
And let him rebuke me;
It shall be as excellent oil;
Let my head not refuse it.
~ King David
Posted in FamilyUpdate
Recent
Archive
2025