Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
by
Tyler Vela
May, 2009
1
The Noetic Affects and Effects of Sin and Grace
I. Introduction
When most theologians and philosophers think about the relation of sin and the nature
of man with respect to his ability to think and reason, the common way of framing it is
through the category known as the noetic effects of sin, (from the Greek word νοητικός,
for "intellect"). Claims are often made about the preservation or the impairment of one‘s
ability to think rationally before and after the human race was plunged into sin by the fall
of Adam. While this may be a helpful and fruitful way to talk about sin‘s impact on the
mind, it seems to leave a larger, more fundamental question unanswered. One can first
ask, what are the noetic affects of sin that are the root of the noetic effects of sin?
Surprisingly, this question has gone essentially unanswered, even in Reformed and
Calvinistic circles where this issue is frequently in the forefront. To bypass the question
ones, seems to be a hasty leap to make. Imagine someone being asked to describe some
sort of disease like cancer or AIDS, and rather than stating what the disease is and how it
affects the body, they describe it primarily by its symptoms. This symptomatic
description, while helpful in identifying the presence of the disease, would do little in
identifying the essence of the disease. This seems to be the case with sin and its impact
on the mind and reason of the human race. We must first know what sin is and how it
affects our minds, before we can possibly begin to formulate comprehensive statements
This distinction is also vital in understanding the cure to the problem of sin, namely,
grace. If sin is the cancer, then grace is the cure. And yet we cannot begin to describe
2
those who are under grace and manifest its effects, without first addressing what has been
affected in order to create those effects. However, even with this important distinction
now made, which will be pivotal in our understanding of how sin and grace affect us, we
must first answer the question, ―Who are we?‖ Sin and grace do not act upon a vacuum.
They act upon us and we are not blank pages. What is it in us that was lost at the fall, and
is regained in Christ?
In this passage we are told that mankind is created in the image of God. While this
simple fact is clear, the particulars of what it means to be made in the image of God are
not stated for us. Because of this, many theologians have debated what it actually means
to say that humans are created in the God‘s image. There are views that point to the
Others point to the dominion of man over the earth spoken of at the end of v26 as what
constitutes the image. Even others would point to the fact that God created humans ―male
and female‖ and state that it is only in our unity as a species that we best see the image of
God reflected.
Yet what seems strikingly obvious, but rarely mentioned, is that nothing can be said
about the nature of man without first making reference to God. Even Reformed
3
If we don‘t know that there is such a person as God, we don‘t know the first
thing (the most important thing) about ourselves, each other and our world.
That is because… the most important truths about us and them, is that we
have been created by the Lord, and utterly depend upon him for our continued
existence.1
Those who look to this passage and others in order to find what composes the image
of God in man, shockingly miss the simple point that it is precisely that we are made in
God’s image. We must ask, with Barth, how could we know man apart from divine
revelation?2 If we attempt to ask ―what is man‖ and respond with an answer that does not
first begin with the existence of God, we have already crippled our ability to define the
nature of man. Regardless of what else the image of God may entail, the root must always
be based on the nature of God. The fact that we are in an image should tell us that there is
something that we are imaging by which we derive our nature. Thus if the image entails
reason, it is because the nature of God is reasonable. If the image entails personality, it is
because the nature of God is personal. If the image entails us doing and thinking all
things in order to bring glory to God, it is because God does all things for His glory. If
the image entails man‘s dominion, it is because God, in his essence, is the absolute
sovereign. If the image entails our relations to others, and indeed, primarily to God
himself, it is because the nature of God is relational; our being is not rooted in some
relational with regard to Himself. Everything that the image entails is entirely derivative.
1
Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief. p217. Yet he will later contradict this when he states, contrary to
Calvin and Van Til‘s denial of common ground, ―Could I sensibly claim to know more logic than, say,
Willard van Orman Quine, even if I can‘t do anything but the simplest logic exercises, on the grounds that
at any rate I know something about logic and he, being an unbeliever, knows nothing at all about that
subject or indeed anything else?‖ The confusion for Plantinga may lie in the distinction between real and
formal knowledge which we will discuss later.
2
Berkouwer. Man: The Image of God. p91.
4
The ―I-Thou‖ paradigm of Brunner is immensely helpful here.3 According to Bruner,
―the human ‗I‘ has its origin in the divine ‗Thou‘.‖4 If anything, the image, which
separates us from the rest of creation, is not that of the ability to reason, but rather that of
psychologists as well, even though they attempt to make our self-awareness solely
humanistic. But this cannot be the case because it was God who created us to know that
we are distinct from Him, and yet created by Him; the paradigm is ―I-Thou‖ not ―I-It.‖5
Calvin speaks of the sensus divinatatis (hereafter SD) inherent in every human being.
That is to say, every human being has a sense of the divine; every human knows, to some
degree that the triune God exists. For Calvin this is partly because of general revelation,
but primarily the SD is an actual disposition that is placed in the mind of man by the
common grace of God to acknowledge Him.6 The problem that Calvin, and others who
follow after him, must then answer, is how is this SD retained in humanity even after its
While I would not want to deny the existence of the SD, I would differ from Calvin
on its source. It seems that Brunner‘s version of the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm is a more proper
foundation for the universal belief in God. To be made in the image of God means to be
self-aware of our own creaturely nature in relation to and derived from the nature of God
Himself. This requires then, that to think about ourselves is to think about God. This
3
While the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm was made famous by Buber, it is the reformatted form of Brunner that will
be dealt with in this paper. See Hynson, ―Theological Encounter: Brunner and Buber.‖ Journal of
Ecumenical Studies 12 no 3 Sum 1975, p349-366.
4
Hynson, ―Theological Encounter: Brunner and Buber.‖ Journal of Ecumenical Studies 12 no 3 Sum 1975,
p350.
5
―The ‗name‘ of God, used in the Old and New Testaments, suggests that God is a person. God is not an
―It‖ but is our primary ―Thou.‖ Hynson, ―Theological Encounter: Brunner and Buber.‖ Journal of
Ecumenical Studies 12 no 3 Sum 1975, p358.
6
―…God himself…has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead… a sense of deity is inscribed on
every heart.‖ Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion. p9.
5
should not be assumed to say more than it means, as if what is being argued for is some
to be aware that we are created beings who owe our existence to the Giver of Life. If we
cannot define man without first knowing that God exists and created us, then we cannot
be self-aware without being aware of the God who is. Even after the fall, ―man is, and
To this, we must also add that the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm is first and foremost a paradigm
of thought. It would be quite strange to feel the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm. This is not to say the
there will not be an emotional response to its truth or the attempted rejection of it, but it
would be primarily that: an emotional response to a cognitive truth. Wilson states, ―When
true, and he hates it as true.‖8 Self-awareness, and thus awareness of God, is the
Brunner, along with Barth, also saw the image of God as not only consisting of
attributes, but primarily as a relational standing between man and God. We were made in
covenant with God and remain in covenant with Him for all of eternity. Even our ability
to reason is a product of our covenant relationship to God. Van Til put it this way, ―All
his knowledge is analogical of God. God is the original knower and man is the derivative
7
Van Til. The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought. p8.
8
Wilson, ―Apologetics and the Heart‖ from Antithesis, 1.4 July/Aug. 1990.
9
Van Til claimed, ―For Adam in paradise God-consciousness could not come at the end of a syllogistic
process of reasoning. God consciousness was for him the presupposition of the significance of reasoning on
anything…even when he closed his eyes upon the external world his internal sense would manifest God to
him in his own constitution.‖ Bahnsen. Van Til‘s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis. p222.
10
Bahnsen. Van Til‘s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis. p229. (italics mine). Cf. p239, ―In paradise man‘s
knowledge was self-consciously analogical; man wanted to know the facts of the universe in order to fulfill
his task as covenant-keeper.‖
6
Thus the question becomes not, ―am I in a relationship with God,‖ but ―what kind of
relationship do I have with God?‖ Or, in other words, ―is the God who is near, near in
wrath or in grace?‖ The answer to that question will be based on whether or not the
Now that we have discussed what the image of God is, we can begin to look at the
noetic affects of sin upon it. Frequently the affects of sin upon the image of God are used
only to explain to physical illness and death. For all else we simply skip by the affects to
talk about the effects such as moral and ethical failure, the inability to trust God, and the
corruption of our ability to reason, which is most fully expressed in our rejection of Jesus
Christ (Immanuel: God with us). But if the image of God is primarily the self-awareness
within the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm, then the affects of sin upon that state are disastrous. This
paradigm is precisely what is destroyed. When Eve was tempted by the serpent in the
garden, and when Adam later ate of the fruit, they did not perform simple acts of
rebellion. The temptation ―you will be like God‖ (Gen. 3:5) was not a statement that
humans would actually become deities, but rather that they would become autonomous,
―knowing good and evil‖ on their own without reference to God. Rather than accepting
God at His word, Eve stood in judgment over it and attempted to understand it with
reference to herself: the creature attempted to stand in judgment over her Creator.11
Rather than holding to the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm of her being, she plugged the ears of her
soul and like a small child ignoring her parents shouted repeatedly, ―I! I! I!‖ In turning
11
―In other words, are the accused qualified to give judgments about the existence of the judge?‖ Wilson,
―Apologetics and the Heart‖ from Antithesis, 1.4 July/Aug. 1990. The see this further illustrated, think of
the absurdity that the world witnessed when Saddam Hussein attempted to deny the courts authority to
judge and punish him while he was being tried.
7
away from God, Adam and Eve, and their entire race after them, were actually attempting
to commit ontological suicide. If what makes us human is that we are created in the
image of God, then to deny God is to deny the very thing makes us human. Sin seeks to
destroy and in our case, we willing participate in the attempt to annihilate ourselves.
Now we can see that sin does not destroy our ability to reason or to have
relationships, but rather, removes the very foundation for them and thus distorts our
ability to apply them to the glory of God. This is commonly called the wider and the
narrower senses of the image of God; the wider being the actual faculties such as reason
and emotion, and the narrower being the proper use of those faculties to bring glory and
honor to God. Yet we must also assert that there is one more level that precedes these two
senses of the image: God. Since it is the nature of God that is the defining aspect of our
own nature, then to deny God‘s existence is to deny the very basis and justification for
the use of those faculties which accompany it. J. Budziszewski states it like this:
Visualize a man opening up the access panels of his mind and pulling out all
the components that have God's image stamped on them. The problem is that
they all have God's image stamped on them, so the man can never stop. No
matter how much he pulls out, there's still more to pull.12
Thus for a person to use their reason, they must use it inconsistently. They must use their
God given reason in order to reason away God.13 They lose the basis for their ability to
When we live autonomously and seek to explain anything without reference to God, we
undercut our faculties and eliminate their foundation, which is in the nature of God.
12
Budziszewski. ―Escape From Nihilism‖ http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9801/budziszewski.html
13
This is precisely what was intended in Van Til‘s illustration of a child needing to sit on her father‘s lap in
order to slap her father‘s face.
8
Edwards put it this way, ―A man that sets himself to reason without divine light is like a
man that goes in the dark into a garden full of the most beautiful plants, and most artfully
ordered, and compares things together by going from one thing to another to feel of them
all, to perceive their beauty.‖14 Thus we can say that the noetic affect of sin is the
distortion of the mind which was once firmly rooted in the ―I-Thou‖ relationship and
sought to understand and do all things with reference to God the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, into a mind that blindly screams ―I!‖ and seeks to do all things with reference
Paul addresses this in Colossians 1:21 when he states that because of our sin we
were ―once alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds.‖ It is important to note that it
is only after this noetic hostility that Paul states that we do evil deeds as well. Our
immorality and wicked deeds are not the primary grounds for our separation from God,
as some would say, but rather the hostile mind that is behind them. Jesus said that, ―out of
the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks,‖ (Mt. 12:34). Paul in 1 Timothy 1:10,
having listed a plethora of evil deeds, does not contrast wickedness with goodness, but
rather says that wickedness is ―contrary to sound doctrine.‖ That is, evil is not only
antithetical to good, but also to truth. Thus Paul can say of those who do not believe, ―by
their unrighteousness [they] suppress the truth‖ (Rom. 1:18). These people clearly know
God: ―For what can be known about God is plain to them‖ (v18), his divine attributes
have been ―clearly perceived…in the things that have been made‖ (v20), ―they knew
God‖ (v21), and ―they know God‘s decree‖ (v32). What is destroyed by the fall is not
knowledge or our ability to reason, but rather our ability to reason about all things with
reference to God and to rightly align ourselves under what we know to be so, because we
14
Olipint, ―Jonathan Edwards: Reformed Apologist,‖ in Westminster Theological Journal 57 (1995), p179.
9
seek to suppress the truth to maintain our own autonomy. It is because of this slide into
autonomy that they ―became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were
darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools…‖ (v21-22). The unbeliever is not
stupid, but foolish. We have a glimpse into this in the testimony of J. Budziszewski who
When some people flee from God they rob and kill. When others flee from
God they do a lot of drugs and have a lot of sex. When I fled from God I
didn't do any of those things; my way of fleeing was to get stupid. Though
it always comes as a surprise to intellectuals, there are some forms of
stupidity that one must be highly intelligent and educated to commit. God
keeps them in his arsenal to pull down mulish pride, and I discovered them
all.15
account for the noetic effects of sin.16 When theologians attempt to claim that sin affected
our faculty of reason and thus we have become faulty receivers for the revelation of God
in nature, they create more problems than they solve.17 While it is true that we no longer
receive rightly the declaration of God‘s eternal attributes in nature, it is not due to broken
The unbeliever can reason that 1+1=2, that an apple is not a bird, that green is not a
shape, and can correctly apply the laws of logic and inference. They can design buildings,
and dutiful children. Westphal adds a helpful insight on this point, ―correct beliefs can be
15
Budziszewski. ―Escape From Nihilism‖ http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9801/budziszewski.html
16
―Man‘s receiving apparatus functions wrongly.‖ Dowey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin‘s Theology.
p73.
17
Reid asks a pertinent question here, ―Why, sir, should I believe my faculty of reason more than that
perception? –they came both out of the same shop, and were made by the same artist; and if he puts one
piece of false ware into my hands, what would hinder him from putting another?‖ Plantinga, Warranted
Christian Belief. p221. Cf. the context of Westphal‘s statement ―creation does a full day‘s work while the
fall is only asked to put in a cameo appearance.‖ Moroney, The Noetic Effects of Sin. p78.
10
as useful in suppressing the truth as incorrect ones.‖18 So the problem is not that they
cannot reason, but that they do or think everything without reference to God and thus the
doctrine of total inability: they can do nothing pleasing to God while still in their sin
because nothing is done to the glory of God. They have what Van Til called formal
knowledge; that is, they have the appearance but not the substance. We have seen a prime
example of this in our discussion concerning the image of God in man. To say that the
image consists of man‘s ability to reason is, in fact, formally correct. And yet it is, at the
very least, an inadequate understanding because it denies the first thing that must be
known about man before any definition of man can be made: God made him. To say that
2+2=4 without reference to God (either explicitly or implicitly) is formally correct and
yet does not acknowledge the first thing that must be known about that very basic
equation: that it is true because of whom God is. All of creation was created by God and
thus it is ―in him we live and move and have our being‖ (Acts 17:28). Yet to do science,
mathematics, logic, art, eat, sleep, make love, or feed the poor, without reference to God
is like a broken clock. It has the appearance of the correct time twice a day, and yet even
at its best, it is still a broken clock that is not a trustworthy means to tell time. It takes a
properly functioning clock, that does not only formally show the right time, to be a
Yet we can still ask why someone would want to suppress the truth about God if it is
so glorious? First we should say that it begins from their conception. We are born already
18
Merold Westphal, "Taking St. Paul Seriously: Sin as an Epistemological Category." p218.
19
Here even the Ligonier‘s are in agreement: ―It would appear that both [believer and unbeliever] enjoy
universal understanding of the daffodil… [but] The believer acknowledges the significance of that daffodil,
not as a cosmic accident, but as something that in itself bears witness to the majesty and beauty of the
Creator God. This the unbeliever does not acknowledge, positing, instead, a completely opposite and
antithetical understanding of the daffodil‘s significance.‖ Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God. pp235-
236.
11
denying that existence of the ―Thou,‖ in order to be autonomous standards of truth,
beauty, and morality unto ourselves. However, as we get older, we become exceedingly
We commonly think that sin is something we do, but as we have seen, it originates in
the mind. Sin is not principally in our behavior, although this is where the clearest
examples are to be found. Rather, sin is primarily a function of our thoughts. Genesis 6:5
is crucial for our understanding on this point: ―The LORD saw that the wickedness of
man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only
evil continually.‖ The Lord‘s evaluation of prediluvian humanity was not an indictment
upon the wickedness of their actions, (though we could assume that they were acting
wickedly), but rather it was their noetic activity (the ―intentions of the thoughts‖) that
was viewed as wicked.21 So if our spiritual inability and death originates in the mind,
We saw previously that our sin is not only an affront to the holiness of God, but is
also an attempt at self-annihilation. Thankfully for us, ―the essence of man (his relation to
20
Plantinga. Warranted Christian Belief. p215.
21
Zemek. ―Aiming the Mind Grace Theological Journal, 5.2 (1984) p216.
22
―The sanctifying process is concerned primarily with attitudes of mind rather than actions. This is
supplemented by the view that right action will follow right thought.‖ Guthrie, NT Theology. p662
12
God) is not annihilated by ungodliness – due to God.‖23 It is by God‘s grace that we do
not, at any given moment, blink out of existence. According to Van Til, ―since
[humanity] could not cut itself loose form God metaphysically and since God, for the
purpose of realizing his plan of redemption, rudea [lump] or scintillae [spark] of the
knowledge of God and of the universe remain in him.‖24 So now that we know what was
What is needed to repair the fallen condition of the soul requires nothing less than the
provision of the Great Physician:25 ―I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit
within you‖ (Ezek. 36:26). In the New Testament, we are told that in Christ, the image of
God in us is renewed. But more than that, we are told that what God conforms us to is not
Adam, but to ―the image of His Son‖ (Rom. 8:29). Thus Barth declares that our
We are told that Christ is ―the image of the invisible God‖ (Col. 1:15), he is the
―exact imprint of [God‘s] nature‖ (Heb. 1:3), and even more frankly, that he is ―the image
of God‖ (2 Cor. 4:4). Christ was the true Adam who did not act autonomously and thus
plunge the species into death, but rather was the only man to do all things to the glory of
God, thought all things with reference to God, and looked to God in all things as the
source of truth, justice, beauty, and good. From the day of his birth to the day of his death
on the cross, Jesus perfectly lived within the ―I-Thou‖ paradigm without slipping into
autonomy. We see that even the Divine Christ sought to understand all things with
23
Berkouwer. Man: The Image of God. p93.
24
Van Til, The Defense of the Faith. p49.
25
Zemek. ―Aiming the Mind‖ from Grace Theological Journal, 5.2 (1984) p206.
26
Berkouwer. Man: The Image of God. p89.
13
reference to God when he said, ―even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I
alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me‖ (John 8:16). ―Into the solitariness of
the ‗Thou-less I‘ God has stepped as ‗Thou,‘… the monologue of existence…has become
regenerates us, when he restores us to the natural ―I-Thou‖ relationship to himself, what
First, we should continue to see this largely taking place not in the emotions or in the
realm of personal mystical experience. We should not even see this as having its genesis
in the moral life of the believer, although this will be seen as an effect of grace. It is
astonishing to see that repeatedly in the New Testament when we are exhorted to put on
the new self or to be transformed, the emphasis is almost exclusively on the mind. When
we are ―taught in [Jesus],‖ we are ―renewed in the spirit of [our] minds‖ (Eph. 4:21, 23);
the natural man cannot accept the things of God because they are spiritually discerned,
but the believer can because ―we have the mind of Christ‖ (1 Cor. 2:16); and Paul urges
us ―not to be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind‖
Paul does not tell the Philippians to primarily act truthfully, honorably, justly, etc. but
rather to think about true, honorable, just, pure, lovely things. It is in our thoughts that the
God of peace is with us. Only after our mind is transformed in one area, will the
27
Hynson, ―Theological Encounter: Brunner and Buber.‖ Journal of Ecumenical Studies 12 no 3 Sum
1975, p358.
14
corresponding actions be as well. Calvin put it this way, ―For how can the idea of God
enter your mind without instantly giving rise to the thought, that since you are his
workmanship, you are bound, by the very law of creation, to submit to his authority? That
your life is due to him? That whatever you do ought to have reference to him?‖28
Another prominent place in the New Testament that we see this truth is in Colossians
1:21. We saw this verse before but are now prepared to draw out another aspect of what
Paul was saying. Notice here that Paul says that we ―once were alienated from God and
hostile in mind, doing evil deeds.‖ The enthymic premise in Paul‘s argument is that we
are no longer alienated from God and hostile in mind because we have been reconciled to
God. The mind must be the first point of renewal when a person comes to a saving
knowledge of Christ because it is the faculty that is used in order to live under the ―I-
Thou‖ paradigm. If God did not first transform the mind, but rather kept us from lusting
or being greedy for gain, we would immediately fall back into condemnation because we
would instantly seek self-annihilation through autonomy. Instead, the Lord affirms in us
that ―the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge‖ (Prov. 1:7). Here we agree with
Anselm who wrote that the image of God in him ―is so effaced and worn away by my
faults, it is so obscured by the smoke of my sins, that it cannot do what it was made to do
(think of God and love God), unless Thou renew and reform it.‖29
Thus it is proper to speak primarily of the noetic affects of grace. Renewal, first and
foremost, occurs in the mind. Once this renewal has occurred, it is then, and only then
28
Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion. p8.
29
Moroney, The Noetic Effects of Sin. p126. Here it cannot be overstated that this is only possible by the
work of the Holy Spirit apart from our striving. Due to our sin and the rejection of God‘s existence, (either
in thought or practice) we are unable to come to a right knowledge of God apart from illumination. I am
reminded of Søren Kierkegaard who ―lamented that becoming aware of our own sin is like trying to see our
own eyeballs.‖ Moroney, The Noetic Effects of Sin. p81.
15
that we can act in accordance with the nature of God. It is only from the affects of grace
that we can come to a full understanding of the effects of grace. It is only when God
renews our minds and moves us from a poor relationship with Him where He is near in
wrath, to a good relationship with Him, where He is near in grace, that we can believe on
Jesus Christ, abstain from sins of the flesh, and love our neighbors as ourselves.
V. Conclusion
As we have seen, that the existence of God is the primary epistemological category
for understanding not only the nature of man, but also the affects and effects of sin and
grace upon humanity. What was lost at the fall was not our ability to reason, but our
ability to reason, or do anything at all to the glory of God, because we now seek to be an
authority unto ourselves without reference to God. In doing so we eliminate the very
thing that must be known in order to say anything of value: God is. Thus the only cure for
our condition is that God would condescend and be made like us, take on the image of
God and redeem our minds back to Himself by grace. We have seen that the fall
primarily occurred in the mind, and that our regeneration begins there as well. Hopefully
this paper will be the impetus into further study into the Scriptures regarding the noetic
16
Bibliography
17
22. Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
23. Snoeberger, Mark A. ―Noetic Sin, Neutrality, And Contexualization: How Culture
Receives the Gospel,‖ Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 9 (2004) pp345-378.
24. Stott, John R.W. The Message of Romans. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press,
1994.
25. Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburgs, NJ: P&R Publishing,
1980.
26. ________________, The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought. Phillipsburgs, NJ:
P&R Publishing, 1971.
27. Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 1-15. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1987.
28. Westphal, Merold. "Taking St. Paul Seriously: Sin as an Epistemological Category,"
in Christian Philosophy. ed. T. P. Flint; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1990
29. Wilson, Douglas. ―Apologetics and the Heart,‖ Antithesis 1.4 July/Aug. (1990)
30. Wingard Jr., John C. ―Sin and Skepticism about the Trustworthiness of Our Cognitive
Endowment,‖ in Philosophia Christi 6.2 (2004). pp249-262.
31. Zemek Jr., George J. ―Aiming the Mind Grace Theological Journal, 5.2 (1984)
pp205-227.
18