Meditations on the Divine Philosophy of Education

I. Building a Philosophy
A. The Initial Evidence
B. Metaphysics
C. Epistemology
D. Axiology
1. Ethics -- Values in regard to Morality
2. Aesthetics -- Values in regard to Pleasantry
3. Meaning -- Values in regard to Purpose
II. Revelations Regarding Education
A. A Further Development of Metaphysics
1. Anthropology Related to Theology
2. Anthropology Related to Divine Axiology
3. The Devil and Evil Spirits
4. The Holy Spirit
B. A Further Development of Epistemology
1. Authorized Use of Secondary Sources
a. Educational Methods and Empiricism
b. Educational Methods and Rationalism
c. Educational Methods and Authority
d. Educational Methods and Tradition
2. Challenges to the Spirit
3. Intelligent Leaps in the Dark vs. Faith
C. Divine Axiology Revealed in Models
1. The Relation of Axiology to Methods
a. Models Show Values
b. Values Revealed by Methods
2. The Eden Model
a. Education Done Well
b. Education Done Very Ill
c. Education Adapted to Needs of Erring
3. The Jewish Economy Model
4. The Bible-Biography Model
5. The Model of Jesus as a Teacher
6. The Anti-Model of Jewish Higher Educational Practices
7. Desired Outcomes in Divine Educational Practice
III. Practical Implications for Seventh-day Adventist Educational Practice
IV. Impractical Implications for Seventh-day Adventist Educational Practice

Section One: Initial Evidence

What is true? And how may we know what is true? These two great questions have often been placed in
such a relation to each other as to make a dilemma. To find the answer to the first (What is true?) we must
have a precisely proper method. In other words, to find the answer to the first question, we must know the
answer to the second.

But to begin with the second is simply guess work. Our method is part of the “truth” that we are unable to
find until we have a method for finding it. Will the Bible tell us? That depends on whether it is true. So how
do we find that precisely proper method? That true method, the one that works, is needed to find…itself. 1

1
The question “What is true?” defines that field of philosophy known as metaphysics. The latter question,
“How may we know what is true?” defines another field, epistemology. The struggle between them has
often been called the epistemological-metaphysical dilemma.
Society has grappled with this question briefly. It seems more compelling in a philosophy classroom than in
a sawmill or barbershop. How can we learn how to make a deck-table? By listening to a knowledgeable
instructor. How may we learn to cut hair? By taking a class, or by watching an expert. In either case we
assumed the answer to the second question. By trusting men in authority, or men with rank and education,
we may know.

Nor is the dilemma very perplexing in the flower-arranging business. What is the best way to arrange the
flowers? The way that sells. The way the customers or the arranger prefers. We make the standard and
measure our work by it.

But there are a series of other questions, deeper and fraught with greater consequences, that are not
answered well with assumptions. How do we know that there is a God? That He has moral laws? That there
is meaning to life? How can we understand the cause of suffering? The origin of life? Truthfulness or
faultiness of the Book of Mormon, the Koran, Early Writings, or Job?

In this series of articles we will endeavor to build a philosophy of education in a way that appeals to our
reason. Is it possible that we could start with zero pre-conceived opinions? Could we approach the question
without thinking that we already know the answer?

I have worked through the problems I present here and can say with confidence that, among other things,
the book Early Writings is inspired. Its testimony is a trustworthy source of truth. By reading it we may
learn a great deal about the universe, God, and other philosophical questions. But I do not ask you to take
my word for it. As we are not close to demonstrating the truthfulness of the book, I am challenged to know
where to begin with you.

We will begin with a hypothetical situation that mimics our own. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that we
are angels living some ages ago. God has informed us that He has lived forever. From Him we have heard
that the Word of His mouth created us. We are instructed that He is love. His laws are for our best interest.
Our highest happiness depends on obedience.

And then suppose that not one of us, the angels, has ever witnessed an act of creation.

How could we evaluate the truthfulness of the assertions of this Being that we (since our first moment of
remembered existence) have known as God. Can we be sure that, in light of His superior powers and
intellect, he has not altered our memory to serve His own purposes?

And if one of us begins suggesting that the distance from the highest angel to the position of Divinity was
not so wide as to be an impasse, that by freedom and the growth in knowledge and power that freedom
brings, we might become like the Most High, how could we be confident that his assertions were false?

To just believe God (have faith) seems like a short circuit. Unless there is significant evidence that God is
truthful, to believe Him over that angel is nothing more or less than an assumption.

So that is where some angels begin. They examine the evidence presented by the disaffected one and
conclude that it is cogent.

Others start thinking like this:

All the universe is perfectly adapted to make me happy. The flowers and fruits fill me with delight.
Though possessing immense power, God has never done anything but to help me. The detailed work of
making the intricate designs on even the smallest creatures is evidence that He made efforts for my
pleasure.

And God claims to know the future. If He does, then He alone can see what course of action will lead to
happiness and what course will lead into the unknown. The evidence of all creation points to the eternal
power and love of God. If He is all powerful and lovely, then it is reasonable to believe Him. As my reason
indicates that He knows the future, to depart from His counsel is to risk an unintended future. If His
intended future for me was the best, than any unintended future would be less than that.

The ideas, in short, are that evidence abounds in Creation that God is powerful and that He is love (I am
speaking of the situation of hypothetical angels, not of our own). To believe God is to step in the direction
that is lit by the body of evidence. That is faith.

And to disbelieve is to take a leap into the dark.

Our hypothesized angels, what assumptions did they make? They made this one: That their senses and
experiences were real. If someone would chide them for that jump we would reply that their situation
demanded a conclusion. In that case, to assume that you are living in a dream would be too silly and human
to impute to an angel.

What about our situation? If we start with the same assumption (that we are not in a dream. That we really
exist) we can start collecting evidence to answer our two first questions. The reality of existing religions
and existing atheists might point us to the question, “Is there a God?” Asking the right questions can save
us so much time. If someone asked us how we arrived at those questions, we might answer “we don’t
know.” We do not need to defend our questions. It is our answers that need defending.

For the sake of time, I will share a possible series of questions and the answers that would rest best on the
evidence (as I see it).

Is there a God? Probably.

Is He loving and involved in our life? Perhaps.
Do the gods of the various religions make claims that can be verified? Some do.

That last question is related to the second. God, who knows are needs and the brevity of our life, has not
left to each individual human the task of evaluating all the evidences of creation and declaring for or
against belief in God. Rather, He has (in the Bible) made a number of claims that can be readily and
quickly tested. They are the various prophecies of Daniel and others. And the book makes other claims that
answer our questions regarding truth.

In short, the prophecies of Daniel are an entry-level test for the validity of the Bible’s claims. They claim to
predict the rise and fall of world empires. They place various future events on a time-line spanning two
millennia and accurate to the nearest six months.2

If we dive into the sea of ethical questions, questions such as “is it morally wrong to kill a man? Kills a
cow? Kill a carrot?” we find ourselves over our head immediately. Only one that can see the end from the
beginning is capable of making moral restrictions that do not savor of arbitrary authority. Only such a One
can know in Himself what conduct will lead to life and joy.

The God of the Bible claims to be such a God. If we find the Bible to be worthy of our trust, then its
statements rise through the deeps. The dry land appears. We can take a moral stand without sinking in the
sand.

In another article, called “The Draft” I have developed this idea further. I will not do it here again. That
article may be found at canvassing.org/docs. Ideas demonstrated in that article are assumed in the articles
that follow. They include the definition and development of certain ideas including faith, justice, and
righteousness.

2
Anyone reading this essay and doubting the veracity of this paragraph…a paragraph upon which the rest
of the entire series hangs, is invited to contact the author for a great deal more information that does not
well fall into the scope of these articles. My e-mail address is canvassing@canvassing.org. See also
ohc.org.
Metaphysics

The sum of what has been written so far is this: Those that examine the evidences found in the Bible’s
prophetic writings have evidence enough to believe the Bible’s claims. Such belief does not rest on proof,
but on evidence. Any other belief, by those that have examined the same evidence, is set in opposition to
the evidence. The non-believer must, in that case, assume full responsibility for his unbelief.

Once we have established the initial evidence of prophecy and built a foundation on the same, we are ready
to address key questions about “What is truth?” from the Bible. God does exist. His nature is timeless. His
character is self-sacrificing tough love. There are angels. There are demons, and Satan at their head. There
are entities called grace, love, faith, sin, justice, that exist by virtue of God’s foreknowledge.

Epistemology

And the Bible claims a unity that relegates high-criticism to the pile of human arrogancies. It claims to be
inspired through and through. It claims:

To be so simple that a wayfaring man, though a fool, can understand and obey it
To be beyond the ken of the wise men. They can not understand it without submitting to God.
To be preserved from a mixture of human errors and Divine truths
To be accurate in foretelling the future
To be accurate in describing the events of the past
To be its own expositor
To be the basis for evaluating all other claims to inspiration

Other claims of the Bible include its history of self-assembly. The Bible put itself together.3

On the basis of its statements regarding the gift of prophecy given to the Christian church, Christians have
an expanded basis for their knowledge of truth. The statements of true prophets, evaluated in the light of the
Holy Bible, are authoritative for the church. They are not to be despised. They are the Testimony of Jesus.
Ellen White made claims to an Inspiration that demand Biblical evaluation. If she passes the test, then her
writings are enforced by the Biblical doctrine of non-canonical prophets. If she fails, then we are warned to
beware of her influence.

There has been much confusion among those that acknowledge her gift. In what sense was she the lessor
light? I have examined some of statements in regard to that point in an article entitled “Ellen White as the
Lessor Light” available at www.canvassing.org/docs.

3
The first written item was the Ten Commandments. The giving of this Law was such a spectacle of power
that even Moses said “I do exceedingly fear and tremble.” The writing was the “writing of God.” It was
believed because it was reasonable in the light of the upheavals that surrounded it. All subsequent
revelations were evaluated in the light of this one. When the Bible cannon was ready to be closed, the
prophet John prophesied that the first century Christians would correctly identify the prophetic writings of
their times. (See Revelation 2). Thus every book was evaluated by its predecessors. And the first generation
Christians, on the authority of the Book itself, correctly put it together.