Godschalk Rosemondt, Erasmus, and Bosch introduced Humanism during the Renaissance. In Bosch’s ‘Wedding Feast At Cana’ we see members of the Swan Brethren taking part is Jesus’ wedding feast he and his mother are conducting. Marriages are Human Events. A resurrected Jesus has returned to Family traditions. Ordinary men can now take part in a very social and divine event that suggests the promised Kingdom of God – has arrived. Artists can now look behind the curtain and reveal heaven and earth and moral reasoning. The Vicar of Christ who is supposed to be the only living presence of the Christ on earth, now has company. Sophia has come to the common man via a marriage feast. Man can now see the world through the eyes of God. A common man can even speak for God which is the very idea that the true evangelicals spread all over the world. Today, only candidates for the Holy Republican party are endowed with the All Seeing Eye – and Mouth! To tell lies for the Good of God – is the order of the day. The Christian-right hates Humanists! This is why they will destroy Secular Society when they take the White House – starting with the Social Safety Net.

The Christian-rigt has declared war on PBS and Hollywood that saw Godschallks kindred, Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor, as its Queen, the Sophia Rose of the World. Bosch’s eye is a camera lense that brings God to earth and allows the common man to behold himself as God beholds him. See the closed rose as the shutter of a camera – that captures beauty!

If the movie camera existed, then the Swan Brethren would have been a film crew, and Bosch, the Art Director. The Director would have been Godschalk Rosemondt – who does a walk on in Bosch’s masterpiece. The image of Rosemondt was removed by the Inquisistion. However, the Swan Brethren came through the Portal of Time to capture beauty with their wide open rose lens in the movie ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ a movie that Bosch hatched long ago. It is said Ersamus lay the egg that Luther hatched
Here is the new Renaissance that came together in the Name of the Rose:

Jessie and Susan Benton
Thomas Hart Benton
Garth Benton
Christine Rosamond Benton
Drew Benton
Jon Presco
Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor

I have warned you for years! Repent – and use your mind!

Jon the Nazarite

Erasmus was a classical scholar who wrote in a pure Latin style. He was an early proponent of religious toleration, and enjoyed the sobriquet “Prince of the Humanists”; he has been called “the crowning glory of the Christian humanists”.[2] Using humanist techniques for working on texts, he prepared important new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament. These raised questions that would be influential in the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation. He also wrote The Praise of Folly, Handbook of a Christian Knight, On Civility in Children, Copia: Foundations of the Abundant Style, Julius Exclusus, and many other works.

[edit] Discipulo
In 1560 Felipe de Guevara wrote about a pupil of Bosch, a “discipulo”, who was as good as his master and even signed his works with his name.[2] Immediately after this, and without starting a new paragraph, De Guevara refers to the painting of the Seven Deadly Sins as characteristic of his style. This brought some scholars, as early as Dollmayr in 1898, to ascribe the work to this pupil, but most of them have argued, in spite of the context, that De Guevara had returned here to a description of the works of Bosch himself. For long the painting was considered therefore to be a work from Bosch’s youth. Several of the costumes however suggest a much later date, around 1500. This, together with the recent dendrochronological dating of many of Bosch’s own panels, the fact that this work has not been painted on oak and the fact that aberrant techniques are used – like the use of a ruler – have revived the idea that the painting is not by Bosch himself.
[edit] Summary
In the painting, each sin has its own scene, in the pride scene, a demon is shown holding a mirror in front a woman. In anger, a man is about to kill a woman symbolizing murder as an effect of wrath. The small circles also have details. In Death of Sinner, death is shown at the doorstep along with an angel and a demon while the priest says the sinner’s Last Rites, In Glory, the saved are entering Heaven, with Jesus and the saints, at the gate of Heaven an Angel prevents a demon from ensnaring a woman. Saint Peter is shown as the gatekeeper. In Judgment Christ shown in glory while angels wake up the dead and in Hell demons torment sinners according to their sins. Examples include: gluttony a demon “feeds” a man food of hell. Another example is greed where misers are boiled in a pot of gold.

The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things is a painting attributed to Hieronymus Bosch, completed around 1500 or later. The painting is oil on wood panels. The painting is presented in a series of circular images.
Four small circles, detailing “Death of the sinner”, “Judgement”, “Hell”, and “Glory”, surround a larger circle in which the seven deadly sins are depicted: wrath at the bottom, then (proceeding clockwise) envy, greed, gluttony, sloth, extravagance (later, lust), and pride in scenes from everyday life rather than allegorical representations of the sins.[1]
At the centre of the large circle, which is said to represent the eye of God, is a “pupil” in which Christ can be seen emerging from his tomb. Below this image is the Latin inscription Cave Cave Deus Videt (“Beware, Beware, God Sees”).
Above and Below the central image are inscription in Latin of Deuteronomy 32:28-29, containing the lines “For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them,” above, and “O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!” below.

,

Confession Godschalk’s book Rosemondt, 1554
This book is known as the Latin version of the confession Godschalk book Rosemondt.

This Rosemondt was a theology professor who worked Eindhoven Godschalk and lived in Leuven. He died in 1526. His exact date of birth is not known but is around 1483. To his acquaintances included a.o. Erasmus and Pope Adrian VI. The confession book is published at Leuven in 1554 but the first edition dates from 1518. The beautifully ornate book band dates from 1575. The book is written in Latin and covers mainly the seven deadly sins and is a theological and sacramentlogische effects of confession. In addition, one can see the book as a scholastic and scientific work that especially intended for theology students and scholars who obviously Latin mighty were.

http://www.rhc-eindhoven.nl/ontdek/3/Biechtboek_van_Godschalck_Rosemondt_1554.htm

extraordinary professor of theology in 1515 and ordinary professor in 1520. For the half-year August 1520-February 1521 he was rector of the university and it was at this time that he was in communication with Erasmus (cf. Allen Ep. 1153, 1164 & 1172), who called him in one letter: “Vir melior quam pro vulgari sorte theologorum”. Rosemondt was less dogmatic than most inquisitors and his writings have been compared with those of Erasmus. He was also known as an eloquent vicar and friend of the Dutch Pope Adrian VI.
Between 1516 and 1519 he composed many devotional works, all but the Confessionale in Dutch. The Confessionale is partially a translation of the Boecxken van der Biechten but is far more detailed and lengthy. It shares some of its content as well as its amiable tone with the Boecxken, published one year earlier. The content reflects the fact that it is intended for a better-educated reader. It is the first book in which the Summa of Thomas Aquinas is used for resolving conflicts of conscience. For his audacious statements in chapter XX, ‘De excommunicatione’ Rosemondt was rebuked by Pope Benedict XIV, who considered the book to be in discord with the views of the church. Although Rosemondt based his arguments on old concepts of Catholic clerical law, he expanded these principles to a much greater extent than the church was prepared to accept. The conrector of the Latin School at Antwerp, Levinus Linius (+1533) contributed a laudatory poem, printed on the verso of the title. Tentler considers the Confessionale as ‘A work of learning and pastoral wisdom’.

Rosemondt, Gottschalk Roesmont]
ROSEMONDT (Gottschalk Roesmont), geb. Eindhoven around 1480, from a wealthy family, died. Leuven 5 Dec. 1526, studied there in the pedagogy de Valk, when he joined the promotion der philosophie 1502 the third place. At the beginning of his theological studies, he went to live in the college of the Holy Spirit, but was soon recalled to the Falcon in order to teach the philosophie. 1509 he was accepted in the Council of the University. Only degree he was included in the ‘ strict college ‘ der Faculty of theology 1 Oct. 1515, after he ceded the kanunnikdij obtained by den professor Crabbe. The next year he obtained the doctorate and 1520 he became rector of University chosen and as he welcomed zoodanig den Emperor during his visit to Leuven. The implementers of the testament of Pope Adrian VI appointed him 8 Nov 1524 as president of the college, founded in the House of den d. Pope, who his counsel had been. He operated it until his death. He was also Director of the Sisters of the leuvensche Guest House, where he was buried. His epitaph, now disappeared, is listed at Paquot, Biogr. NAT. and Grand Théatre Sacré the Brab. I, 131-132. He was known as an eloquent preacher. He gave up teaching and seven public foundation in the booklets nederlandsche taal, reprinted. Dr. de Vreese gives an accurate and comprehensive list of these works in Biogr. NAT. latijnsch Rosemondt A bold goals about the design of excommunicatio latae sententiae include Confessionale, later refuted by Pope Benedict XIV. His works attracted the attention of not only the bibliographers, Miraeus, Valerius, Andreas, Foppens confused, le Long, Moes, Amsterdamsche Printing cherry, Nijhoff, Bibliographie de la Typogr. Néerl. 1500-1540, but also of other writers as a. Troelstra, the State of catechesis in Netherlands-reformatische during the ceuw (Gron. 1901); D.C. Tinbergen, Des Coninx Summe (Gron. 1900) 156-160, 181; Pijper, Gesch. der penalty and Confession in the Christian Church (Hague 1908) II, 311-316.

7 Nov 1519 condemned the theological faculty, including Rosemondt, several theorems of Luther. If opponent he pulled his followers on the hatred of the neck. Rosemondt performed on several occasions as Inquisitor; with r. Tapper and NIC. Coppyn, he was sent to the Hague to pronounce judgment on Pistorius. At the trial he would, according to the story of Gnapheus with a ridiculous goedmoedigheid appointed (p. Fredericq, Corpus Inquisitionis IV, 406). At the same time with Luther was also Erasmus violently attacked by the leuvensche professors, especially by Egmond anus. Three times invoked the humanist on den rector Rosemondt. A maintenance at the House of Rosemondt between Erasmus and Egmond anus, so that they would stop with his attacks, remained without result. Three letters from Erasmus to Rosemondt are issued. When he announced the death of Rosemondt to Joh. the Lasco, wrote this ‘ fuit vir melior quam pro vulgari sorte theologorum. ‘

Rosemondt left vroegtijdigen to the Large scholarships after death-kollege, the Pope-kollege and a gift to the leuvensche Guest House.

The Renaissance (UK /rɨˈneɪsəns/, US /ˈrɛnɨsɑːns/, French pronunciation: [ʁənɛsɑ̃ːs], French: Renaissance, Original Italian: Rinascimento, from rinascere “to be reborn”)[1] was a cultural movement that spanned the period roughly from the 14th to the 17th century, beginning in Italy in the Late Middle Ages and later spreading to the rest of Europe. Though availability of paper and the invention of metal movable type sped the dissemination of ideas from the later 15th century, the changes of the Renaissance were not uniformly experienced across Europe. As a cultural movement, it encompassed innovative flowering of Latin and vernacular literatures, beginning with the 14th-century resurgence of learning based on classical sources, which contemporaries credited to Petrarch, the development of linear perspective and other techniques of rendering a more natural reality in painting, and gradual but widespread educational reform. In politics the Renaissance contributed the development of the conventions of diplomacy, and in science an increased reliance on observation. Historians often argue this intellectual transformation was a bridge between the Middle Ages and the Modern era. Although the Renaissance saw revolutions in many intellectual pursuits, as well as social and political upheaval, it is perhaps best known for its artistic developments and the contributions of such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who inspired the term “Renaissance man”.[2][3]
There is a consensus that the Renaissance began in Florence, Italy, in the 14th century.[4] Various theories have been proposed to account for its origins and characteristics, focusing on a variety of factors including the social and civic peculiarities of Florence at the time; its political structure; the patronage of its dominant family, the Medici;[5][6] and the migration of Greek scholars and texts to Italy following the Fall of Constantinople at the hands of the Ottoman Turks.[7][8][9]
The Renaissance has a long and complex historiography, and in line with general scepticism of discrete periodizations, there has been much debate among historians reacting to the 19th-century glorification of the “Renaissance” and individual culture heroes as “Renaissance men”, questioning the usefulness of Renaissance as a term and as a historical delineation.[10] The art historian Erwin Panofsky observed of this resistance to the concept of Renaissance
It is perhaps no accident that the factuality of the Italian Renaissance has been most vigorously questioned by those who are not obliged to take a professional interest in the aesthetic aspects of civilization— historians of economic and social developments, political and religious situations, and, most particularly, natural science— but only exceptionally by students of literature and hardly ever by historians of Art.[11]

A polymath (Greek: πολυμαθής, polymathēs, “having learned much”)[1], sometimes referred to as a Renaissance man, is a person whose expertise spans a significant number of different subject areas. In less formal terms, a polymath (or polymathic person) may simply be someone who is very knowledgeable. Most ancient scientists were polymaths by today’s standards.[2] The term was first used in the seventeenth century but the related term, polyhistor, is an ancient term with similar meaning.

Leonardo da Vinci is regarded as a “Renaissance man” and is one of the most recognisable polymaths
The common term Renaissance man has been used historically to describe polymaths or persons who aspired to be polymaths.[3] The concept emerged from the numerous great thinkers of that era who excelled in multiple fields of the arts and science, including Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Francis Bacon. The emergence of these thinkers was attributed to the then rising notion in Renaissance Italy expressed by one of its most accomplished representatives, Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472): that “a man can do all things if he will.” [4] His concept embodied the basic tenets of Renaissance humanism, which considered humans empowered and limitless in their capacities for development, and it led to the notion that people should embrace all knowledge and develop their capacities as fully as possible. The term applies to the gifted people of the Renaissance who sought to develop skills in all areas of knowledge, in physical development, in social accomplishments, and in the arts, while overlooking that the vast majority of people of that age were not well educated. This temporarily limited term entered the lexicon during the twentieth century and has been applied oddly, to great thinkers living before and after the Renaissance such as Aristotle, Avicenna, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and Isaac Newton. Terms such as polyhistor, polymath or even universal genius are sometimes employed as synonyms to the term.

One theory that has been advanced is that the devastation caused by the Black Death in Florence, which hit Europe between 1348 and 1350, resulted in a shift in the world view of people in 14th-century Italy. Italy was particularly badly hit by the plague, and it has been speculated that the resulting familiarity with death caused thinkers to dwell more on their lives on Earth, rather than on spirituality and the afterlife.[34] It has also been argued that the Black Death prompted a new wave of piety, manifested in the sponsorship of religious works of art.[35] However, this does not fully explain why the Renaissance occurred specifically in Italy in the 14th century. The Black Death was a pandemic that affected all of Europe in the ways described, not only Italy. The Renaissance’s emergence in Italy was most likely the result of the complex interaction of the above factors.[10]
The plague was carried by fleas on sailing vessels returning from the ports of Asia, spreading quickly due to lack of proper sanitation: the population of England, then about 4.2 million, lost 1.4 million people to the bubonic plague. Florence’s population was nearly halved in the year 1347. As a result of the decimation in the populace the value of the working class increased, and commoners came to enjoy more freedom. To answer the increased need for labor, workers traveled in search of the most favorable position economically.[36]

Humanist scholars shaped the intellectual landscape throughout the early modern period. Political philosophers such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas More revived the ideas of Greek and Roman thinkers, and applied them in critiques of contemporary government. Pico della Mirandola wrote what is often considered the manifesto of the Renaissance, a vibrant defence of thinking, the Oration on the Dignity of Man. Matteo Palmieri (1406–1475), another humanist, is most known for his work Della vita civile (“On Civic Life”; printed 1528) which advocated civic humanism, and his influence in refining the Tuscan vernacular to the same level as Latin. Palmieri’s written works drawn on Roman philosophers and theorists, especially Cicero, who, like Palmieri, lived an active public life as a citizen and official, as well as a theorist and philosopher and also Quintilian. Perhaps the most succinct expression of his perspective on humanism is in a 1465 poetic work La città di vita, but an earlier work Della vita civile (On Civic Life) is more wide-ranging. Composed as a series of dialogues set in a country house in the Mugello countryside outside Florence during the plague of 1430, Palmieri expounds on the qualities of the ideal citizen. The dialogues include ideas about how children develop mentally and physically, how citizens can conduct themselves morally, how citizens and states can ensure probity in public life, and an important debate on the difference between that which is pragmatically useful and that which is honest.

The Renaissance marks the period of European history at the close of the Middle Ages and the rise of the Modern world. It represents a cultural rebirth from the 14th through the middle of the 17th centuries. Early Renaissance, mostly in Italy, bridges the art period during the fifteenth century, between the Middle Ages and the High Renaissance in Italy. It is generally known that Renaissance matured in Northern Europe later, in 16th century.[46] One of the distinguishing features of Renaissance art was its development of highly realistic linear perspective. Giotto di Bondone (1267–1337) is credited with first treating a painting as a window into space, but it was not until the demonstrations of architect Filippo Brunelleschi (1377–1446) and the subsequent writings of Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472) that perspective was formalized as an artistic technique.[47] The development of perspective was part of a wider trend towards realism in the arts.[48] To that end, painters also developed other techniques, studying light, shadow, and, famously in the case of Leonardo da Vinci, human anatomy. Underlying these changes in artistic method, was a renewed desire to depict the beauty of nature, and to unravel the axioms of aesthetics, with the works of Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael representing artistic pinnacles that were to be much imitated by other artists.[49] Other notable artists include Sandro Botticelli, working for the Medici in Florence, Donatello another Florentine and Titian in Venice, among others.
Concurrently, in the Netherlands, a particularly vibrant artistic culture developed, the work of Hugo van der Goes and Jan van Eyck having particular influence on the development of painting in Italy, both technically with the introduction of oil paint and canvas, and stylistically in terms of naturalism in representation. (see Renaissance in the Netherlands). Later, the work of Pieter Brueghel the Elder would inspire artists to depict themes of everyday life.[50]

Leonardo da Vinci Self-portrait, his Mona Lisa, The Last Supper and Vitruvian Man are examples of Renaissance art
In architecture, Filippo Brunelleschi was foremost in studying the remains of ancient classical buildings, and with rediscovered knowledge from the 1st-century writer Vitruvius and the flourishing discipline of mathematics, formulated the Renaissance style which emulated and improved on classical forms. Brunelleschi’s major feat of engineering was the building of the dome of Florence Cathedral.[51] The first building to demonstrate this is claimed to be the church of St. Andrew built by Alberti in Mantua. The outstanding architectural work of the High Renaissance was the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica, combining the skills of Bramante, Michelangelo, Raphael, Sangallo and Maderno.

The new ideals of humanism, although more secular in some aspects, developed against a Christian backdrop, especially in the Northern Renaissance. Much, if not most, of the new art was commissioned by or in dedication to the Church.[16] However, the Renaissance had a profound effect on contemporary theology, particularly in the way people perceived the relationship between man and God.[16] Many of the period’s foremost theologians were followers of the humanist method, including Erasmus, Zwingli, Thomas More, Martin Luther, and John Calvin.

15th century painting in the Netherlands still shows strong religious influences, contrary to the Germanic painting. Even after 1500, when Renaissance influences begin to show, the influence of the masters from the previous century leads to a largely religious and narrative style of painting.
The first painter showing the marks of the new era is Hieronymus Bosch. His work is strange and full of seemingly irrational imagery, making it difficult to interpret.[1] Most of all it seems surprisingly modern, introducing a world of dreams that highly contrasts with the traditional style of the Flemish masters of his day.
After 1550 the Flemish and Dutch painters begin to show more interest in nature and in beauty an sich, leading to a style that incorporates Renaissance elements, but remains very far from the elegant lightness of Italian Renaissance art,[3] and directly leads to the themes of the great Flemish and Dutch Baroque painters: landscapes, still lifes and genre painting – scenes from everyday life.[1]
This evolution is seen in the works of Joachim Patinir and Pieter Aertsen, but the true genius among these painters was Pieter Brueghel the Elder, well known for his depictions of nature and everyday life, showing a preference for the natural condition of man, choosing to depict the peasant instead of the prince.
The Landscape with the Fall of Icarus, now thought to be an early copy, combines several elements of northern Renaissance painting. It hints at the renewed interest for antiquity (the Icarus legend), but the hero Icarus is hidden away in the background. The main actors in the painting are nature itself and, most prominently, the peasant, who does not even look up from his plough when Icarus falls. Brueghel shows man as an anti-hero, comical and sometimes grotesque.[3]

Two factors have determined the fate of the region in the 16th century. The first was the union with the kingdom of Spain through the 1496 marriage of Philip the Handsome of Burgundy and Juana of Castile. Their son, Charles V, born in Ghent, would inherit the largest empire in the world, and the Netherlands, although a prominent part of the empire, became dependent on a large foreign power.
A second factor included religious developments. The Middle Ages gave way to new modes of religious thinking. Devotio Moderna practices, for example, were particularly strong in the region, while the 16th century criticisms of the Catholic Church that spread throughout Europe also reached the Low Countries. Humanists such as Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam were critical but remained loyal to the church. However, the spread of the Protestant Reformation, started by Martin Luther in 1517, eventually led to outright war. The Reformation, particularly the ideas of John Calvin, gained significant support in the Low Countries, and following the 1566 iconoclastic outbreaks Spain attempted to quell the tide and maintain the authority of the post-Tridentine Church through force by installing Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alba.[2] The repression that followed led to the Dutch Revolt, the beginning of the Eighty Years War, and the establishment of the Dutch Republic in the northern provinces. Subsequently, the Southern Netherlands became a bastion for the Counter Reformation, while Calvinism was the main religion of those in power in the Dutch Republic.

of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Contents
 [hide] 
1 Related terms
1.1 Renaissance ideal
1.2 Renaissance men
2 Polymath and polyhistor compared
3 Notable polymaths
4 Other uses of “polymath”
5 See also
6 References and notes
7 Further reading

[edit] Related terms
A different term for the secondary meaning of polymath is Renaissance man or woman (a term first recorded in written English in the early 20th century).[5] Other similar terms also in use are Homo Universalis (Latin) and Uomo Universale (Italian), which translate to “universal person” or “universal man”. These expressions derived from the ideal in Renaissance Humanism that it was possible to acquire a universal learning[6] in order to develop one’s potential, (covering both the arts and the sciences[7] and without necessarily restricting this farewell learning to be the academic fields). When someone is called a Renaissance man or woman today, it is meant that they do not have only broad interests or a superficial knowledge of several fields, but rather that their knowledge is profound and often that they also have proficiency or accomplishments in at least some of these fields and in some cases even at a level comparable to the proficiency or the accomplishments of an expert.[8] The related term Generalist is used to contrast this general approach to knowledge to that of the specialist. The expression Renaissance person today commonly implies only intellectual or scholastic proficiency and knowledge and not necessarily the more universal sense of “learning” implied by Renaissance humanism. Note, however, that some dictionaries use the term “Renaissance man” as roughly synonymous with polymath in the first meaning, to describe someone versatile with many interests or talents,[9] while others recognize a meaning restricted to the Renaissance era and more closely related to Renaissance ideals.

Evangelical Humanism

Evangelical theology is unaware of the extent to which it has accepted humanistic theses.

©1999 by James A. Fowler. All rights reserved.
You are free to download this article provided it remains intact without alteration.
You are also free to transmit this article and quote this article
provided that proper citation of authorship is included.

Home
Articles
Miscellaneous Articles

——————————————————————————–

Evangelical Humanism

The tragedy of the Western churches today is the extent to which humanistic philosophy has been accomodated into evangelical theology. As a starting point we will attempt a brief definition of both “evangelicalism” and “humanism.”

Evangelicalism is a theological movement. The name is derived from the Greek word euangellion, the word for “gospel” or “good news.” The English word “evangelism” is also derived from this same Greek word and has to do with “sharing the good news” with others. Evangelicalism, on the other hand, is a non-denominational movement of Christians who believe in the “good news” of Jesus Christ.

Early in the twentieth century here in America, there began a movement called “fundamentalism.” R.A. Torrey and A.C. Dixon published a four volume set of books entitled The Fundamentals in 1917 through the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. By the 1940s that fundamentalist movement had grown quite narrow and exclusive–absolutistic, separatistic and legalistic.

In 1942 the National Association of Evangelicals was established. This was a conservative, Bible-based association of Christians which allowed for more latitude of doctrinal variation, more emphasis on a Christian world-view and on the social implications of the gospel.

Humanism is more difficult to define, for it is a broad philosophy which focuses on the potentiality of man. It is to be distinquished from “humanitarianism” (the benevolent actions of men toward other men) and the “humanities” (educational disciplines which study the enculturation of man) and “humanity” or “humanness” (what God created us to be as man). Humanism is a presuppositional pattern of thinking that postulates the potentiality of man for self-realization, self-actualization and self-generation. It involves a human-potential premise that man has the inherent resource to be the cause of his own effects, to chart his own course, to run his own show, to do his own thing, to solve his own problems, and to be the master of his own fate.

The fallacy of humanism lies in the fact that man does not have the potential or the inherent resource to generate and activate his own effects. Man is not a creator! God is the Creator of all things, and man is a creature, specifically designed by the Creator-God to function only by spiritual dependency. Man is not just an animal that functions by repetitive instinctual behavior patterns which God designed in the soul, but neither is man a god who originates action in and of himself. Only the Creator-God is independent, autonomous, self-existent, self-generative and self-sufficient, and He did not create little human gods to operate in the same way as rivals or competitors. God created creatures known as “human beings” or “mankind” who were designed to function only by spiritual and behavioral dependency upon God, the presence of the Spirit of God operating within the spirit of man allowing the invisible character of God to be made visible in man’s behavior to the glory of God.

Although man is a spiritually and behaviorally dependent creature, this does not relegate him to being but the object of determinism. God entrusted man with freedom of choice, the volitional capability of personal receptivity. Man is a choosing creature who is responsible to live by the consequences of his choices of spiritual and behavioral dependency.

It is particularly the fallacy of human independency that lies at the root of all forms of humanistic thought. To understand the origin of this delusion one must understand some spiritual history.

Satan made an uncaused choice to pursue the lie of independent-self, saying “I will be like the Most High God (Isaiah 14:14). In so doing he became the fixated liar, the “father of lies” (John 8:44), the polarized opposite of God. He became the “god of this world” (II Corinthians 4:4), whereby he originates all that is devoid of God’s character by means of a reverse polarity. Satan then attempted to propagate the “lie of independent self” (the fallacy of human independency and deified humanity) upon mankind. Man fell for the same lie (Genesis 3), but did not become fixated in evil with no opportunity of redemption, as Satan is, for man’s was a caused choice. Man was deceived by the Temptor, lied to, and God graciously ushered him out of the Garden of Eden so that he would not partake of the tree of life and have a perpetual representation of his sinful state.

Sin is generated by Satan. “The one who practices sin is of the devil” (I John 3:8). Sin is not a result of an alleged self-actuating resource in man that posits man as a “first-cause” of evil. Sin is not a self-generated expression of self-centeredness that is to be dealt with by the self-effort of self-castigation. If the problem is “self,” then “self” can and must deal with the problem, and such is the premise of all self-help programs (be they religious or non-religious). But if the problem of mankind is sin generated by Satan, then only God can take care of the problem, redemptively and functionally, by His grace in His Son, Jesus Christ.

If evil is something man does, actuated by his own choice, and the sin-effect is the result of his own self-causation, then we are the cause of our own effects, we are gods, creators creating “out of nothing” both our own evil and our own righteousness. If our sinful behavior is merely induced by an impersonal principle of evil or sin-principle, and we then actuate or generate such sinful behavior; then the logical alternative is that Christian behavior is merely induced by an impersonal truth-principle, life-principle or salvation-principle, and we then actuate or generate Christian behavior. If the expression of selfishness and sinfulness in our behavior is the result of a vague, ambiguous “influence” of Satan whereupon we have chosen to activate and generate the sinful behavior by our own power; then conversely the expression of the Christian life is the result of a vague, ambiguous “influence” of the Spirit of Christ upon our lives, whereupon we have chosen to activate and generate Christian living by our own power. Impossible!

Yet this seems to be a primary presupposition of “Evangelical Humanism.” Is righteousness a result of a Righteous God having given a righteous code of conduct which we, as man, choose to activate into our behavior in “works of righteousness” which conform to His righteous desires? The prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 64:6) and the apostle Paul (Philippians 3:6-9) denied such vehemently.

The distinction between “Evangelical Humanism” and Christianity must be made. Christianity is Christ; the spiritual dynamic of the Lord Jesus Christ functioning in man. The Christian life is the behavioral expression of Christians deriving all from Him by faith, our receptivity of His activity. Christ functions as Life in us, to live out His Life. Christ functions as the Righteous One in us, to live out His Righteousness. Christ functions as God in us, to live out His godliness. Christ functions as Savior in us, to effect salvation in us making us safe from misused and dysfunctional humanity and restoring us to the functional humanity that God intends.

We must repudiate the fallacy of human independence, the lie of the independent self, of deified humanity. Man is a spiritually and behaviorally dependent creature. This is not mechanistic determinism that posits man as merely a stimulus-response mechanism. God created us with the capability of personal receptivity, a real choice of spiritual dependency. Our behavioral expressions are derived from one spiritual source or the other, either God or Satan. The behavioral fruit must always be traced to its spiritual root. Righteous behavior can only be the result of the Righteous One, Jesus Christ, living out His character of righteousness in us. Unrighteousness is always a result of the Evil One, Satan, living out his character of evil, unrighteousness, ungodliness, sinfulness and selfishness in us, causing us to “act like the devil.”

Major W. Ian Thomas states in his book, The Mystery of Godliness, “As godliness is the direct and exclusive consequence of God’s activity, and God’s capacity to reproduce Himself in you, so all ungodliness is the direct and exclusive consequence of satan’s activity, and of his capacity to reproduce the devil in you.”

Apparently the theologians of the Evangelical movement considered themselves too “enlightened” by humanistic psychological concepts to be so categorical, to attribute man’s spiritual condition and behavior either to God or to Satan. So they accommodated humanistic premises to explain both unregeneracy and carnality.

Evangelical Humanism predominates in Western churches today. The message is: “We can do it. It is up to us. Do your best, give it your all. Be involved, committed, dedicated and active.” The tragedy is that those in evangelical churches are susceptible as easy prey to the New Age philosophy of cosmic humanism. When we do not make the clear-cut distinction of “Either/Or” of spiritual origin and derivation, it is easy to slide into the monistic fusion of good and evil, and to accept the narcissistic selfism of New Age thought. Evangelical Humanism has already accepted the basic thesis of cosmic humanism ­ the inherent ability of an alleged independent man to be his own center of reference and the cause of his own effects.

It is imperative that Christians proclaim the only “good news” available to mankind, that Christ having taken our death for us desires to give His Life to us and live His Life through us to the glory of God. Functional humanity is restored when by spiritual and behavioral dependency upon Christ, by the receptivity of His activity in faith, we become man as God intended man to be, the Creator functioning within the creature.