TEARING DOWN STRONGHOLDS

T E A R I N G D OW N

S T R O N G H O L D S

SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx.:SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx. 11/21/08 2:18 PM Page i

SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx.:SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx. 11/21/08 2:18 PM Page ii

T E A R I N G D OW N

S T R O N G H O L D Sand De fend ing the Tru th

R . C . S P R O U L J R .

SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx.:SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx. 11/21/08 2:18 PM Page iii

© 2002 by R. C. Sproul Jr.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise—exceptfor brief quotations for the purpose of review or comment, withoutthe prior permission of the publisher, P&R Publishing Company,P.O. Box 817, Phillipsburg, New Jersey 08865-0817.

Scripture quotations in the introduction and chapter 2 are from theHOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®.Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Usedby permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Except in the introduction and chapter 2, Scripture quotations arefrom The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Copyright © 1979,1980, 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Page design by Tobias DesignTypesetting by Michelle Feaster

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Sproul, R. C. (Robert Craig), 1965–Tearing down strongholds : and defending the truth /

R.C. Sproul, Jr.p. cm.

Includes index.ISBN 0-87552-702-7 (pbk.)1. Apologetics. I. Title.

BT1103 S67 2002239—dc21

2001059105

SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx.:SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx. 11/21/08 2:18 PM Page iv

To Rev. Martin Murphy,defender of the faith

SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx.:SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx. 11/21/08 2:18 PM Page v

SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx.:SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx. 11/21/08 2:18 PM Page vi

C O N T E N T S

Preface ixIntroduction 1

Part 1 The End of the Dinosaurs1 The Darkness of the Enlightenment 152 Negatively Positivist 293 Unnaturally Naturalist 414 Misbehaving Behaviorists 51

Part 2 The New Ice Age5 Impractical Pragmatists 656 Skeptical of Skepticism 797 Relatively Relativist 918 Nothing but Nothing 1059 Transcending the Immanent 117

Part 3 After Darkness, Light10 I Gotta Be Me 13111 To Be or Not to Be 14312 To See or Not to See 155

vii

SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx.:SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx. 11/21/08 2:18 PM Page vii

13 Gjtty 16514 The God Who Is There 17715 Loving Our Enemies 189

Index of Persons 195

viii t C O N T E N TS

SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx.:SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx. 11/21/08 2:18 PM Page viii

P R E F A C E

Awkward circumstances are all the more so whenyou must share the awkwardness. It’s bad enough,for instance, to lock yourself in a bathroom. It’s

worse when you have to ask your wife, or your children, orthe neighbor, or the paramedics to get you out.

Writing this book put me in an awkward situation. Mydesire was to help laypeople come to a basic understandingof the foolishness of unbelieving epistemologies (theorieson how we know what we know), and to help them reacha sound epistemology. With the first goal I presume thatmany Reformed scholars would cheer me on. The awkwardpart is the second goal, wherein I am advancing a view thatis well outside the current mainstream of the Reformedworld. And I’ve had the audacity to ask the Reformed pub-lishing house to help me.

My prayer is that as avid Reformed apologists readthis, they will see my heart’s desire, and there would be rap-prochement in the war within our walls. I would love to see

ix

SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx.:SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx. 11/21/08 2:18 PM Page ix

presuppositional and classical apologists getting along likethe brothers they are. (And if you, reader, don’t know thoseterms, don’t worry. This book is mostly for you.) I believewe agree on more than we know. I believe we both need tolisten more carefully to each other. I believe we are bothfighting on the side of the angels.

If that can’t happen, I pray at least this—that any fire-breathing folks on the other side of this intramural battlewill not blame my friends at P&R for being kind enough toget me out of the locked bathroom. They did not ask me topray for this. In fact, I don’t know if this little request willmake it past the editors there. But please do not let theirgrace to me cause you to be anything but gracious to them.

I would especially like to thank Allan Fisher andThom Notaro for all their labors. They not only unlockedthe door, but did so without making me look like a fool.Thanks are also due to my dear wife, Denise, and finally tomy students at the Highlands Academy and the HighlandsStudy Center, who helped sharpen these ideas throughGod’s great gift of conversation. I also owe a debt of grati-tude to Dr. Andrew Hoffecker, who first showed me thefolly of fools. And deepest thanks are due to my two great-est teachers, my earthly father, and my spiritual grandfa-ther, Dr. John Gerstner.

x t P R E FAC E

SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx.:SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx. 11/21/08 2:18 PM Page x

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Chess is a tricky game. I don’t play very well, for Isuffer from two deadly weaknesses. First, I am im-patient. I’m in too much of a hurry to think

through the implications of a given move. Any opponentwho has the capacity to think a few moves ahead has me inhis crosshairs. If I do manage a victory, it’s usually becausemy opponent gave me too much credit and was thinkingseveral wise moves ahead, only to be flummoxed by my sillymoves.

My second weakness is that I am too aggressive. Mygame of chess resembles Pickett’s Charge. I send my pawnsto the slaughter, all in a vain attempt to get at that queen.Chess is a game of strategy, not a game of will. Wanting itbadly enough does you no good.

The key to good chess is to understand its nature. It’snot by accident that chess pieces have the names theyhave. Chess is ultimately the game of war writ small. Wehave infantry in the pawns, cavalry in the knights, castles

1

SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx.:SPROUL JR., Strongholds w/cx. 11/21/08 2:18 PM Page 1

in the rooks. And the goal of the game is to topple the king.And if you can break through the defenses and land on en-emy soil, well then, you can have all the queens you likeand destroy with all the aplomb of barbarians.

War operates under the same basic principles. Whilewe would like to think that the key issue is the morale ofthe troops, that wanting the victory brings the victory, thetwo key issues are really the strength of one’s arsenal andthe wisdom of the strategy employed. There is a delicatebalance to be found. Mass your troops into a wedge, andyou will find yourself outflanked and surrounded. Spreadthem too thin, and your lines will be pierced. The wisecommander keeps in mind three key issues. First, he mustrepel the attacks of the enemy. Second, he must defeat theenemy in a given battle. And third, he must always seekand serve his ultimate objective. If winning a battle causeshim to lose the war, he might as well have stayed at home.

Apologetics is warfare writ large. Here the stakes arenot mere bragging rights at a chess table. Neither are thestakes a comparatively petty issue like who will rule a na-tion. Chess is just a game, and nations come and go. Truth,and the souls who encounter Truth, both last forever. Thatthe stakes are so high, however, should not drive us to drawour swords and charge ahead thoughtlessly. The wise manfights with his wits.

One of the oft overlooked tactics in warfare is the useof propaganda. Perhaps the most fruitful volley in a givenwar is the one that persuades one’s enemies that there re-ally isn’t any war going on at all. If the enemy is persuadedthat peace has been declared, then the war is already won.

2 t I N T R O D U CT I O N


That has been the strategy practiced of late by the leader ofthe forces of darkness, Satan. He has created a culture inwhich tolerance is the greatest virtue, in which the freedomof religion recognized by the state is confused with freedomfrom God. In creating and selling us the idea that weshouldn’t discuss politics or religion in polite company, thedevil has put us to sleep. There is a war going on, and it be-gan back at Eden.

The devil fired the first shot, and it came from amighty howitzer. His barrage consisted of this question:“Has God said . . . ?” That sneak attack by the devil seemedto secure him a victory, at least in that battle. But wewould be wise to remember that every victory of the devilis actually a defeat for the devil. Our King, because he isabsolutely sovereign, ultimately moves all the pieces onthe board, and so every move for him is a victory. Our Kingresponded to the devil’s attack with a solemn declarationof war:

So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because youhave done this, Cursed are you above all the live-stock and all the wild animals! You will crawl onyour belly and you will eat dust all the days of yourlife. And I will put enmity between you and thewoman, and between your offspring and hers; hewill crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”(Gen. 3:14–15)

This battle, the struggle between the seed of the ser-pent and the seed of the woman, is the context for all of our

I n t r o d u c t i o n t 3


lives. The end is certain, for God Most High declared tothe promised Son, “Sit at my right hand until I make yourenemies a footstool for your feet” (Ps. 110:1). The battle isnot waged principally with swords and fighter planes.

For though we live in the world, we do not wage waras the world does. The weapons we fight with arenot the weapons of the world. On the contrary, theyhave divine power to demolish strongholds. We de-molish arguments and every pretension that sets it-self up against the knowledge of God, and we takecaptive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.(2 Cor. 10:3–5)

The devil would have us believe that because we do not usethe weapons of this world, we are not at war.

But notice Paul’s language here. These are not politeand delicate words. We are not going to the seed of the ser-pent and suggesting politely that their view of thingsmight be slightly mistaken. We don’t plead, nor do wemarket. Rather, we are demolishing these arguments, rec-ognizing that they are pretensions set against the knowl-edge of God. The warfare of winning souls is not foughtagainst innocent noncombatants who just need to be ledin the right way, but against those who have pledged alle-giance to pretenders to Christ’s throne. To be sure, ourprayer is that these children of the serpent will becomeheirs of the King. To be sure, such were we before we wereconquered by Christ and his church. To be sure, we are tolove our enemies. But we must love them enough to ut-



terly destroy the lies they believe, so that they might beborn again.

But here again we would be wise to recognize the con-dition of our enemies. While we are called to tear downstrongholds, the lost are not kept from the kingdom merelyby wrong thinking. The devil, after all, is a Calvinist. Thatis, he believes that God is sovereign, and that Jesus lived aperfect life for God’s elect and received in their stead thesanctions of the covenant, the wrath of the Father. He un-derstands the gospel much better than we do, so that if wecould get him to speak the truth, he would be a greatteacher. He knows the truth and knows that the lies he hasset up in place of the truth are lies. But he hates the truth.The winning of souls is so much more than presenting com-pelling arguments for the truth of the gospel, but it is notless. Scripture clearly teaches that the Spirit gives life. Thelost are not merely wrong, but dead. If the Spirit did notgive life, all my apologetical endeavors would be nothingbut speaking to the dead.

Winning apologetic arguments is not the same thingas winning souls. The Spirit may work through apologeticsto win the lost, but that is ultimately the work of the Spirit.If we speak the truth, and the Spirit gives ears to hear, ouronly response is to sing, “Not unto us, O Lord, is the gloryof the victory due.”

The goal of apologetics is to destroy falsehood and toproclaim and defend the truth. Truth is the hill that mustbe taken. And the purpose for taking the hill is the same asthe purpose for doing all things: to bring glory to God. Al-though the Spirit is not constrained by our ignorance or our



sin, we cannot expect that he will be at work if we are prac-ticing apologetics for our own glory, to look wise in the eyesof the world.

That threefold goal of apologetics—destroying false-hood, proclaiming truth, and defending truth—might beseen as the three fronts of our war. The first, destroyingfalsehood, I call “positive negative apologetics.” That para-doxical term illustrates what we are trying to accomplish. Itis positive because we are on the offensive. In this battle,we are trying to dislodge the enemy from his position. It isnegative because we are not seeking to prove anything, butrather are seeking to disprove something. Our goal here isnot to show the truth of the Christian faith, but to showthat the faith of the enemy is necessarily false.

In waging this type of war, reconnaissance is critical.We are doing the lost no favor if we attack positions theyhave left behind. We can assault the hill for days on end,but if there is no one there, we’ve just been wasting ourammunition. Neither should we attack a hill our enemyhas never inhabited. Attacking ideas no one holds is akinto bombing empty fields. We ought to be able to describeand understand the other man’s position well enough thatwe can define and explain it to his satisfaction. Straw menare easy targets, but they don’t make for very satisfyingvictories.

As we shall see, this part of the job is perhaps the eas-iest. Scripture tells us, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There isno God’ ” (Ps. 14:1). On this particular battlefield, we areengaged in a battle of wits with half-armed men. On theother hand, when the ideas of fools come to dominate a



culture, the culture begins to make foolishness look likewisdom. This is why we are enjoined, “Do not conform anylonger to the pattern of this world, but be transformed bythe renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2).

This reminds us of some collateral benefits of this par-ticular battle, even when the Spirit does not regenerate lostsouls. When we are given new hearts by the Spirit of God,we still struggle in our thinking. That is, we remain underthe influence of the world around us. Sound apologeticsmay not set the lost free, but it may bring the found closerto the image of Christ in their thinking and ultimately intheir doing. The more apologetics shows the thinking ofthis world to be the folly that it is, the less we on this sideof the battlefield will be under the influence of the world.

The second of our three kinds of apologetics can servethe same purpose. We need to remember what I so oftenforget in chess. While we are attacking, we are also beingattacked. This might be called “negative negative apolo-getics.” It is negative first because we are acting defensively,responding to the attacks from outside. It is also negativebecause we are not yet developing our positive case.Though positive support for our position is implied, in thisaspect of the battle, we are emphasizing that attacks on ourposition are not true.

Here too we must listen carefully to the words of ouropponents. When we answer objections that they are notmaking, we are defending a flank that is not being attacked.That not only depletes our resources, but can also make uslook foolish. We must listen to their objections and treatthem as honest objections. We do this even though their



objections aren’t honest. As we have noted, Scriptureteaches that the unbelief of our enemies is a moral problem,not an intellectual one. But we cannot expect anyone tolisten to us if we will not even entertain the possibility thatour thinking or arguments or some of our assumptions maybe flawed.

When I was in college, I had a good friend who wasstudying to be an engineer. We often talked about thethings we were studying. I wanted to argue Einstein withhim; he wanted to argue theology with me. For the mostpart, not surprisingly, he did better with Einstein, and Iwith theology. One day, after a sound thrashing, my friendsaid, “You just win because you’re better at arguing than Iam.” I’m sure my response surprised him: “If that’s really theway you feel, Hans, then I guess we will have no more dis-cussions of theology. If you will not concede, no matterwhat, then why am I spending my time on this?” I arguedin the hope of changing his mind. If I argued well, I ex-pected him to change his mind.

We must not have a mind-set like my friend Hans. Weshould not use any kind of special pleading or defend ourposition with bogus arguments. While it is true that the un-believer hates the truth of the Christian faith because itcondemns him, a seemingly good point that he makes is notadequately answered by saying, “You just say that becauseyou hate God.”

Neither are we to reply, “Well, that may not be true foryou, but it is true for me.” Our humility, our posture of ac-cepting that we are fallible, is not the same thing as adopt-ing the position of relativism. As our opponent begins to



attack our position, we respond this way: “I believe that myposition is in fact the objective reality of the universe.However, it is possible that my argument or understandingis flawed. My commitment is to the truth. If you can showme where I am wrong, I will concede.” That is a fair, hon-est, and humble position for us to take. Then we are trulydoing the work of apologetics as we defend the faith againstthe attacks of those who deny it.

But suppose we successfully repel every conceivableattack against the faith. Suppose our opponent lies ex-hausted at our feet, having run through every argument hecould find in his “Devil’s Field Guide to Attacking theChristian Faith.” Each objection was masterfully answered.We still have not done our job. We have, using our nega-tive positive apologetics, shown that his view holds no wa-ter. We have, through negative negative apologetics,shown that our view is not vulnerable to attack. But wehaven’t made any progress in establishing what the truthactually is. We haven’t done the work of what I call “posi-tive positive apologetics.”

Positive positive apologetics is called such because weare developing a case, and making that case for what we be-lieve to be true, not merely against what we believe to befalse. And here is where the real work is. This labor is sodifficult that some of our allies in the Christian camp willargue that it cannot be done. Some believe that the bestway to make the case for the Christian faith is simply tomeet the other guy on the battlefield, destroy him, and, ifwe’re still standing after enough battles, maybe people willgive us some respect. If people see that the Christian faith



has not been defeated by objections, then maybe they willthink there’s something to it.

The trouble with this view is that one never knowswhom one will meet on the battlefield of the future. If Idefeat a thousand five-year-olds on the chessboard, thatdoesn’t mean I’m invincible. Perhaps the next person tosit across from me will be Bobby Fischer. I can’t make thecase that I’m the greatest player of all time simply by beat-ing all challengers, for one never knows what challengermay be around the corner. The Christian faith is not sim-ply better than all the others; it is true. And so it must beshown to be so.

There’s another variation on that same theme. Somewould argue that since the Christian faith explains realitybetter than any other available worldview, it must be true.But the same problem remains. Maybe a new faith willcome along that gives an equally plausible explanation ofall things, or perhaps an even better one. Sound positivepositive apologetics makes the case that the Christian faithis not only the most likely explanation of reality, but alsothe only one that can be true.

I write from the perspective that the Christian faith istrue, and that it alone is true. To lay that before you is notto confess my bias. It is true that I was raised in a Christianhome, that I grew up in the church. That makes my faithneither unassailable nor necessarily false. It is likewise truethat the Christian faith is the center of my life, my reasonfor being. Without it, I know not into what depths of de-spair I would sink. But wanting to believe the Christianfaith makes it neither true nor false. I believe the Christian



faith to be objectively true, independent of my belief in it,because I believe it has been shown to be objectively true.And so I claim that if I have any bias, it is a bias in favor oftruth and opposed to falsehood. But to call that a bias is todistort the meaning of the word beyond all recognition.

My hope is to persuade others and to provide sometools to help others persuade others. My goal is not only totear down the strongholds of the devil, and not only to re-pel the assaults of the very gates of hell, but to show thatthe foundation upon which our faith stands is firm. I set outto do this prayerfully, for the God of all truth is also theGod of all power. And the God of all power has told ustruth’s name: Jesus.



P a r t O n e

T H E E N D O F T H E

D I N O S A U R S

t

t


C h a p t e r O n e

T H E D A R K N E S S O F T H E

E N L I G H T E N M E N T

The Reformers were good with slogans. Althoughthey were prolific writers, they also had the capacityto boil down the essence of their convictions into

short, pithy phrases. One could spend a lifetime unpackingthe powerful messages contained in the solas of the Refor-mation. The first sola was sola Scriptura, meaning “Scripturealone.” It opposed the Roman Catholic view that churchtradition is equally binding on the consciences of men. Thiswas the “formal cause” of the Reformation. The issue of jus-tification, the “material cause,” came down to sola fides,“faith alone.” It affirmed that we are justified by the imputa-tion of Christ’s righteousness alone through faith alone, con-trary to Rome’s claim that we must become righteous by ourcooperating with the infusion of grace. Solo Christo, sola gra-tia—all of them were and are bound together in the greatestof the solas, soli Deo gloria, “to God alone (be) the glory.”

t

15


But to put the Reformation in its historical context,the Reformers had another phrase, post tenebras lux, “afterdarkness, light.” For many years, the church had wanderedin the darkness of Rome’s Babylonian captivity. But thisdarkness came to an end when God, in his grace, oncemore shed the light of the gospel upon his church.

Words have meaning, and words have power. Whenwe are engaged in the battle for truth, oftentimes the firstground we must seize is that of good words. For example,political races are often won today by conservative candi-dates who campaign for “family values.” Who could beagainst families? Some candidates who are more liberal,however, have sought to win back the word with the sloganseen on bumper stickers, “Hate is not a family value.” Withone short phrase, they have sought to regain “family” andpin “hate” on their political opponents.

“Light” and “dark” are the same kind of words as “fam-ily” and “hate.” Although Scripture says that sinners hatethe light and love the darkness, not too many of us adver-tise that fact. In the battle over words, we all want to por-tray ourselves in the light and the other guy in the dark.Thus, the Reformers of the sixteenth century cast Rome inthe dark and themselves in the light.

But not long after that, the tables were turned. Theeighteenth century was a time not so much of reformationas of revolution. Many philosophers and other thinkerssought to eliminate not only church tradition as a source ofknowledge, but revelation itself. No longer would men beblinded by the darkness of the Word of God; now they werecoming of age and seeking to understand the world armed

16 t T H E E N D O F T H E D I N O SAU R S


with human reason alone. This movement was called “theEnlightenment.”

The Enlightenment embraced a wide range of thinkersand ideas. Its influence was felt not only in the world ofideas, but also in the world of politics. Then, as now, ideashad consequences. On this side of the ocean, the Enlight-enment had a powerful influence on some of our foundingfathers. Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jeffer-son all drank deep from the Enlightenment well. Manyhave argued that the American Revolution was made pos-sible by a strategic alliance between those committed toEnlightenment ideals and those committed to the author-ity of Scripture, between the deists and the Christians. Thiscoalition gave us “nature and nature’s God” as the tran-scendent source of the rights of men.

In France there was no such coalition. There the En-lightenment was essentially undiluted, and the result wasthe French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. There En-lightenment thinkers allied themselves with Madame Guil-lotine. The result was not freedom, but a greater tyrannythan was felt under Louis XVI.

With respect to theology, the Enlightenment thinkerswere by and large deistic. In their view, there was a Godwho had created the universe, but he was both largely un-knowable and largely absent from the world. He was theclock-maker God, who wound up the universe and went outfor a walk, never to return. For them, the God hypothesiswas a matter of convenience. An explanation was neededfor the existence and order of the universe. Having pro-vided such, God was excused from the scene, lest he start

T he D a r k n e s s o f t h e E n l i g h t e nm e n t t 17


demanding things of us. It took Darwin’s theory of evolu-tion, a seemingly plausible explanation for our existencewithout a creator, to allow God to die in the minds of many“enlightened” men.

With respect to anthropology, the study of man, theEnlightenment was rather enthusiastic. Man was deemedto be fundamentally good. The Fall was a myth of revela-tion. Rousseau argued that man was a noble savage. Theexistence of evil could be explained culturally. Good chil-dren learn bad habits from the corrupt influences of societyand church. (Rousseau never adequately explained hownoble savages created corrupt institutions in the firstplace.) Put man back into his natural state, and he woulddo just fine.

This denial of the Fall had a profound influence onEnlightenment epistemology. Epistemology has to do withhow we know things; it is the study of the nature andgrounds of knowledge. Without the Fall, man’s mental fac-ulties were deemed to be in fine working order. Man hadthe capacity, on his own, to discover all the truth heneeded. Revelation was just so much useless dogma. Reasonwould lead the way to paradise.

This brings us to Enlightenment eschatology, or thestudy of last things. Here the view was essentially evolu-tionary. Every day in every way, man was getting better andbetter. What was needed to deal with human problems wasa fundamental reordering or dismantling of society. If wecould just get the gum of revelation and church dogma outof our minds and the minds of our children, then the en-gines of human progress would run smoothly and we’d get

18 t T H E E N D O F T H E D I N O SAU R S


somewhere. The Enlightenment was perfectionistic. Ittaught that with the right sociological techniques, the righteducational methods, the right exercise of political power,and the right harnessing of machines, we can have heavenon earth. We have the minds and the will to do it, and sowe can.

One can already see, I hope, the storm clouds on thehorizon. Perhaps the Enlightenment wasn’t such a brightidea after all. This worldview combines two ingredientsthat are extremely volatile when mixed. It is one thing tobelieve that one has the capacity to create heaven on earth.It is altogether different to hold that view and at the sametime deny that there is a transcendent and revealed lawthat binds our conscience. What present cost could be toohigh if we are convinced that our work will usher in utopia?It wasn’t so much rage that fueled the massacre in France asit was an unswerving conviction that excising the cancer ofwrong-thinking people would lead to eternal life.

The excesses of the French Revolution certainly dam-aged the confidence of some in Enlightenment optimism.But with the scientific method as the model for knowingtruth, we know that one failure just means we need to tin-ker with the experiment a little and try again. Perhaps whatwas needed was a more gradual approach, or perhaps a moredrastic one. Therein lies another danger in the Enlighten-ment ideal. While modern men might agree that we are onthe road to paradise, without a celestial or transcendentroad map, there are bound to be some serious argumentsabout how to get there.

One of the most fundamental disagreements grew out

T he D a r k n e s s o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m en t t 19


TEARING DOWN STRONGHOLDS

Documents

Transcript of TEARING DOWN STRONGHOLDS