How the Bible ultimately teaches only two major worldviews, common themes of non-Christian worldviews, with Scriptural references.
This article was originally published on AnswersInGenesis.org on August 4, 2020.
Picture two people in a living room. A man puts on green-colored glasses, and a woman puts on red-colored glasses. Everything the man sees has a green tint while everything the woman sees has a red shade. The couch may be brown, but to the man it will be a greenish-brown. The chair may be white, but to the woman it will have a pinkish-hue. Everything is colored by the glasses the man and the woman wear. That’s what happens with a worldview.
What Is a Worldview?
Everybody has a worldview. Whether they know it or not, everyone sees the world through a set of filters—like the man and woman with the colored glasses.
James Anderson, Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary, defines a worldview as “an all-encompassing perspective on everything that exists and matters to us. Your worldview represents your most fundamental beliefs and assumptions about the universe you inhabit. It reflects how you would answer all the ‘big questions’ of human existence, the fundamental questions we ask about life, the universe, and everything.”
Everybody has a worldview. Whether they know it or not, everyone sees the world through a set of filters—like the man and woman with the colored glasses.
Only Two Worldviews – Brandon Clay
A worldview is a framework we use to interpret life. It’s the lens through which we see everything else in life: the green-colored or red-colored glasses through which we see everything else in life.
The Bible Teaches Two Major Worldviews
The Bible tells us there are two major worldviews. People view the world in one of two ways in their fundamental beliefs, assumptions about life, the big questions, and more. On the one hand, there is God’s way of approaching the world, and on the other hand there is man’s way. Scripture illustrates the two major worldviews as seen on the chart below
| Principle | God’s Way | Man’s Way | Bible Verses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Two ways | The way of life | The way of death, but it seems right at the time. | Proverbs 14:12 |
| Two foundations | The house built on the rock withstands a fierce storm. | The house built on the sand crumbles in the fierce storm. | Matthew 7:24–27 |
| Two relationships with Christ | With Christ | Against Christ | Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23 |
| Two beliefs about Jesus | Those who believe in Jesus have eternal life | Those who do not believe in Jesus do not have eternal life | John 3:36 |
| Two ways to walk in the world | In light | In darkness | John 8:12 |
| Two relationships to God, the Father | Reconciliation to God, the Father through Jesus. | Separation from God, the Father without Jesus | John 14:6 |
| Two relationships with the world | Not conforming to world but transformed in the mind. | Conforming to the world | Romans 12:2 |
| Two perspectives on sin | Dead to sin, alive in Christ | Dead in sin, led by the devil, carrying out passions of the flesh | Ephesians 2:1–7 |
| Two philosophies in life | Philosophy according to Christ | Philosophy according to human tradition and the elementary spirits of the world. | Colossians 2:8 |
| Two loves in life | Love for God leading to eternal life. | Love for the world leading to eternal death. | 1 John 2:15–17 |
Many Non-Christian Systems with Three Common Themes
It may seem like there are more than two worldviews. After all, there are many different philosophies and religions. Think about Islam with it’s nearly two billion followers and Hinduism with its one billion followers worldwide. Each of these religions teach different things about reality. Islam teaches one god, while Hinduism accepts many gods. Islam has their holy book (the Quran), while Hindus use other “holy” texts (Vedas, etc.). These religions are obviously not the same “worldview” . . . or so it seems.
There are also reasons to distinguish between the various non-biblical perspectives at times, but there are some commonalities between every other religion and philosophy. In fact, there are three common themes that bind every non-Christian or “man’s way” system together.
Man’s Way Theme #1: Man’s Word over God’s Word
The first theme that every non-Christian philosophy and religion share is their rejection of God’s Word, the Bible as authoritative. God has revealed himself in the 66 books in the Old and New Testaments. Man’s way rejects these books’ claims to be authoritative, inerrant, or heavily reinterpret its teachings in light of man’s ideas. They may differ on which holy book(s) they use. Some may prefer the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (Baha’ism) and others prefer the Tripitaka (Buddhism), but they all either reject or doubt the Bible. Every non-Christian system dismisses the Bible as God’s Word alone, subtracts from it, or tries to add man-made beliefs to supersede it. However, God’s way clearly identifies the Bible as the sole authoritative and inerrant Word of God (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16).
Man’s Way Theme #2: Rejection of the God of the Bible
A second theme shared in every non-biblical religion or philosophy is their rejection of the God of the Bible. A religion may believe in many gods (Hinduism), one god (Islam), or no gods (atheism), but all of them share a common theme: they reject the Triune God of Scripture. But God’s way is to acknowledge and worship him alone as the one true God (Exodus 20:3).
Man’s Way Theme #3: Rejection of Jesus as Sole Lord and Savior
A final common theme in many non-biblical systems is their rejection of Jesus as Lord and Savior. They may call Jesus a good teacher (most religions) or even deny his existence (radical skeptics), but they usually repudiate his unique claims to deity (John 1:1). This is a serious and fatal flaw in every non-Christian philosophy or religion. As Jesus said, “unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24).
Application: With Christ or Against Christ
Though there are many non-biblical religious and philosophical systems, they all share common themes— primarily their rejection of the biblical Jesus as Lord.
In conclusion, though there are many non-biblical religious and philosophical systems, they all share common themes— primarily their rejection of the biblical Jesus as Lord. So the words of Christ take on new meaning whenever we consider all the different religions of the world, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30). You are either with Christ or against him.
This brings us back to the beginning. Despite the diversity of religious and philosophical traditions, there are really only two major worldviews to consider: God’s way and man’s way. The way of man is a set of green-colored glasses focused on the world and away from God. However, God’s way is a set of red-colored glasses, stained with Christ’s blood of redemption, focused on the one true God. What color do you see?
Hi Brandon, I read your article and have a question.
If the argument is formulated as it is, it reads that either the christian worldview or the non-christian worldview are options.
A potential problem with looking at worldviews in terms of a true dichotomy, is that any attempt to contrast them seems trivial. Symbolically, lets represent the christian worldview with “A” and the non-christian worldview “~A.”
When comparing them:
A v ~A
We could eliminate an option on by showing how A or ~A fails as a worldview. Say we eliminate the non-christian worldview.
A v ~A
~~A
_____
A
Since the negatives cancel out, the second premise would be the conclusion. Which seems problematic.
I’m not sure how you could revise the first premise if the only two worldviews are in fact A or ~A. If you were to rename not-Christianity as “man’s word” given the article above that is identical to not-Christianity. If you revise not-Christianity to some specific non-christian worldview, say Islam, then you introduce A v B. However, I could now add an option C, or D.
Feel free to let me know if I missed something or if you disagree with my problem of having only A or ~A. If you meant to say A or B, I think that would be even more problematic because Islam =/= Secular Humanism. As such, there aren’t just two worldviews.
Just a confused 23 year old here!
Just to clarify, the first premise would be A v ~A. This is disjuncting Christianity and not Christianity. The second premise ~~A. This negates not Christianity. The conclusion, A. The problem is that the second premise is the conclusion.
Ben – I haven’t thought it about this construction as a logical construction but I suppose it could be. I’m not sure why you think having your negs cancelled out as a bad thing (assuming this is the right syllogism). It’s just a simplified explanation of the article’s argument. A v ~A seems about right.
We are dependent upon God’s revelation for this construction. The Bible is clear: one way is good and leads to eternal life – another way is bad leading to eternal death. There are complications and nuances, but underneath all those complexities are the two alternative ways. You can play with the logical construction, but don’t reject biblical direction through your attempts to rationalize the teaching.
Hi Brandon, thanks for taking the time to reply.
So the difficulty is that ~~A is the same this as saying A (because the negative cancel out).
~~A = A
But since the conclusion is A and ~~A is just another way of saying A, the argument wouldn’t be very compelling.
A v ~A
~~A
_____
A
Let me illustrate:
It’s raining or not-raining (Av~A)
It’s not not-raining (~~A)
_______
It’s raining (A)
Since ~~A is the same thing as A, the argument could be restated as:
It’s either raining or not-raining
It’s raining
—
It’s raining
Since the second premise = the conclusion, the argument, while formally valid(I think), is really just a statement.
When talking about Christianity, if you views worldviews in terms a true dichotomy (A v ~A), it seems as though you may end up asserting Christianity is true – and not much more. I’m not sure that would be very helpful in trying to figure out what to believe.
It seems odd that the Bible would teach that, or at least I don’t here many Christians say this. I am just a curious young man, not a very smart one at that, so maybe I’m missing the point.
That’s why I thought the ~~A might be a problem. Feel free to respond if that doesn’t make sense or if you think I am doing something wrong, and I’ll let you have the last word (unless you ask a specific question or prompt a reply). No worries if not! Thanks for the article.
Ben – Apologies for the late reply. I didn’t have my notifications set right. Related to your syllogism and argument, these things are helpful. Logic is a gift from God and I have no problem with the construction as far as it goes. But a syllogism doesn’t establish the truthfulness of premises – just the relationship between the premises. I think what you’re saying is my construction is fundamentally a circular argument. Okay. But I didn’t learn the premises in logic class. They were revealed in Scripture. I’m not arguing for or against your syllogism.
That’s what we have here: an explanation for what the Bible already reveals. It’s not original. It may not be even very elegant, but it is (I hope) a clear explanation that there are only two paths in life. One leads to eternal life and the other leads to eternal death.